Fiji has taken further steps towards promised elections with the registration of three political parties: Fiji Labour Party (FLP), National Federation Party (NFP) and the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA). Parties still have work to do – they’ve been given until the end of May to submit financial reports and set up administrative offices across the country. The media environment in Fiji presents related challenges, but an opportunity does exist for a national dialogue to take place. Allowing for a diversity of opinion and a respectful competition of ideas will ensure the outcome for both political winners and losers will be positive.

Party Membership in Fiji

In spite of pessimism surrounding the ability for any party to garner the high membership numbers needed, the three parties registered so far have exceeded expectations and managed to secure membership numbers well above the 5000 required. These high party memberships are encouraging and perhaps signify that despite eight years of rule by the interim government, a strong willingness to engage politically remains. Many Fijians are still keen to engage in vigorous and constructive political campaigns. This ongoing civic-mindedness and hunger for substantial debate is evidence that Fijians have not all given in to cynicism about the process. So far, there have been no real calls to boycott the election.

Apart from accepting the registration of three political parties, the interim government twice heeded calls to extend the draft constitution review timeframe. It has also made a commitment to the region to move to democracy, via its acceptance of $AUD20 million from Papua New Guinea, which is to be used to conduct the promised elections. These are all encouraging steps but it is worth also considering the potential strategic bennefits for the interim government. By letting three parties register and extending the constitutional consultation timeframe, the interim government appears more sincere and can suggest that is has listened and responded to the public. In doing so, it nullifies to a degree some of the most ardent criticisms of some in the population and others overseas. The interim government’s actions may have helped relieve some pressure and frustration in sections of the community and reduced the likelihood of unrest.

At this stage the interim government’s interests would not be served by reducing the number of parties any further. It would be preferable to go into the election either completely unopposed or against several parties. We have already seen how the conditions placed on the re-registration for old political parties helped to push former adversaries together to form groups like the United Front for a Democratic Fiji (UFDF). It would not be in the incumbent’s interest to go into the election with only itself and one alternative. The greater the number of parties contending, the greater the dispersion of voters with an ‘anyone but Bainimarama’ sentiment and the stronger the chances of the incumbent. However, it is not easy to know with certainty the extent of the Bainimarama-led government’s popularity. While there are many vocal critics online who might suggest that the entire country is ready to revolt, there have been outside polls that would suggest quite differently.

The extent to which critical voices have influenced the interim government’s recent actions is unclear. But allowing public discourse and responsibly responding to it will increase the interim government’s legitimacy and pave the way for greater domestic and international recognition of the future government, regardless of who should be elected. Elections have been promised and cancelled in the past but for the time being, at least, there are some positive signs and the most dire of the interim government’s critics’ predictions have not come to fruition. It is possible that the interim government has been listening to some of the more constructive criticism and will react accordingly. Given the numerous, well-publicised critiques of the draft constitution, optimists will be hoping that the government will seek to bolster its democratic aspirations and strengthen its legitimacy by incorporating necessary changes into the (unreleased) final version of the draft constitution.

Still more required from political parties

Fiji’s political parties still have more hurdles to jump before it comes to election time. Having managed to register, parties must now submit significant amounts of information relating to their party’s finances and assets. The information applies not only to parties as entities, but to individual politicians and their immediate family members too. While strict, such requirements are not unique to Fiji. Apart from sharing detailed financial information, political parties are also required to set up party offices in each of Fiji’s major administrative divisions and they must do this within 30 days from the date of their registration, or risk being removed as contenders.

The NFP and FLP were the only two, of seventeen pre-coup political parties, that managed to apply before the tight deadline set for old parties. SODELPA, while technically a ‘new’ party, has strong connections with the old party, Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua or (SDL). The requirement for political parties to have 5000 registered members could make it particularly difficult for some smaller parties to find an adequate level of political representation. Leaving aside arguments surrounding the equity of the process, it is worth considering how this high bar could have the effect of creating better grassroots outreach for the political parties that have survived and might even encourage wise parties to invest beyond the minimum requirements.

Media and Democracy

It is well known that Fiji’s media has a hard time reporting on anything overtly critical of the interim government, and perhaps on anything overly negative at all. There have been cases of water shortages to hospitals being censored and half-joking comments by a priest resulting in strongly worded censure and threats of deportation from the top.

