'Fijian' in Context

The recommendation by the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) to reserve the term “Fijian” exclusively for iTaukei reflects a deeply rooted cultural perspective, but it also raises important questions about inclusion and the direction of Fiji’s national identity.

This is a sensitive issue because it sits at the intersection of identity, history, law, and nation-building in Fiji. In putting my thoughts on paper I am very mindful of the findings that Niko Nawaikula has come up with in relation to this issue which has become a topic of national discussion.

In terms of what Naiwaikula is saying this label ‘Fijian” or identity was stolen from us which he describes as identity theft by the FijiFirst Government and the need to correct and restore that to the iTaukei as a matter of restorative justice. This is basically similar to the situation we are in regarding the amendments to the constitution. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. We need to go back again to move forward, In the interim, life and racial harmony in this nation needs to be harnessed and worked at for constant dripping wears away stone.

Fiji is hostage to it's history, and because of that our sense of nationhood is limited. We tend to identify ourselves with the respective ethnic communities to which we belong. Our collective sense of nationhood of being labelled as Fijians only manifests itself on the occasion of great sporting victories or national tragedies.

In between we carry on as a collection of different ethnic communities whose interests cross paths at various points but never quite come together. Subsequently our sense of nationhood, that sense of belonging to place and to each other as one people has never really developed. We have lived side by side rather than with each other.

We live with the reality of difference. Different cultures, different religions, different ideologies, different political aspirations etc. Despite this too many people are intolerant or insensitive to others who may not share with them the things they consider important.

There are still elements of fear, suspicion and distrust for each other. Engagement with each other's communities has progressed slowly.

Changes are usually set in train by the actions of individuals. It happens when one experiences the humanity in others. It is when you are welcomed into someone else's house and having the privilege to grieve with them or celebrate a joyous occasion with them. It is when you are assisted or helped by a neighbour when you are in real need. It is when you are reminded that we are all part of the human family, our blood is red when we bleed, we cry in sorrow, we laugh when we are happy, we get angry when we are offended.

Sadly we have dealt with each other at arms length because we are still learning to how better to live with each other. To this end bridge building plays a crucial role. The iTaukei make up 60% of the population, they own 83% of the land and they are the indigenous people of this country. Unless one understands the perspectives held by the largest portion of the population, developing our nationhood will be made that much more harder.

Before the 2013 Constitution, the term “Fijian” was officially used to refer to iTaukei, while Indo-Fijians and others were classified differently (e.g., “Fiji Islander”). At that point it seemed to be accepted by all. That changed under the 2013 Constitution of Fiji, which defines all citizens as “Fijians”, with “iTaukei” specifically referring to Indigenous Fijians.

So this isn’t just a cultural debate, it’s also a constitutional and legal shift toward civic nationalism rather than ethnic labeling.

Those who support the GCC recommendation typically argue:

• Protection of Indigenous identity: The term “Fijian” carries deep cultural, historical, and spiritual meaning tied to land (vanua), language, and ancestry.

• Global parallels: In many countries, Indigenous peoples retain exclusive identifiers tied to their identity.

• Fear of dilution: Expanding the term to all citizens may be seen as weakening the distinctiveness of iTaukei identity.

This perspective is not inherently exclusionary, it is often about preservation rather than exclusion.

The Case Against Reserving “Fijian” for iTaukei

a) Civic National Identity Modern states often define identity by citizenship rather than ethnicity. Calling all citizens “Fijians”:

• Promotes unity across ethnic lines

• Reduces institutionalized division

• Encourages a shared sense of belonging

b) Political Stability

Fiji’s history shows how quickly ethnic distinctions can become politicized. A shared national identity can:

• Lower ethnic tension

• Strengthen democratic cohesion

• Reduce “us vs them” narratives

c) It Doesn’t Erase iTaukei Identity

Using “Fijian” for all citizens does not eliminate iTaukei identity. In fact:

• “iTaukei” is now a clearly defined and respected term

• Cultural identity (language, customs, chiefly systems) remains intact

• Legal protections for iTaukei land and institutions are unchanged

So the argument is that identity can be both shared and specific at the same time.

The Real Tension: Cultural vs Civic Identity

At its core, this debate is not about a word, it’s about what kind of nation Fiji wants to be:

• A culturally anchored nation, where identity terms reflect Indigenous Primacy

• Or a civic nation-state, where identity terms reflect equal citizenship

Most stable democracies find a balance, not a winner.

Reserving “Fijian” only for iTaukei may:

• Strengthen cultural clarity     but risk reinforcing ethnic boundaries in a multi-ethnic society

Keeping “Fijian” as a national identity for all citizens, while strengthening iTaukei identity explicitly, is likely the more sustainable path.

Not because one identity is more important than the other but because shared identity reduces friction, while protected cultural identity preserves heritage.

A Possible Middle Ground

Instead of choosing one over the other:

• “Fijian” = citizenship / national identity

• “iTaukei” = Indigenous identity with full cultural and legal recognition

This model or framework

• Respects the GCC’s concern about preservation

• While maintaining constitutional equality and unity

The real risk isn’t what word is used it’s whether the conversation becomes divisive rather than constructive.

If handled carefully, this moment could actually strengthen Fiji by clarifying that:

• Indigenous identity is protected, and
• National identity is shared

Those two ideas don’t have to compete, they can reinforce each other. It is all about having the political will to ensure that it works in the best interest of the nation.

Please do not misunderstand me I respect and honor iTaukei identity and heritage, but I believe our national identity should reflect the biblical principle that we are one people, without partiality. Just as Scripture teaches that there is neither Jew nor Greek, I believe ‘Fijian’ can be a name that includes all of us equally.”

Obviously others may beg to differ but we are all entitled to our thoughts and views.

May God Bless Fiji...