ROMITESH KANT | Part 2 of 2
The Registrar of Political Parties, Ana Mataiciwa, has issued a grave ultimatum to FijiFirst, demanding that the party amend its constitution by June 28 to include provisions for resolving internal disputes. This directive, deeply rooted in the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, which mandates that political parties must have clear guidelines for internal dispute resolution, carries significant weight and implications for the future of FijiFirst and Fijian politics, potentially reshaping the political landscape of Fiji.
With the resignation of the founding members, the writing is on the wall that FijiFirst will be deregistered. The departure of key figures like Frank Bainimarama and Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, who were instrumental in shaping and controlling the party, leaves a significant power vacuum. These founding members were the face of FijiFirst and the primary decision-makers. Their absence means the party now lacks the internal leadership and cohesion necessary to amend its constitution and meet the Registrar’s requirements swiftly.
The potential consequences are dire, including:
- Loss of Legal Status: The potential deregistration of FijiFirst would be a significant blow, as it would mean that the party could no longer legally participate in elections, campaign, or hold any official status as a political entity in Fiji. This could have far-reaching implications for the party and its supporters.
- Political Vacuum: The removal of FijiFirst would significantly shift Fiji’s political dynamics, potentially creating a vacuum that other parties and political movements could fill.
- Impact on MPs and Supporters: The deregistration would leave the party’s remaining MPs and supporters in limbo, forcing them to join other parties or continue as independents. This could lead to fragmentation and a loss of political cohesion among its members.
Furthermore, the resignation of these central figures signifies a broader disintegration within the party’s ranks. Without the foundational leadership, FijiFirst faces an uphill battle in organising itself, drafting the required amendments, and securing approval before the looming deadline. This situation is exacerbated by a state of internal chaos and a glaring lack of a clear succession plan, leaving the remaining members grappling with uncertainty and the daunting task of filling the void.
The implications of deregistration are profound. FijiFirst, which once dominated Fijian politics, would be effectively removed from the political landscape, forcing its MPs to become independent or join other parties. This transition could lead to losing political identity and unity among its members, further fragmenting the party. Additionally, the political vacuum left by FijiFirst’s dissolution could significantly alter the balance of power within Fiji’s parliament, opening opportunities for other parties to gain influence and reshaping the future of Fijian politics.
If deregistration occurs, it would significantly impact FijiFirst and its members. According to Section 20 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act, deregistered parties cannot hold meetings (except for winding up or challenging deregistration), publish notices, invite support, accept contributions, or give guarantees. MPs of a deregistered party can continue to serve as independents or members of other parties, unless their deregistration is due to a willful act or omission, in which case they vacate their seats. This transition has several implications:
- Representation: FijiFirst MPs transitioning to independents or other parties could dilute the representation of their original voter base, leading to potential misalignment between constituents’ expectations and their representatives’ actions.
- Parliamentary Dynamics: The shift would alter parliamentary dynamics, potentially affecting legislative processes and decision-making. The absence of FijiFirst as a unified political force could open opportunities for other parties to strengthen their influence and push their agendas.
- Policy Continuity: The dissolution could disrupt the continuity of policies and initiatives that FijiFirst had championed, creating uncertainty and possible stagnation in ongoing projects and reforms.
The dissolution of FijiFirst would have far-reaching implications for Fiji’s political landscape, particularly given Bainimarama’s imprisonment, which made him ineligible to contest until 2032. This scenario opens the door for other parties to vie for the vacuum left by FijiFirst, especially within Fiji’s ethnically divided electorate.
- Political Realignment: With the dissolution of FijiFirst, other political entities will likely seek to capture the support base that overwhelmingly voted for Bainimarama and FijiFirst. This is especially significant for the Indo-Fijian electorate, 80% of whom voted for FijiFirst.
- New Coalitions and Alliances: The political vacuum could lead to the formation of new coalitions and alliances as parties attempt to consolidate power and influence. These new alignments could redefine the political landscape of Fiji, potentially leading to a more fragmented or competitive multi-party system.
- Democratic Evolution: Forced restructuring and compliance with democratic norms could ultimately lead to a healthier political environment. The dissolution of FijiFirst might catalyse reforms in other parties, encouraging a move towards greater transparency, internal democracy, and accountability across the board.
The crisis represents a double-edged sword for FijiFirst and the broader political environment. While the party faces dissolution, this situation also presents an opportunity for significant political evolution. The dissolution of a once-dominant party like FijiFirst underscores the need for robust political frameworks that can withstand shifts in power and leadership.
Conclusion
The dissolution of FijiFirst represents a seismic shift in Fijian politics, abruptly ending an era of dominance. The party’s internal crisis, sparked by the salary increase controversy and exacerbated by the resignation of its founding members, has exposed the fragility of its autocratic structure. The Registrar’s ultimatum to amend the constitution by June 28 is the final nail in the coffin, with non-compliance likely leading to deregistration and the effective disbanding of FijiFirst.
This scenario underscores the double-edged sword of political power. The very laws designed by FijiFirst and the former regime to curtail opposition parties now threaten the party’s own survival in a highly restrictive political environment. The short-term consequences will see FijiFirst MPs transitioning to independents or joining other parties, leading to significant implications for representation and political cohesion. Long-term, the dissolution opens a political vacuum, especially within the Indo-Fijian electorate, which overwhelmingly supported Bainimarama and FijiFirst.
The country faces a critical juncture as Fiji’s political landscape braces for these changes. The potential for new coalitions and alliances offers a chance for democratic evolution, emphasising the need for transparency, accountability, and internal democracy. FijiFirst’s demise is a cautionary tale about the dangers of centralised power and the importance of resilient, inclusive political frameworks. The future of Fijian politics now hinges on how parties adapt to these shifts and whether they can rise to the challenge of fostering genuine democratic leadership.
Romitesh Kant is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Pacific Affairs, Australian National University.
