Rabuka: The Grandmaster of Political Divisions

If there is one thing Sitiveni Rabuka has perfected over the decades, it is the fine art of division. From splitting political parties like a chef dicing onions to watching once-united factions crumble under his leadership, Rabuka’s legacy is one of fragmentation. Wherever he goes, political unity seems to unravel, leaving behind a trail of broken alliances and splinter groups.

To understand Rabuka’s divisive nature, one must take a walk down memory lane. In 1987, he didn’t just stage a coup—he staged an entire redefinition of Fijian politics. After the once-mighty Alliance Party crumbled, Rabuka, fresh off his coup leader status, established the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party. But, as history shows, Rabuka doesn’t just create; he also destroys.

Under his watch, SVT went from being the dominant force of indigenous Fijian politics to a fractured mess. Disillusionment and infighting led to breakaway factions that would shape Fiji’s political landscape for years to come. The Fijian Association Party (FAP) emerged under Josevata Kamikamica, bringing with it many disillusioned politicians who opposed Rabuka’s leadership. Then came the Veitokani ni Lewenivanua Vakarisito (VLV), a Christian democratic party formed by those who felt Rabuka had strayed too far from the church’s influence in politics. Later, after the 2000 coup, the Conservative Alliance Matanitu Vanua (CAMV) was formed by hardline nationalists who rejected Rabuka’s attempts at reconciliation and blamed his leadership for undermining indigenous Fijian interests.

But Rabuka wasn’t done yet. He resurfaced in SODELPA, once again promising unity, only to see the party fracture under his leadership. Discontented members, frustrated with the internal turmoil, eventually splintered and followed him, leading to the birth of the People’s Alliance Party (PAP). Once again, Rabuka had left behind a divided house, proving that his version of leadership is essentially a high-stakes game of “divide and exit.”

The Proposed 15 New Political Parties: A Legacy of Chaos

Now, as if history hasn’t repeated itself enough, reports suggest that 15 new political parties are seeking registration in Fiji. One can’t help but marvel at how, no matter where Rabuka goes, political fragmentation follows like an overzealous shadow. It is almost as if his very presence inspires division. Fiji’s political landscape is not evolving under Rabuka—it is simply fracturing further, much like the parties he has left in his wake.

Fijians are left wondering: is this all a coincidence, or is Rabuka the common denominator in decades of political discord? His supporters may argue that he is a unifier, but history tells a different story. Whether it is SVT’s collapse, the breakaway of FAP, VLV, and CAMV, SODELPA’s civil war, or the birth of PAP from the ashes of yet another split, one thing remains consistent—where there is Rabuka, there is division.

Despite his track record, Rabuka still manages to reinvent himself as the elder statesman of Fijian politics. He speaks of national unity while presiding over a government riddled with internal strife. He calls for stability while his own party members clash over leadership and principles. He preaches ethics while selectively enforcing them. If anything, he is proof that in Fijian politics, contradictions aren’t a problem—they’re a strategy.

As Fiji looks toward its future, one must ask: how many more political parties must rise and fall under Rabuka’s watch before the cycle ends? Or is the continued division simply the price of his leadership? One thing is certain though. The rise in the number of proposed political parties is directly correlated to people's disillusionment with Rabuka and his government.

 

Amending vs. Scrapping the 2013 Fijian Constitution: A Legal and Political Dilemma

The Fijian 2013 Constitution remains a contentious document, with deep-seated divisions on whether it should be amended or completely discarded. The Coalition Government’s attempt to amend Chapter 11 of the Constitution has ignited renewed debate, with some People's Alliance (PA) supporters advocating for outright abrogation. Unity Fiji’s legal challenge further complicates the situation, while the ever-present specter of a military coup looms in the background. Additionally, the argument that the people have legitimized the document by functioning under its framework since 2013 presents another crucial angle. The question remains: should the government pursue amendments or aim for a total replacement?