After eight years without a democratic opposition, it will be challenging for a media accustomed to authoritarian rule to report on what critical voices are saying. We can only hope that vigorous debates that surround political processes will be allowed to take place. A spirited exchange of competing and conflicting opinions is fundamental to nation-building and allowing a freer flow of ideas will lend legitimacy to the interim government as well as to the eventual victor of the elections. Everyone involved will benefit by resisting the temptation to fall back onto partisan name-calling and labeling. In spite of the challenges of the current media environment, an opportunity exists to invent a national dialogue that allows for diversity of opinion and permits a respectful competition of ideas. The outcome for both political winners and losers, can only be positive, strengthening all participants – and the nation itself.

With the conclusion of the constitutional consultation process, Fijians and the international community wait for the final version of the document. The registration and high membership of three political parties bodes well for the vitality of politics in Fiji but there is a lot of work remaining. Continuing down this road toward democracy, the challenges are significant and success is not guaranteed- but the outcome, if handled properly, will strengthen the nation. If the goal is democracy, then the collective task is clear.

The idea of the forum was first posited in 2010 when a recommendation was made by New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to hold such an event in order to ‘promote stronger governance, cooperation and political cohesion amongst new and emerging political leaders from the Pacific region and to strengthen relations with NZ parliamentarians.’

During the forum, World Bank Economist, Tim Bulman told leaders that enabling a business-friendly environment would be essential to regional success, arguing that, ‘Neoliberalisation has brought significant benefits, but regulation is still needed. It’s just a matter of the right regulation.’ However, Pacific island delegates rejected the push to free up trade, preferring to commit themselves to sustainable development, sound governance and preservation of cultural identity and sovereignty. Key opponents to elements of the models proffered by Bulman included PNG Governor of Oro Province, Garry Juffa, Vanuatu MP Ralph Regenvanu, Fiji National Council of Women general secretary, Fay Volatuba, Samoan cabinet minister Fiame Naomi Mata’afa and Guam Republican Minority Whip Thomson Morrison.  Meanwhile, New Zealand Green MP Kennedy Graham questioned the compatibility of traditional concepts of economic growth with efforts to combat climate change. Senior New Zealand Labour Maori MP Shane Jones also warned Pacific parliamentarians to seriously consider the sustainability of their fisheries.

West Papua was part of the forum’s official agenda and received no mention in the forum’s ‘call to action’ document, but it received attention during the forum nonetheless. In a New Zealand Parliamentary debate as the forum began, NZ Green Party MP, Metiria Turei urged New Zealand and all Pacific governments to provide leadership on the West Papua issue by acting as mediators and by calling on Indonesia to end the ban on independent journalists in the province. At the forum itself, fellow Green MP Catherine Delahunty used an introduction to a healthcare speech to bring up the conflict, and encouraged Pacific leaders to allow West Papua into the Melanesian Spearhead Group, and the Pacific Islands Forum.

Governor of Oro Province in PNG, Garry Juffa brought further attention to the plight of West Papua, strongly condemning New Zealand for ignoring the violence and questioning the region’s commitment to the issue.

The event ended with a ‘call for action’ and forum participants recommending that their respective Parliaments should:

–     Take steps to increase Pacific women’s representation in Parliaments and to empower them to be active in all aspects of society, including governance and business.
–     Adopt strategies to meet the challenges arising from climate change, involving urgent and effective action in mitigation, adaptation and financing including placing a higher reliance on renewable energy.
–     Foster a free, professional and independent media to promote democracy and an open and transparent society.  Media has and continues to have an important role to play in ensuring political accountability.  Participants remarked on the rise of social media in the Pacific and its utility as a communication tool, particularly in remote communities.
–     Promote effective leadership and creative engagement between parliaments and the communities they represent.
–     Explore ways to improve the delivery and creation of services in small, isolated communities, including through better infrastructure and information technology.
–     Prioritise primary healthcare, health promotion and disease prevention. Work to educate their communities on the importance of healthy lifestyles and to raise awareness about reproductive and sexual health.  Ensure cost effectiveness and good management to sustain affordability of healthcare.
–     Improve and promote economic conditions to facilitate trade and investment in a manner that ensures sustainable development in the interests of the Pacific while still retaining cultural identity and sovereignty.
–     Acknowledge that sound governance from our Parliaments is essential to expand sustainable businesses and to create jobs, especially for young people.

Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre covered the conference via its live blog (http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/pmc-blog/michael-sergels-live-blog-pacific-political-leaders-forum) and reported on several major stories during the course of the five-day conference.

> PNG politician condemns NZ for ignoring ‘deadly conflict’ in Papua
> Vanuatu minister calls for ‘enshrining’ of custom land tenure to protect Pacific

> MPs apologise to Pacific over NZ failure to sign climate change pact

> NZ committed to Pacific neighbours, MPs tell island leaders

> UN community ‘genuinely concerned’ over Pacific women’s rights, says Kedgley

> Micronesian senator praises Louisa Wall for ‘equality chance’ bill
> Samoan minister calls on NZ to rethink ‘easier’ Pacific migration

> ‘Hypocritical’ NZ told to stop fatty food exports to Pacific

> Views clash over impact of ‘self-censorship’ in Fiji

> Niue politician blames family planning experts for ‘depopulation’ threat

> Pacific leaders want action on gender equality – but divided on urgency

> Pacific women political representation not good enough, says Fiame

> PNG governor accuses UN experts of lying about gender ‘thuggery’
> More women in power is Fiji advocate’s recipe for no coups

He reiterated his commitment of holding elections in September 2014 and stated that the constitution would be completed by April 12^th of this year.

Instead of presenting the draft document to the Constituent Assembly, which was the plan under the previous arrangement, Bainimarama said he would present it directly to the people. Without elaboration he suggested that,

“Unfortunately this modification has been forced upon us, because of the lack of commitment by political parties to register under requirements of the law. There are allegations of fraud and impersonation. This does not provide a conducive climate to hold a constituent assembly.”

Committees such as the Constituent Assembly are about having verifiable discussions and processes. They assist in keeping public processes transparent and can help condense the voices of a large population, making the task of amending things simpler for leadership.

However, Bainimarama expressed his desire to consult directly with Fijians and he outlined options for them to share their views on the draft constitution, including:

– Email: feedback.fiji.cons@gmail.com

– SMS: Text feedback to 02. This service is available to both Digicel and Vodafone customers at 5 cents a text.

– Facebook: Look for the “Constitution” tab on the Ministry of Information’s Facebook page.

– Public Forums: Details yet to be announced

– Mail: To the Office of the Solicitor General, Level 7 Suvavou House, Victoria Parade, Suva, P.O. Box 2213 Government Buildings Suva

The Ministry of Information’s Facebook page states,

“The Prime Minister has invited all Fijians to participate in the formulation of Fijis new constitution by providing their feedback on the draft document. Fijians are urged to read it, discuss it, and debate it. We want to know what you think. To provide us with your feedback, simply add your comments below. The deadline for the feedback period is April 5th, 2013.”

There is an inherent attraction toward the underlying concept of talking directly with the people and direct dialogue is a great thing.

But what remains to be seen is whether the regime is willing and able to back up such noble ideals with the supporting structure necessary to provide for such inclusive participation.  The other key factor is whether the people of Fiji themselves are willing and able to not only participate, but if necessary, act creatively and strategically to ensure their voices are heard and acted upon.

This is not supposed to just be a petition. Fiji’s interim government maintains that this is a consultation – where everyone should be able to transparently communicate and affect changes. This implies that people should be able to see and hear what others are saying, and monitor what, if anything is being done in response.

For example, lets imagine that 50,000 Fijians write emails, and of those people, 20,000 people voice their concerns about a specific section of the constitution. What happens next? Is there a mechanism whereby the public will ever know that these people complained, and about which part of the constitution? All Fijians should have the opportunity to read the opinions and arguments put forward by their fellow citizens.

Direct democracy via mobile and internet technology is a worthy goal, much sought after by progressive policy advocates. But it is worth asking whether and how the process taking place in Fiji could be improved. A couple of key questions spring to mind:

–       Is it realistic to suggest that the government can compile, analyse and consider all submissions, and then amend the constitution accordingly, in just one week (between April 5^th and April 12^th)? Deadlines are important, but is a week enough time to complete a document that will frame everything in the nation into the future?

–       A broad cross-section of society is being included in the discussion but are Fiji’s most vulnerable included – especially those in the most remote areas of the country?

