INDEPENDENCE, to British colonies like Fiji, has meant a continuance of a system of government along the lines (with some variations) of the British Westminster Model.

This has generally led to a concentration of executive power in the hands of the party with an overall majority in a general election (first-past-the post)

The Westminster Model, while having the desirable qualities of good governance, transparency and accountability, has instead generated ethnic tensions and instability in many colonial territories, especially during elections.

A survey about 12 months before the 2006 general elections found most Indo-Fijians were fearful of election results.

It found that potential voters in a sampled population were in favour of democratic institutions but not with the communal voting system.

As well, they were fearful of injustices during the election and the period leading to the formation of a new government.

Parliamentary debates, media reports and party manifestos on sensitive issues pertaining to indigenous rights were of grave concern to Indo Fijians.

In order to understand current political problems, it would be useful to explore the evolution of communal politics here amid the competing geopolitical interests of the imperialist nations of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Fiji’s electoral system has evolved since 1904 with complex negotiations and compromises. Unlike many countries in Asia and Europe, an important feature of Fiji’s politics is ethnicity and race.

Since 1970, there have been competing interests between indigenous Fijians and Indo Fijians. The coups and the nullification of the 1970 and the amended 1990 Constitution testify to their failure.

In retrospect, it appears the constitutional developments in Fiji since 1904 were ill conceived.

From those days, politics of division had been introduced and sustained through constitutional changes based on race.

The common indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians were only given minimal power. Much effort was placed in keeping Europeans and later the Fijian chiefs in power.

The British, during colonialism, established a Legislative Council as an advisory body. The members had both elected and nominated reps from the man ethnic groups.

The European members since 1904 were elected by the Europeans, while two Fijian members were selected by six nominees of the Great Council of Chiefs. The Indian demands for common roll were arrogantly put aside by the colonial regime.

The Fijian representatives, most of whom were chiefs, were not keen on a common roll, fearing this would lead to political domination by the Indians. This fear was based on the increasing Indian population, which by 1945 had bypassed the native population.

Thus up until 1954, there was a preponderance of Europeans in the Legislative Council. In that year, all racial and ethnic groups were allocated equal number of seats irrespective of demographic composition.

The mode of election for parliamentary representatives, however, varied.

The European and Indian communities elected their representatives, while Fijian members continued to be chosen by the Governor from the GCC nominees. There were no elected Fijian representatives until 1966.

This system of government continued until 1970, when Fiji gained Independence after compromises between the chiefs and Indo Fijians.

Seat allocation in the Legislative Council was disproportionate to the population of each racial and ethnic group, resulting in competition for power along racial lines.

Before 1966, Indian and Fijian communities had nine seats each while ‘others’ with less than 10 per cent of the population had seven.

After Independence, Indians and Fijians each were allocated 12 seats while the remaining groups were granted three.

These three seats were the most powerful because they held the balance of power.

The way forward would be a constitutional democracy that is not racially divisive — but fair to all. Perhaps all parties with an interest here could contribute to the interim Government’s efforts at nation building by uniting all communities.