The Coalition Government’s Attempt to Amend Chapter 11

The Fijian Coalition Government has proposed amending Chapter 11 of the 2013 Constitution, which outlines the procedures for constitutional amendments. Under the current framework, changes require an arduous process: a three-quarters majority in Parliament at each of three readings of the amendment Bill and a national referendum where three-quarters of registered voters must approve the amendment. The government aims to ease these stringent requirements to facilitate broader constitutional reforms. However, this approach acknowledges the legitimacy of the current Constitution and seeks to modify it from within, rather than discarding it entirely.

Calls for Abrogation and the Paths Forward

Despite the government’s approach, some PA supporters have called for the complete scrapping of the Constitution. There are a few ways this could be achieved:

1. A Legal or Legislative Process – The government could pass a resolution to declare the 2013 Constitution void and initiate a new constitutional drafting process. However, this would likely face legal challenges from defenders of the current Constitution, including former government figures and civil society groups. Furthermore, the current government cannot simply “scrap” the very document that legitimizes their very existence in our corridors of power. To do so would be akin to chopping off one’s own foot. So, unless they are ready to sacrifice their Parliamentary membership and call for a state of emergency and the formation of an interim government, expecting them to toss the document out of government house is akin to waiting for sunshine from the depths of Vatukoula Gold mine – never gonna happen.

2. Judicial Challenge – Unity Fiji has signaled its intent to challenge the legality of the 2013 Constitution, arguing that it was imposed undemocratically. A court ruling invalidating the document could pave the way for a new constitutional framework, though this remains a long and uncertain legal battle.

3. Military Abrogation – Historically, Fiji has seen military coups as a means of constitutional change. While a coup could forcibly remove the 2013 Constitution, it would undermine democratic principles and international standing. Given Fiji’s history of coups, such an option cannot be ignored, but it would have severe political and economic consequences.

Legal Challenges to the Amendment or Abrogation Process

If the government pursues amendments or abrogation, it is likely to face strong legal resistance. Proponents of the 2013 Constitution will argue that the document has provided stability and legitimacy, as it has governed the nation for over a decade. Any attempt to scrap it without following proper legal procedures could trigger lawsuits, constitutional crises, and even intervention by international bodies.

The Argument for Legitimization Through Usage

One of the strongest arguments against total abrogation is that the 2013 Constitution has been legitimized through continued use. Since its adoption, all laws, government institutions, and judicial decisions have operated under its framework. The public has participated in elections, and policies have been enacted in accordance with the Constitution. Critics may argue that while the Constitution’s origins were flawed, its longevity and functionality have granted it de facto legitimacy.

While the Coalition Government is taking a pragmatic approach by seeking amendments, some groups advocate for outright abrogation through legal challenges or more radical measures. However, the reality remains that the Constitution has governed the country for over a decade, making its complete removal without widespread consensus a risky endeavor. A balanced approach—one that includes broad consultations, legal scrutiny, and democratic processes—may provide the most viable path forward in shaping Fiji’s constitutional future.

Fiji’s Economic Soap Opera: A Crisis, A Recovery, and an Investment Fairytale

 In the grand theater of Fijian politics, where reality often takes a backseat to rhetoric, the nation has been treated to an enthralling new episode of economic storytelling. Starring Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, Minister of Economy Biman Prasad, and Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica, this latest production features conflicting narratives on Fiji’s financial health—ranging from crisis to optimism, depending on which government office you step into.

Rabuka’s Grim Proclamation – "The End is Near!"

https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/news/rabuka-lays-out-measures-to-tackle-debt-and-drive-recovery/

Prime Minister Rabuka, playing the role of the concerned statesman, has delivered a stark warning: Fiji is in an economic crisis! He bemoans the weight of national debt, the fiscal deficit, and the undeniable economic fragility. His dire tone suggests that if the government does not take immediate action, Fiji may soon be offering its beaches as collateral to international lenders.