For the public consultation process to have the best chance of achieving a broadly agreed constitution, the people need to be aware of what everyone is saying. They deserve the opportunity to share thoughts and ideas openly and, where possible, to find a common voice that can be reflected in a document that will guide the nation for generations to come.

No matter where one stands on the current regime, right now there is an opportunity to publicly discuss and debate the contents of the draft constitution. And there is a reasonable chance that this constitution will continue to exist in some way, shape or form, whether or not Bainimarama is in power after 2014.

An honest, critical look at the draft constitution before us, should be the primary focus of all Fijians. As such, it is also worth considering whether arguments will have a better chance of being heard and progressing if they can be made in such a way that all Fijians, regardless of their political stance, will read and consider them. If discussions can be framed in this way, they will perhaps be more likely to affect change.

No process is perfect and the timeframe is certainly short but hopefully, this experiment in direct democracy will motivate everyone to share their views and seek creative ways to increase transparency, influence public discourse and put more pressure on those in power to act on the wishes of the people.

The aim of this piece is not merely to reiterate the standard response of horror and indignation. While such reactions are appropriate and warranted, the endless stream of condemnation is only likely to achieve so much. It is already abundantly clear where the international community stands on the issue, and many Fijians perceive the criticism as coming from patronising outsiders.

We need to go beyond the condemnation, and take a critical look at some of the main arguments in defense of the beatings. These arguments are frequently put forward on blogs, in comments on social media and heard over a shell of kava. To have any chance of changing minds, we must move beyond simply screaming, ‘this is wrong!’ – even if it is.

Common reactions when accusations of brutality fly, include:

–       These people are criminals and they deserve it

–       The police are just doing their job.

–       Beatings like this make us safer.

–       It is just part of our culture.

–       Foreigners just don’t get it. Who cares what they think?

A critical examination of these arguments is a worthwhile exercise not only for Fiji but all Pacific island countries and indeed, the world.

‘These people are criminals and they deserve it’

This argument is attractive because of its simplicity. If we believe this, though, then we have to believe that all criminals and their crimes are equally bad. But a young boy stealing a chocolate from a corner shop is not the same as a middle-aged man stealing a car. Just as a prisoner that escapes to visit his dying mother, is not the same as a prisoner that escapes to rob a bank. Would these prisoners deserve the same beating? In the heat of the moment, could we expect police accustomed to handing out beatings to stop, listen to a re-captured prisoner and take extenuating circumstances into account? Probably not.

So if society decides that it is acceptable for police to dish out their own punishments, then we are by extension assuming that all police have the incredible ability to:

1. Instantly determine a person’s guilt or innocence.
2. Take into account all the evidence and the special circumstances.
3. Ignore their adrenalin, which must be high at the time of an arrest.
4. Ignore their potential biases or feelings of hurt pride.
5. Ignore the pull of a ‘mob mentality’.
6. Overcome all these issues and instantly decide on a fair beating (if such a thing can exist at all).

I remember the outrage I felt when two of my female friends were attacked and robbed in Suva. I wished some friends and I could have been there so we could have fought the thugs and really given it to them. My usually peaceful friend even said he wished he could kill them. But, suppose we did beat one up. What happens the next day? Would this thief have suddenly been ‘fixed’? What if we really hurt him, or accidentally killed him? Clearly, in the heat of the moment, when adrenalin is flowing, we say things we don’t really mean and perhaps do things we later regret. Making clear-minded decisions on fair punishments in the heat of the moment is virtually impossible. When we stop and think, it becomes obvious why judicial systems exist and why the role of the security forces is supposed to be limited.

‘The police are just doing their job’

No. In this case, Fiji’s security forces went way beyond their remit. As stated above, there are reasons why police aren’t given the multiple roles of enforcer, judge, and executioner. Primarily it is about protecting the human rights of society’s most vulnerable and allowing people the opportunity to have a fair trial before any judgment is passed.

One doesn’t need to look any further than the Fiji police’s own website to know with certainty that what took place in the video was outside of their job description and expected conduct. The Fiji Police code includes these lines:

I will practice self discipline in word and deed both on and off duty.
I will never use more force than necessary in the performance of my duty.
I will resist the temptation to participate in any activity which is improper or which can be misconstrued as improper.

When people suggest that it is the security force’s role to decide on punishments, they are also implying that judges and the legal system are either unnecessary or incapable of doing so. (If there is a feeling that the courts in Fiji are not doing their job, then that is a whole other issue that needs to be addressed separately).

