This week, President Jioji Konrote, praised our eight-year-old Constitution, saying it was one of the most progressive in the world.
Speaking on Constitution Day, he added that it enshrined political and civil rights such as, among others, the right to vote and freedom of speech.
Such a public proclamation was encouraging.
It should be.
But having a written Constitution with provisions that protect, promote and support human rights is one thing.
Enjoying them in real life is another issue altogether.
On Tuesday, the Constitution Day holiday was supposed to, apart from allowing us to have a much-needed rest, remind us of the importance of this document in our everyday lives.
The history of constitutions shows they were not enacted for politicians, political leaders and rulers.
Neither were they created to protect those in government.
Instead, their development was by citizens who were concerned about the power their leaders had and how this power had been used arbitrarily against them.
These same concerns continue to disturb us, all around the world, and in Fiji in particular.
Having a written constitution is not everything in a democracy.
There are other things that need to be considered and present before it can work.
Our constitution is important.
Yes, because it is like a rule book that tells us how the game of democracy is played.
It not only gives those who lead us the authority to make decisions on our behalf, but it also shows how those who exercise power over us may be held accountable.
It sets out government’s powers and demarcates where government’s power ends by guaranteeing individuals rights and freedoms which ensure the protection and promotion of human liberty, equality and dignity.
A truly democratic constitution is one that is agreed to by the people and not imposed.
This is because, when citizens participate in developing their own constitution and give it their consent, it becomes “homemade”, just like the guava jam or babakau that mums make for the family’s enjoyment.
This means citizens will own it and will protect it.
They will never remove it because they know it belongs to them.
Furthermore, a people’s constitution is legitimate because it represents the aspirations of its people and contains all the rules that dictate how they want to be ruled.
That is why a country whose constitution is forced on the people and not unanimously accepted tends to be opposed and may face regular disruptions.
Because of the constitution, citizens that may not agree with rulers still accept their legitimacy and obey laws because they trust that the democratic system and processes that the constitution allows will choose another government using their consent in another election.
Recently, we have had several cases where opposition political figures were questioned by police, not for making a hate speech, but for simply expressing an opinion.
We have also had cases where journalists were attacked, not for making a libellous accusation, but for simply asking a question.
These incidents have happened not only while we have “one of the most progressive” constitutions in place.
They were been allowed to happen because some people did not tolerate different views expressed by others.
They failed to grasp the concepts of plurality, dialogue and inclusiveness that a democratic society demands.
This indicates that our commitment to freedom of speech and expression has been endangered, and we may be at a point where the values behind these freedoms are being challenged.
Let’s be real.
People can be held liable for types of speech that use erroneous statements to harm others’ reputations or rhetoric that instigates disorder.
This is because the government has the authority to deter expressions that connote and encourage violence and danger.
It has a duty to prohibit hateful speech.
But in doing so, authorities must ensure that the ideals of free speech, assembly and expression are not unnecessarily and conveniently suppressed.
They should not overstep the line and abuse their authority by silencing peaceful and lawabiding dissents and punish citizens for freely expressing themselves.
Generally, all over the world, participatory rights and freedoms pertaining to expression, protest, speech and assembly et cetera have been curtailed by curfews and strict safety protocols put in place to combat COVID-19 in the world.
As a result, we may come across laws that have been introduced without proper consultation or bulldozed through the corridors of Parliament without undergoing the necessary legislative oversight.
We may find new policies that stop us from effectively holding authorities accountable or from making a peaceful protest.
Freedom of speech and expression, as well as a host of other rights, are protected in our 2013 Constitution, under Chapter two, the Bill of Rights.
On paper this seems admirable.
We know we have the right to share information and say what we think, as long as this is done responsibly.
We know we can demand services from our government.
We know we have the right to agree or disagree with those in power or others for that matter, and to express
opinions peacefully.
However, whether we are able to exercising these fundamental rights without fear or favour, which is a critical aspect of living in an open and fair society, is something we must ask ourselves.
If we cannot genuinely access and enjoy these interconnected rights or are being restrained, despite assurances through our constitution then something doesn’t seem right.
This is exactly why the United States Country Reports on Human Rights Practices continues to highlight matters in Fiji every year.
In its 2020 report, for instance, it noted that laws on media prohibited irresponsible reporting” and provided for government censorship.
As a result, journalists practised selfcensorship on sensitive political or communal topics.
The report also raised concerns that the opposition and other critics of the government had accused the government of using state power to silence critics.
People are discouraged from speaking their minds out, even though the country’s constitution approves of the value of ‘free speech.
The human rights movement, Amnesty International, says that when governments tolerate unfavourable views or critical voices this is often a good indication of how they will treat human rights generally.
Amnesty International supports people who speak out peacefully for themselves and for others — whether a journalist reporting on violence by security forces, a trade unionist exposing poor working conditions or an indigenous leader defending their land rights.
For us Fijians, we must not stop at simply having a constitution.
We must not just declare we have one of the best in the world.
We must live it and it must show!
We must go a step further and demand that its provisions allows for checks and balances and limits the power of those who lead us.
We must demand that human rights are institutionalised, internalised and mainstreamed so that we built a human rights culture that our children and their children’s children can embrace and enjoy.
It is up to us to preserve, protect and defend human rights.
It is more than just having a constitution.
Before I leave you, please remember all the COVID-19 safety and hygiene protocols — wear your mask when you leave home, wash your hands regularly with soap or an alcoholbased hand sanitiser and practise social-distancing rules.
Until we meet on this same page same time next week — stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe!