Of course, this ominous declaration does serve a strategic purpose—setting the stage for a heroic government intervention. What better way to rally the public than to convince them that they’re teetering on the brink of catastrophe? Crisis narratives tend to justify tough policy measures, after all, and what’s politics without a little melodrama?

The people of Fiji should expect drastic recovery policies at the next budget as he attempts to bring order from a cleverly orchestrated economic chaos.

Biman Prasad’s Alternate Universe – "Crisis? What Crisis?"

Enter Biman Prasad, the ever-optimistic Minister of Economy, whose job is to assure the people that everything is perfectly fine. According to him, Fiji’s economy is on track for growth! He gleefully points to a projected 3.8% GDP increase, low inflation, and stable economic conditions. His version of events suggests that Fiji is not only surviving but thriving—a tropical paradise where financial woes are but a distant memory.

Perhaps the Minister has discovered an alternate Fiji in some economic simulation where national debt miraculously disappears, and GDP figures rise simply by willing them to. Either that, or he has mastered the art of selective economic storytelling—highlighting the numbers that sound good and conveniently ignoring the ones that don’t.

Kamikamica’s Investment Dreamland – "The Money is Coming!"

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Manoa Kamikamica has taken the stage with an entirely different act. He doesn’t see a crisis, nor does he claim that the economy is booming just yet. Instead, he reassures the nation that investments are coming! There are grand opportunities in commercial agriculture, foreign direct investment, and other sectors that will soon transform Fiji into an economic powerhouse.

The only problem? Much of this is still "in the pipeline." Ah, the infamous pipeline—where all good things in politics seem to reside indefinitely. If Fiji had a dollar for every "investment opportunity" that was about to materialize, it wouldn’t need investors at all. But alas, the pipeline is a long and winding road, often leading nowhere.

The Real Economic Picture: Somewhere Between Fantasy and Fear

So, what is the actual state of Fiji’s economy? If we step away from the theatrical performances and consult actual economic indicators, we get a more sobering picture:

• GDP Growth: The Reserve Bank of Fiji recently revised growth projections downward to 2.8%, lower than Prasad’s optimistic 3.8% but not quite the doomsday scenario Rabuka envisions.
• Inflation: Down to 0.8%, which is positive, but it doesn’t erase the fact that household incomes are struggling to keep up with cost-of-living pressures.
• Public Debt: Fiji’s public debt is still at a staggering 79% of GDP, one of the highest in the Pacific, making Rabuka’s concerns about economic fragility quite valid.
• Investment Trends: While foreign investment "plans" exist, actual capital inflows remain inconsistent, meaning Kamikamica’s optimistic forecast is, at best, premature.

Confusion, Contradictions, and Chaos

The biggest problem with these conflicting narratives is that they create uncertainty—for investors, businesses, and the general public. If the leaders themselves can’t agree on whether the economy is sinking, stable, or soaring, how can anyone else have confidence in their policies?

Moreover, this inconsistency exposes the fractures within the Coalition Government. When different leaders paint radically different pictures of the economy, it suggests a lack of coordination, possibly even internal disagreements on policy direction. This is particularly dangerous in a coalition setting, where unity is the only thing keeping the government afloat.

A Masterclass in Mixed Messaging

Fiji’s economy may not be in freefall, but it’s also not in the glowing state of recovery some claim it to be. What is clear, however, is that this government needs a unified message. At present, they are essentially telling Fijians: “We are in a crisis, but don’t worry, because we are also recovering, and anyway, a flood of investments is about to save us.” It’s no wonder the public is left scratching their heads.

Perhaps the next step is not just fixing the economy but fixing the narrative about the economy. Until then, Fijians will continue to watch this political soap opera unfold—one conflicting statement at a time.