There is no denying that police everywhere have an incredibly difficult job. They face immense pressure on a day-to-day basis and the amount of restraint they need to exercise with unruly people is taxing. These difficulties acknowledged, it is their job to show restraint and demonstrate their faith in the judicial system of the country they serve. It is their job to act as role models for the people, and it is their job not to abuse their positions of power and authority.

‘Beatings like this make us safer’

If these beatings have been happening, and they work, why are prisoners still escaping? Why is crime still regarded as being too high? Surely by now such beatings, which people suggest have been happening all along, should have made things safe by now?

If people in authority, whom we look up to, defend violent punishment as an appropriate way to solve problems, this is a message that the youth and the public at large will take on board. If those in power legitimise unchecked and excessive violence, it only increases the likelihood that violence will in turn be used by other sections of society against each other, and indeed, perhaps against the security forces themselves.

And when suspected criminals know that they can expect this kind of extrajudicial beating, we can assume they will do anything not to get caught.

Finally, it is worth taking a look at the people most likely to make the argument that such beatings make us safer. It often comes from people in positions of power, the elites of society who can rely on their status for an almost guaranteed level of safety. It is often those people least likely to receive a beating that are the quickest to stand by police brutality. It’s easier to support human rights abuses when you’re not among a society’s most vulnerable.

‘It is just part of our culture’

Police brutality is not part of Fijian culture – such abuse of power is part of human nature. And this is precisely the reason why we need to build societies that curb damaging behaviour. The fact that police brutality occurs all over the world reminds us of the ever-present potential for power to corrupt and that we must be vigilant in helping to ensure that people don’t abuse their positions in society. Respecting the rule of law and abiding by judicial systems can help us overcome our personal weaknesses – and all humans have weaknesses.

Brutality does not have to exist in any culture, it is allowed to exist in certain areas of each society by certain people at certain times. Culture is not static – it is ever-changing, so using culture as an excuse for violence is just being lazy. If and when the majority of a population decides that they are against violence, then communities will be able to foment change. But change requires bold civil society and bold leadership and unfortunately, if the experience in other countries is anything to go by, it also seems to require numerous well-publicised cases of severe injury and death of prisoners in custody. In this age of mobile video technology, publicising such cases is becoming an increasingly viable option.

‘Foreigners don’t get it. Who cares what they think anyway?’

Whenever international media, international governments or civil society criticise events unfolding in another country, it’s common, even natural, to react defensively. This is understandable, especially given the condescending tone that many such reports tend to take.

Outsiders can’t dictate what the people of Fiji should do in this or any situation, but the level of attention this video and the regime’s response to it have garnered signifies that an important conversation is there to be had.

The international community isn’t always clever –or right– in the way it points out issues, but it can help countries hold a mirror up to themselves and decide if they are truly satisfied with what they see. At the end of the day, the decision remains in the hands of the Fijian people. For any who continue to support police brutality, it is essential that they sit down and force themselves to watch the entire nine minutes of torture that prompted these most recent discussions in the first place.

The world is watching (and judging)

Despite the resentment many feel toward the outside world’s criticism of local issues, the fact remains that videos like these go viral, draw significant attention, and then colour the way the world views a country. When a video of a man being dragged behind a police van in South Africa got out – the world judged. When footage of a burly officer in Australia slamming a skinny handcuffed man to the road was released, the world judged. This is how global media function. It shines a light on the things we, as nations, would sometimes prefer to keep in the dark, and deal with (or not) by ourselves. Like it or not, we live in an information age and right now, the light from outside is shining brightly on Fiji.

While much of the 19-page decree outlines a pragmatic framework, certain aspects have received significant criticism. Apart from the short time frame allowed for existing parties to re-register, common concerns relate to section 6 of the decree, whereby political parties are required to secure the names, addresses and voter card registration numbers of 5000 supporting members (up from 180 members in the past). Of those 5000, minimum numbers are also required to register from Fiji’s four main administrative divisions:

(i)             Central Division – 2000 members

(ii)           Western Division – 1750 members

(iii)          Northern Division – 1000 members

(iv)          Eastern Division – 250 members

Some political parties feel that membership requirements are too severe, but Fijian Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum disagrees. He has argued that since more than 500,000 people have registered to vote, it is perfectly reasonable for a political party to find less than 1% of those people to be party members. (Australia, with a population more than 20 times Fiji’s, requires only 500 members to form a political party.) Apart from securing 5000 members, parties are also required to establish offices in each of the four main administrative areas, and fulfill a multitude of other administrative requirements. Existing parties had to achieve all this within just 28 days.

