Fiji: Problems in an Emerging Democracy
Dr David Neilson, Member of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fiji 2006 General
Elections, commissioned by the Fiji Human Rights Commission, and a Senior Lecturer at the
University of Waikato, says the inquiry calls into question the legitimacy of Fiji's deposed
SDL government, arguing that attempts to embed a Western style democracy may be flawed.
The New Zealand Government has consistently opposed the 2006 military takeover in Fiji because it believes the overthrown SDL government was democratically elected. This view is shared generally by first world countries and by the Election Monitoring Observer Missions that gave the 2006 election their stamps of approval. And this view has been faithfully represented by the New Zealand media. Almost no attention has been paid, however, to the evidence raised by the Fiji Labour Party and others in Fiji that brings into question the validity of the 2006 election result.
The underlying philosophy and strategy of the first world to emerging democracies in the developing world is to validate elections, and to engage in disciplinary strategies against military governments that depose elected governments. Elections are validated whether or nor they were free and fair. Military governments are opposed, regardless of the situation or their intentions. The message given to military governments is that an election must be held as soon as possible, or there will be consequences.
While it could be argued that such a strategic vision will over time embed democracy, there are serious dangers and flaws in this approach. Validating any election may simply lead to a legitimacy crisis amongst an increasingly cynical citizenry. Such an approach also reflects a
"First Worldism" which is unable to deal with the problems of a non-genuine election. After all, there is no purpose-built mechanism within the western system of democracy to deal with this issue and, in countries like New Zealand and Australia, the idea that electoral rolls could be manipulated or ballot boxes tampered with is almost unthinkable.
But what if the Fiji General Election in fact was rigged and that the existing regime is genuinely committed to the suspending of a flawed democratic process in order to restore the conditions of a genuine democratic process? Then, the whole first world neo-colonial paradigm comes under question. Simply offering negative discourse and sanctions against the military government may simply be de-stabilising and undermine the capacity of such a government to follow its agenda. A more constructive and practical approach to helping to create the conditions of a free election is implied instead.
On September 26, the Fiji Human Rights Commission released the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Fiji 2006 General Elections, which challenges the view that the Fiji
General Elections of 2006 were democratic. The inquiry, based on public submissions presented in public places, under media glare, throughout the major islands of Fiji, identifies deficiencies and anomalies at every stage of the election process. Moreover, the evidence strongly indicates a pattern of bias that clearly disadvantaged Indian voters and the Fiji
Labour Party, while clearly advantaging the SDL.
Strong indicative evidence is provided of not only technical deficiencies in the administration of the 2006 Fiji General Election but, more significantly, that there was bias in those deficiencies. In contrast to the inquiry, the Observer Missions, while identifying general technical deficiencies, did not look for, and therefore did not find, any pattern of bias.

Nearly all problems of non-registration and mis-registration were experienced by Indian voters. Also, problems tended to be concentrated in the main urban open constituencies where elections are won and lost in Fiji. The recurring experience amongst Indian voters in these constituencies in particular was of correct registration in the communal constituency and misregistration in the open constituency. These two anomalies in particular suggest that problems were not randomly experienced and indicate a deliberate and intentional plan to influence the election outcome.
The inquiry revealed also that the education programme about voting provided incorrect information in Hindi to Indian voters, and correct information in Fijian to Fijian voters. The registration process was both inadequate and biased and submissions strongly indicate that campaigning involved deliberate and explicit vote-buying close to polling day by the SDL party in league with the broader state.
There was a massive over-printing of ballot-papers, and to this day, the elections office has not accounted for the ballot papers. Indeed, it has still not provided a final Elections Report.
Evidence of rigging of the vote count was also presented, that ballot boxes were tampered with, and that unofficial vehicles and people were left in charge of ballot boxes before counting.
The evidence base does not provide systematic quantitative proof regarding the extent to which bias and vote-rigging altered the election outcome. Nonetheless, it provides a strong prima facie case that the 2006 Fiji General Elections clearly fell short of what could be described as a ”free and fair election”. Further detailed analysis that pursues this case is likely to occur.
However, the report's major concern is to address the problems of the 2006 elections in practical and constructive ways so that a genuine election can indeed be held in Fiji as soon as possible. It makes a total of 32 recommendations including major recommendations focused on the need to substantially reform the process by which the electoral roll is constructed and maintained. It also strongly recommends that the elections office be resourced better and that there is an appropriate ethnic balance of personnel.
It advocates the introduction of electronic voting machines as a way to simplify vote-casting and vote - counting, addressing major security concerns, and replacing party political sheds with a single shed available for all, after voters have cast their votes.
The recommendations demonstrate that the minimum timeframe for the holding of a genuine election in Fiji is set by key technical requirements that will take about 18 to 24 months to complete. These technical requirements are completion of Census data-entry, the re-drawing of constituency boundaries, and the construction of a complete and accurate electoral roll.
The New Zealand government continues to take the view that the SDL was democratically elected in a free and fair election. Foreign Minister Winston Peters recently reiterated this view in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in response to coup leader
Commodore Frank Bainimarama.
The evidence presented in the Fiji Human Rights Commission report calls this view, and all the baggage that goes with it, into question.