[Source: Parliament of the Republic of Fiji/Facebook]

The Art of Paying for Wars You Didn’t Start: Fiji’s Generosity vs. America’s Enlightenment

 In a world where fiscal responsibility is as rare as a unicorn sighting, two nations stand in stark contrast: Fiji, a small island nation that dutifully foots a significant portion of its peacekeeping expenses, and the United States under the astute leadership of Donald J. Trump, who bravely realized the sheer absurdity of funding wars and conflicts that don’t directly benefit his country’s bottom line. While Fiji nobly allocates a notable share of its national budget to keep the world at peace, America, the former global enforcer, has had an epiphany—why throw hard-earned taxpayer money at someone else’s mess when you can simply keep it for more important endeavors, like border security and corporate tax cuts?

Fiji: The Benevolent Martyr of Global Peacekeeping

Fiji, with a GDP that is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. Pentagon spends on pens and paperclips, has somehow decided that keeping the world safe is its personal responsibility. Who needs infrastructure, education, or healthcare when you can invest in military fatigues, boots, and plane tickets to far-off conflict zones?

In the 2024-2025 national budget, Fiji allocated FJD 169.6 million (approximately USD 76 million) to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF), which includes FJD 57 million funding for peacekeeping operations. This allocation represents a substantial commitment for a nation with a GDP of around FJD 14 billion (approximately USD 6.3 billion), indicating the country's dedication to global peacekeeping efforts.

The Fijian government, in an act of economic acrobatics, has been subsidizing its soldiers’ missions to war-torn regions, ensuring that peace is kept in places most of its citizens could only dream of visiting—like Syria and Iraq. While their hospitality industry thrives on tourism, their national budget seems to have confused peacekeeping with an all-expenses-paid deployment program. And for what reward? A pat on the back from the UN? Perhaps a neatly worded letter of appreciation? Surely, the world will one day erect a monument in honor of Fiji’s self-sacrificing wallet.

America Under Trump: The Age of Fiscal Awakening

Then, we have the United States under Trump—where the doctrine of “America First” translated into “Not Our Problem” when it came to international military expenditures. Unlike Fiji, which enthusiastically sponsors global stability at its own expense, Trump’s America suddenly discovered that throwing trillions at foreign conflicts was, in fact, an unprofitable venture. The former peacekeeping powerhouse decided that senseless wars and peace operations could, and should, be someone else’s financial headache.

In a bold move, the Trump administration halted military aid to Ukraine, suspending the supply of critical battle tanks, long-range missiles, and air defense systems. This decision underscored a shift in U.S. foreign policy, reflecting a desire to reduce involvement in overseas conflicts and reallocate resources domestically.

Trump, in his infinite business acumen, identified the true absurdity: why fund NATO, the UN, or other multilateral operations when you can make them “pay their fair share”? Peace, after all, is a luxury, not a necessity—especially when America could redirect those funds toward making the military bigger, stronger, and more photogenic at home. Rather than spending billions to stabilize the Middle East or the Pacific, the U.S. opted for an alternative approach: economic sanctions, Twitter diplomacy, and letting regional allies fend for themselves. Genius!

A Lesson in Priorities

So here we have it: Fiji, the ever-charitable global hall monitor, vs. the United States, the reformed financier of foreign conflicts. One continues to pour resources into an international cause that barely acknowledges its sacrifices, while the other has pivoted to a more self-serving approach that prioritizes national interests over global goodwill.

The contrast is breathtaking. On one hand, Fiji is like that overly generous friend who insists on picking up the dinner tab despite being broke, while the U.S. has evolved into the shrewd dinner guest who strategically orders the cheapest item on the menu and expects others to split the bill. One is a lesson in idealism, the other in financial pragmatism.

Perhaps, someday, Fiji will follow America’s lead and realize that financing the world’s peacekeeping missions isn’t a divine calling, but rather a massive, self-inflicted fiscal wound. Until then, the world will continue to watch in amusement as one nation writes checks it can’t afford, while another revels in the savings of stepping away from the cash register.