The decree also gained condemnation from unions and earned a rebuke from the Australian foreign minister over restrictions on the involvement of union officials and public officers in political parties. Fiji’s notoriously feisty blogs are painting the decree as nothing more than a manifestation of Commodore Bainimarama’s long-term strategy to maintain power and to punish his most vocal critics by wrapping up parties of the past, weakening unions, sidelining Qarase and making life difficult for Chaudhry.

However, some of these onerous obligations might end up proving to be beneficial. By making registration more difficult and requiring parties to keep transparent accounting histories and proper administration systems in place, Fiji’s interim government is strengthening any political parties that do survive. Arguably, this will improve the accountability and quality of the political system overall. The decree also seems to be having a uniting effect among minor parties, forcing some ‘big men’ into alliances where before they stood alone. This may actually increase the opposition’s power and improve their chances in 2014.

Across Melanesia, there is a trend of democratic parties fracturing and forming more and more minor parties, arguably resulting in the degradation of the entire democratic process. Politics becomes encapsulated by constant battling between growing numbers of the ‘big men’. Take Vanuatu, a country with a population about a quarter the size of Fiji’s: in last year’s elections, no less than 34 different parties and 63 independents, constituting a total of 346 candidates, battled it out. In the end, prime minister elect Sato Kilman formed a patchwork coalition government with a cabinet composed of 9 different parties and one independent. Managing a coalition of so many competing interests doesn’t make the already difficult job of governing any easier.

With the bar raised so high, it is likely that only the strongest, most organised and best run political parties survive the transition. The decree could well be helping to cultivate a more successful political landscape down the track. Of course, this is not a foregone conclusion. There is the valid question of whether the bar has been set too high. While its probably no good to allow just any rag tag group to be able to form a political party, neither do you want significant minorities being completely excluded from the political process. In this case, only time will tell.

In with the new (?)

The 28-day rule applied only to existing political parties. New parties have until the elections in 2014 to register. This means that disbanded parties may not necessarily completely disappear. Once they have surrendered all assets to the state (as required by the decree) parties can draw upon their networks to combine or restart another party alone, albeit with a new name and look. One interesting case is that of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua party (SDL) who allowed the 28 days to pass but with a plan to simultaneously start a new party, the Social Democratic and Liberal party –which, not coincidentally, just happened to have the same acronym. SDL, perhaps rashly, shared their plans, but on February 19^th, with back up from the political party registrar, Ms Vuniwaqa, an amendment [pdf] to the original decree was released: no political parties would be allowed to have acronyms or symbols that had been used by former parties.

Further amendments restricting media coverage were also promulgated. Perversely, media organisations may no longer describe former political parties as “political parties” and may not report on any prospective political party either. Failure to comply will leave directors, editors, publishers and/or CEO of media organisations liable to receive fines of up to $50,000 or five years imprisonment or both. These are not empty threats -The Fiji Times being recently fined FJ$300,000 for publishing a story which included statements by the Oceania Football Confederation (OFC) general secretary, Tai Nicholas questioning the independence of Fiji’s judiciary.

Many have been quick to write off the decree entirely, but it’s worth considering what benefits may be derived and what implications the decree will have for Commodore Bainimarama himself, should he end up running for election as many predict. One might have assumed that as a politician, he might have preferred to face a shambolic multitude of minor parties that would prove easier to divide and conquer, allowing him to maintain his grip on the country. This decree though, likely ensures that the interim prime minister will be confronted by a larger, more cohesive opposition –and isn’t that what many have wanted all along?

It is easy to be critical of Voreqe Bainarama’s interim government and its unorthodox methods of moving towards democracy, but it does appear to be moving that way nonetheless. Provided the schedule doesn’t slip, Fiji is a mere 18 months away from a one man, one vote system, freer of racial disparities than at any time in the past. So while it is important, even necessary, to be good friends to Fiji and to respectfully share our concerns, there doesn’t appear to be much else the rest of the world can do anyway.