Despite twice being dissolved because of armed interventions, the Parliament of Fiji
remains the central institution of governance. It has the support of the
overwhelming majority of citizens as the focus of political representation and
lawmaking. No other institution represents such a diverse cross-section of Fiji’s
society, nor is able to act as an arena for the discussion of key issues facing the
country. Yet several factors have weakened the National Parliament.
The Legislature can often appear little more than a “rubber-stamp” to the
imperatives of the Executive. Political scientist John Uhr observed of legislatures in
general:
Without special effort to protect the independence of the law-making
function, parliamentary systems can degenerate into the subservience of the
legislature to a dominating political executive which expects little more of the
political assembly than that it ‘rubber stamp’ government initiatives. Taking
democracy seriously means protecting the independent value of
representative assemblies; making democracy effective means promoting the
independence of the legislature as the central forum for community
deliberation over law and policy. Accountability is best served where
parliamentary systems are able to mobilise public scrutiny of the executive
branch and to subject government operations to sustained oversight by
parliamentary and other specialist authorities (Uhr 2001, 14).
In Fiji, the simple numerical superiority of the Government within the House of
Representatives has allowed it to manipulate the legislature in several ways. Over
the past few years, governments have been able to direct House Resolutions to their
advantage. Thus, they have strategically suspended Standing Orders and expedited
the process of lawmaking, which has allowed potentially flawed Bills to pass
through the House with minimal debate and without proper sector or community
consultation. Only rarely have governments responded to reports made by
parliamentary committees on their performance. Constitutional oversight agencies,
such as the Office of the Ombudsman, have complained that the Executive does not
respond to their reports (Fiji 2000).