(Address by Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi to the National Federation Party Convention, Saturday, March 29, 2014, at Nadi Sangam Primary School, Nadi Town) The President of the National Federation Party, Members of the Executive Committee, Members of the Diplomatic Corps, Distinguished Guests, Members of the National Federation Party, Members of the NFP Youth, Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for inviting me this morning to speak about the challenges ahead of you as a political party. Our bewildering country is about to have a general election. It is a significant milestone for a number of reasons. First, it will be our first election in over eight years since the previous government was removed by force. Second, it will be the first non-racial election in our history, although there is no guarantee that ethnic considerations will be absent from how the electorate decides to vote. Third, first time voters will comprise a significant bloc. Fourth, we will be adopting a form of proportional representation for the first time. Fifth, while we might have some idea of the pulse of the electorate, it is all conjecture because no one really knows what people are thinking. For the National Federation Party (NFP), Fiji’s oldest political party, it is at a critical juncture. Will it continue its decline in the shadow of Mr Mahendra Chaudhry and the Fiji Labour Party, or will it be able to remake and reposition itself in the emerging political landscape of the months ahead? Allow me to briefly describe the scenery ahead. There will be several established parties with the Prime Minister’s as yet to be formed one making additional one, and independents completing the stage. SODELPA is making a play for the Taukei vote with fellow travellers who feel their interests are best served by allying with them. The Prime Minister will stand on his record as the initiator of non-racial political discourse and “a common and equal citizenry” together with the delivery of an impressive range of benefits to our rural communities. The Fiji Labour Party will tap Mr Chaudhry’s undoubted support in the cane belt as well the remnants of the labour movement which remain faithful to him. The People’s Democratic Party is banking on more of that remnant and a portion of the middle class to see it into Parliament, while the United Front for a Democratic Fiji will hope that its profile is attractive enough for those of mixed descent and more for support. Where then does the NFP then fit in this scenario? The challenge is for the NFP to retain or increase its present levels of support in the Indo-Fijian community while attracting voters from other communities. I think it would be a mistake to compete with Mr Chaudhry by engaging in the robust, close hand to hand politics of which he is a past master. Those who are loyal to him, particularly in the cane belt, are fiercely so and it would be a questionable use of time and resources to engage him on his own turf. Instead, the NFP ought to focus on those who have remained constant in their belief in the moderate path it has followed over the last decade. They include urban professionals, small business entrepreneurs and some in peri-urban communities. To them the message must be the NFP’s willingness to embrace a more inclusive and non-racial type of politics that is more substantial than merely having a Taukei of renown as President of the Party. However, it has also to move beyond the IndoFijian community to broaden its support if it wishes to assert its claims as a genuinely multicultural and multiethnic party. The natural targets are youth as in those under 35 years of age and the Taukei together with members of other communities. Each has its own set of peculiarities the NFP has to consider, within an overarching set of principles which the NFP stands for. It is not an exercise in double standards or a matter of appealing to sectarian sentiments, although there is often a fine line distinguishing the recognition of special interests and seeking to play on the fears of a particular interest group. It is recognition that in our society there are common interests which bind all of us as in our love of country, and particular factors that smaller numbers may identify with as in ethnicity, religion, age group, institution or other criteria. With youth as with any other targeted audience, the NFP needs to identify with them in order to attract their attention, as a means to securing their support. This can only be done by having young people not only as members of the NFP, but being visible as well. That they are not tokens but are perceived to be contributing to policies and to decision making in the organisation. Young people as much as any other group can see through fakery or falsehood. They do not necessarily want control, but they seek recognition and they seek respect, not only from their peers but from their seniors who tend to wield power and influence in wider social circles. In the context of post December 2006 coup Fiji, these are challenging as well as opportune times for the NFP. Challenging because many of those voting for the first time in the under 25 age group, have come of age since the present government took power. With media controls in place, and little to counter the prevailing political orthodoxy, too many now believe that history as they know it began in December, 2006. Prior to that our country was a sad, bad place dominated by corrupt politicians. It was not of course, more like the curate’s egg as in good in parts. But the NFP will need to counter that picture because it is not an accurate one. It will need to tell our young people that this country had its failings but people, political leaders included, were trying to work them out within the system. Going forward, we need to learn to resolve our issues, whatever they are, by democratic means and according to the rule of law. These are opportune times because young people seem eager to participate or express an opinion as reflected on the social media. So it is important not only that they are given the space for it, but that they are accorded respect when doing so. And it would appear to me, that youth culture as in the music, films, mobile and information technology, fashion and language associated with young people is becoming as strong an identifier as ethnicity or religious affiliation. Which means that the NFP can devote more time to dealing with youth as young people, rather than having to obsess about their ethnicity. I am not saying one has to ignore it, only that it ethnicity, is not as important as it once was. So while I regret the one dimensional view many young people have of our political history, I respectfully acknowledge the salutary effect this partial ignorance has had on the discourse around race and ethnicity. As for the Taukei, the NFP has to convince them that it is more than a party of Indo-Fijians. I am aware the Party was founded by AD Patel and Swami Rudrananda as a secular political organisation based in the cane belt. But that is neither here nor there, because perceptions are everything in our society. For most Taukei of a particular age, the NFP is an Indo-Fijian party and nothing anyone could say would change that perspective. How does one go about changing that? Several means come to mind. The most obvious is recruiting more Taukei to NFP ranks. If at all possible, it should be in numbers. A critical mass allows positive reinforcement and encouragement. It lessens the sense of isolation or being cut adrift from one’s moorings. What it also does is encourage others because of the security derived from the group. To do this, one has to mitigate the strong sense of group identity that