Fiji’s military leaders and the Fijian people both want legitimate governance. But legitimacy means very different things for each. FWRM sees legitimacy in terms of human rights and the rule of law. From our perspective, the constitutional process had to be independent and representative. The inclusion of two external commissioners, and the fact that three of the five commissioners were women, was seen as very positive. Participation was crucial to the process’s legitimacy. For the women’s movement and civil society more broadly this meant ensuring submissions could be made to the commission in a way that was free and fair and not coercive. The process progressively gained legitimacy as people became increasingly involved and took ownership, and space opened up for debate without interference from the security forces.
When the government rejected the draft in December 2012 legitimacy instantly evaporated. The state was subsequently prepared to consult people on the constitution in order to provide a superficial rubber-stamp of popular legitimacy, but it was not prepared to allow genuine participation. Now, irrespective of whether or not the proposed 2014 electoral process is free and fair, the government will declare itself legitimate. This does not give power back to the people, but centralises and reinforces it among the elite.
FWRM drew on experiences from other processes to try to find ways of holding the government to account. In Kenya, we saw that a parallel structure called the Citizens Assembly had been established to promote public participation in the constitutional process. We saw the benefits of this for Fiji and set up our own People’s Assembly after the government repudiated the “people’s draft”, as the commission’s draft came to be known. We created a space where different representatives could come and debate – including from both civil society and government. The Fijian media self-censors out of fear, but we were able to stream the whole process live on the internet. We encouraged people to send in questions for their representatives to respond to. The last day of the People’s Assembly coincided with the release of the government’s draft constitution – the same day that it also announced it was scrapping the Constituent Assembly. In the end, the only space where were able to participate was the People’s Assembly.
The Constitution Commission’s independence gave it credibility and meant that the public and civil society had huge confidence in it. But the commission did not understand Fijian politics well, particularly in terms of its relationships with powerful figures like the attorney general and the prime minister. Its emphasis on independence also meant that communication with the state was weak and led to tension, which ultimately contributed to the draft constitution being discarded.
The commission’s expertise, combined with the huge number of submissions it received, meant that the draft constitution was a very strong document. It reiterated important parts of the 1997 constitution, but also strengthened it. FWRM was critical of some parts of the draft: for example, there was a proposal to replace the Senate with a Citizens’ Assembly, but with no clarity on how many people would be appointed to it, or to whom it would be accountable. This lack of detail meant that a potentially good idea was ultimately idealistic, with question marks over its feasibility, which presented a basis for government resistance. Also, for procedural reasons it would have been difficult for the Constituent Assembly to have changed the draft.
Looking forward, the 2012 constitutional process demonstrated that civil society can effect change – even when the situation appears hopeless. There are many limitations in the government’s new constitution. But civil society now has to try to interpret parts of it in ways that can work positively to give people more power and access.
FWRM’s job now – as part of civil society and the women’s movement – is to work to help the government understand that they do not need to fear us. They should be working with us to try to decentralise power back to the people. Military rule only works for the military, not for civilians. So peopled must be mobilised across a range of movements – not just the women’s movement. It is about getting citizens to become active, rather than just being bystanders watching events unfold. It is about empowering the community and citizens to say, “You can make this change!”