Fiji elections dogged by deficiencies

university-of-waikato

Mon Oct 08 2007 13:00:00 GMT+1300 (New Zealand Daylight Time)

Fiji elections dogged by deficiencies

Monday, 8 October 2007, 11:59 am
Press Release: University of Waikato

Contrary to the New Zealand government's view that Fiji's deposed government was democratically elected, the 2006 General Elections were dogged by deficiencies, anomalies and bias at every stage, says University of Waikato Senior Lecturer Dr David Neilson.

Dr Neilson, one of three independent members of the Commission of Inquiry into the 2006 election, commissioned by the Fiji Human Rights Commission and released recently, says the report challenges the dominant view of the New Zealand government, the media and Election Observer Missions, that the elections were "fair and free".

"The New Zealand Government continues to take the view that the SDL Party was democratically elected to government in a free and fair election. The evidence presented in the submissions and in the inquiry's report calls this view into question," he said.

Observer Missions, while identifying general technical deficiencies, did not look for, therefore did not find, any pattern of bias, Dr Neilson said.

In contrast, he says, the report provides strong indicative evidence of not only technical deficiencies in the administration of the 2006 Fiji General Elections but more significantly bias that clearly disadvantaged Indian voters and the Fiji Labour Party while advantaging the SDL Party.

The inquiry found that the process of registration of voters not only occurred within a very short time frame, but problems of non-registration and mis-registration were experienced almost entirely by Indian voters.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

The election administration, including the registration enumerators, was heavily dominated by indigenous Fijians, and an unintentional bias, at the least, was implied, says Dr Neilson.

However, the recurring experience amongst Indian voters of correct registration in the communal constituency and mis-registration in the open constituency "suggests a deliberate and intentional plan to influence the election outcome."

Evidence of tampering with ballot boxes, falsified ballot papers, and unofficial people being left in charge of ballot boxes before counting was presented to the inquiry. Dr Neilson says there was massive over-printing of ballot papers, still not accounted for by the electoral office which has yet to provide a final elections report.

The pattern of submissions demonstrated not only bias against Indian voters generally, but also that problems tended to be concentrated in the main urban open constituencies where elections are won and lost in Fiji.

"Such concentration further suggests a deliberate plan to influence the election outcome."

Dr Neilson says there was evidence also of deliberate and explicit vote-buying close to polling day by the SDL.

The Fiji Human Rights Commission inquiry was based on 59 public submissions presented in public in the "glare of media" throughout the major islands of Fiji.

Dr Neilson, a senior lecturer in the Department of Societies and Culture at Waikato's Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, says the report does not provide systematic quantitative proof of the extent to which bias and vote-rigging altered the election outcome.

"Nonetheless, it provides a strong prima facie case that the 2006 General Elections election clearly fell short of what could be described as a free and fair election."

Among its 32 recommendations, the report calls for a substantial reform of the process by which the Fiji Electoral Roll is constructed and maintained, and for the Elections Office to be better resourced and staff with an appropriate, ethnic balance.

It also advocates the introduction of electronic voting machines to simplify vote-casting and vote-counting, as well as addressing major security concerns, and the replacing of party political sheds with a single shed available for all after voters have cast their votes.

Dr Neilson says the minimum timeframe for holding a genuine election in Fiji would be 18 to 24 months, given the technical requirements which include Census data-entry, the re-drawing of constituency boundaries, and the construction of a complete and accurate electoral roll.

ends

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

a.supporter:hover {background:#EC4438!important;} @media screen and (max-width: 480px) { #byline-block div.byline-block {padding-right:16px;}}

Using Scoop for work?

Scoop is free for personal use, but you’ll need a licence for work use. This is part of our Ethical Paywall and how we fund Scoop. Join today with plans starting from less than $3 per week, plus gain access to exclusive Pro features.

Join Pro Individual Find out more

Find more from University of Waikato on InfoPages.