Electoral reform is not as simple as it sounds - Prof. Shameem

Electoral reform is not as simple as it sounds or is often made out to be, especially when intertwined with complex constitutional matters currently before the Supreme Court.

This was the key message from the University of Fiji Vice Chancellor, Professor Shaista Shameem during the Dialogue Fiji Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue on Electoral Reform at Holiday Inn.

Professor Shameem highlighted that one of the constitutional questions asked by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka to the Supreme Court is whether the 1997 Constitution is still valid and applicable is interesting.

She says if the judges rule that the 1997 Constitution is still valid, then clearly the current electoral laws would need to be amended to align with that Constitution.

The Vice Chancellor says one of the implications of reverting to the 1997 Constitution would be the re-establishment of the Senate, a legislative body that was removed under the current constitutional framework.

Professor Shameem says the University of Fiji approached the topic of electoral reform from a human values perspective, emphasizing equity and fairness for all citizens.

She says that in the past, parliamentary seats were allocated along ethnic lines, and candidates were required to prove their belonging to a particular ethnic group in order to contest for those reserved seats—particularly in the Senate under previous systems.

However, it is not possible to reserve seats for women unless there is a definition of women provided in the law.

The Vice Chancellor further says that this is a problem unless the LGBTQIA+ community is consulted about definitions of sex and gender. She says that to impose binary definitions in the expression of gender for reserved seats in parliament would defeat the purpose of inclusivity.

She also advised the Fiji Law Society to hold a seminar on the concept of ‘rule of law’ as many lawyers are using the term without being able to define it properly.

The Vice Chancellor says they are misusing the term to prop up their own, possibly untenable position, as some recent recorded evidence made public had shown.

She adds that the concept of rule of law is as fluid as the concept of sex and gender and requires those using these terms to be absolutely clear about their precise meanings unless they want to confuse public understanding.