they have. It is a feeling of connectedness if you will. That is achieved in part by giving them a sense of reassurance: validating what they esteem i.e. their land, culture, religion and identity. Further, that this identity is co-extensive with their citizenship of this country and not mutually exclusive. And I think that the environment now is more enabling than it has ever been before. Because we are learning that if the integrity of the vanua is to be safeguarded, then politics and the vanua must run their separate courses. This does not prevent chiefs from participating in politics, but where they chose to do so, they commit themselves and not their vanua. The loyalty of a Taukei to his/her vanua is not synonymous with his /her political right to support the party of their choice. The vanua is in a real sense above politics, because it is outside it representing all the contradictions, complexities and characteristics of what it means to be Taukei. This environment provides potential for recruitment. One also has to understand the wider circumstances which include the fact that the Taukei are now a comfortable majority in this country making up fifty eight per cent of the population. They no longer feel under siege or as insecure as they once did when there was parity of numbers with Indo-Fijians. They receive mixed messages from this government which, while confusing, still provide a measure of reassurance. One moment they are told this country is a secular State and all share “a common and equal citizenry.” In the next, they see a cabinet that is almost entirely Taukei, a public service of like composition, a military that is similarly constituted, and a Christian (as in Methodist) service at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks with no attempt to reflect the secular status of the State i.e. in having an ecumenical or interreligious service to reflect the various faith traditions and the neutrality of the State. And the Prime Minister while being visibly feted by the business community, with his chief adviser a Muslim of Indo-Fijian descent, remains firmly rooted in his own community. The end result is that the Taukei are now more open to supporting non Taukei entities. The rhetoric and partial practice of the government exemplified in the leadership of the Prime Minister, coupled with a more secure Taukei community, have also had an impact on the other ethnic groups. I believe they are not averse to thinking about new parties to support. A new electoral system is now in place which no one is in any position to predict how it will play out. Eight years is a relatively short time in which to expect monumental changes in voting patterns i.e. as in an end to ethnic voting. However, the stars appear to be favourable.Youth apparently like the government’s message, irrespective of whether it is genuine or not. SODELPA’s call to arms regarding the indifferent regard shown Taukei identity in the last eight years is a gamble. There are two competing claims for Taukei emotions. One is a certain resentment at the diminution of Taukei status and the other, what does it matter anyway because they have security in numbers? Such fluidity is present in other communities because they appreciate the Commander’s message of inclusion and remember some of the more egregious actions of the Qarase SDL Government. There are, therefore, openings the NFP can take advantage of in asserting its open and inclusive credentials. What role will racial or ethnic politics play in this brave new world of 2014? It will be present in subtle and not so subtle ways. SODELPA has made no effort to hide its pro Taukei policies. In a country where the ‘racial’ or ‘racist’ epithet is bandied about so readily, care should be taken at labelling people so quickly. In the current political climate, “a common and equal citizenry” is deemed to be mutually exclusive of one’s own ethnic identity. In truth they are not. Those dual identities belong to an individual and how it is worn is a matter of judgment and nuance. That a major political party has chosen to pursue objectives that favour one ethnic group is not necessarily being racist. Its platform can be defended on the basis that the Taukei constitute a majority in this country and also are an indigenous group, whose language is threatened. There are only 400,000 Taukei speakers in a global population of 6 billion people. Where it is pursued to the exclusion of other groups in a blatant and egregious way then that might be considered racist. Let me just say that, no community in this country has a monopoly on racist sentiment. We are all capable of it. In the quiet and privacy of our respective homes and to our own communities, some of us express inappropriate sentiments about others. And the audience, if it is our kind may protect us by keeping quiet. So let us all be forbearing before we mount our high horses to point at others. Racism whether in a public space or away from it is still racism. Except that it can be shielded from prying eyes by a mutual vow of silence. Where a difference can be made is in the role and status of women in the NFP. This is a great moment to provide more space for women in a meaningful and representative capacity. In this regard, I raise the contentious issue of quotas and acknowledge the fierce debates they provoke. I make no apologies for my advocacy of them. There is no level playing field. Quotas would ensure the presence of a critical mass of women in Parliament in the shortest possible time, after which it could be dismantled. If the Party is trying to differentiate itself from its competitors, I would respectfully advise it to adopt this position on principle. Too often there is much lip service given to the status and place of women in our society. They are half the population. They differ from men psychologically and physiologically. They are nurturers blessed as they are with the ability to conceive and give birth to children. They are home makers and breadwinners. Because of the largely patriarchal nature of our society, they are vulnerable to violence and abuse because such conduct is condoned, reinforced and legitimised by social, cultural and religious beliefs that are underwritten by unequal power relationships. In light of all those considerations, why would the NFP or anyone else not wish to give qualified women equal claim to representation with men? The National Federation Party is on an equal footing with all its rivals in taking part in an electoral system which is new to everyone. There are opportunities to be taken as well as risks to be borne. Those opportunities lie in building new alliances and partnerships with others of like mind. To do so will require open, honest and meaningful engagement. The risks will come from extending a hand in trust, not knowing if it will be reciprocated. But it needs to be done anyway, for in that gesture the NFP can demonstrate to a country that yearns for healing and reconciliation the largeness of heart to be vulnerable. The times call for boldness as well as vision as we seek to build a more equal, tolerant and inclusive society on the shifting foundations of an all too fraught present. A boldness to articulate a vision of a multicultural and multireligious society at peace with itself and its neighbours, accompanied by a determination to work with other parties in the new Parliament for the betterment of this country Fiji we all love. n Lawyer Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi is a former Vice-President of Fiji, and is the Roko Tui Bau. Feedback: [email protected] fijisun.fj/?p=208742
Posted on: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 03:14:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015