Qarase spells out regime's vision for Fiji

By MARK CHIPPERFIELD Herald correspondent

SUVA - The Court of Appeal will rule on Thursday whether a new government must be formed in Fiji and the constitution, scrapped after last year's nationalist coup, reinstated.

Now, for the first time, the Interim Prime Minister of Fiji, Laisenia Qarase, spells out clearly the nationalist agenda bequeathed to him by coup leader George Speight and reveals how his regime plans to extend and entrench the power of the chiefs if it wins in court.

Why did you appeal against the High Court ruling which declared your regime illegal and called for the restoration of the Chaudhry Government?


The ruling by [Justice Anthony] Gates [on November 15] said that the 1997 Constitution was still in place, that the former President [Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara] is still President and that we should reconvene Parliament and appoint a prime minister. So it [the ruling] strikes at the very foundation of the existence of the interim government. We were asked to take on this role on the basis that the 1997 Constitution had been abrogated. We have been managing the country on that basis. So we need that confirmation so that we can progress Fiji further towards parliamentary democracy.

So whatever the Appeals Court decision your Government will obey that ruling?


If the decision is in our favour then the path is very clear we will continue the process that we have already begun [running the government while drafting a new Constitution]. If the decision is against us, we will have to take the best option for the country. Within the law.

What might those options be?


dNo, I have to advise His Excellency the President (chuckles) and that will remain with me.

Can you explain what it is about the 1997 Constitution that you find so objectionable?


The Constitution Review Commission has been travelling around the country until it was suspended a couple of weeks back and there have been quite a number of submissions from indigenous Fijians. They seem to be honing in on a number of areas. One of those areas is, of course, the leadership issue. The President's position and the way he is appointed [by the Great Council of Chiefs] is accepted by all. Another important debate is the position of the Prime Minister.

You would like the position of Prime Minister reserved for a Fijian?


I would like to see that. At least at this point in our history. It will ensure long-term stability for the country while at the same time there has to be education and attempts to change attitudes so that 20 or 30 years down the road people will accept anybody as Prime Minister.

Could you explain your timetable for the restoration of democracy in Fiji?


Before the Constitutional Review Commission was suspended [as illegal by the Fiji High Court] our time frame was elections between March and June next year. Now with the work of that commission suspended, we will have to review that timeframe.

What would your own preference be?


The sooner the better.

And would you contest those elections as a candidate?


I have not made a decision yet.

People outside Fiji find it difficult to understand why the Great Council of Chiefs exercise so much direct control over government here. Isn't this the real cause of political instability in Fiji?


Not necessarily. The Great Council of Chiefs have the right to appoint the president under the 1997 Constitution an authority they exercised on this occasion, assuming, of course, that our constitution was abrogated. So they did that. The president then appointed myself as prime minister. In a lot of my [recent] speeches I have been saying that that the Great Council of Chiefs remains our ultimate authority because we believe the 1997 Constitution has been abrogated. But things will completely change when we get back to normality.

Would the authority of the Great Council of Chiefs be enshrined in the new Constitution?


Personally I believe the provision setting out and establishing the Great Council of Chiefs should be strengthened and perhaps extended to incorporate some of the very important functions that the council of chiefs has always been doing.

Why has it taken so long to get George Speight into court?


When I'm asked that question I never attempt to reply because I believe in the British justice system, so I leave it to the courts to take its own process.

Wouldn't Fijians be astonished if George Speight was not prosecuted for his part in the attempted coup?


I'm not sure that it's as simple as you're suggesting. Take Milosevic for example. George Speight is nothing compared to that fellow. Milosevic is a mass murderer and none of the Western democracies has even bothered to try to locate this person.