Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has affirmed his support for the term “Fijian” to be used as a common nationality for all citizens of Fiji, regardless of their ethnic background. The Prime Minister’s stance comes amid a sensitive national dialogue regarding identity, indigenous rights, and the legal definitions of citizenship in a multi-ethnic society.
The issue has resurfaced following a submission by the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) to the Constitution Review Commission. The GCC has advocated for the name “Fijian” to be reserved exclusively for the iTaukei, the indigenous people of the islands, arguing that the term describes an ancestral and cultural identity rather than just a legal status of citizenship.
In addressing the matter, Rabuka indicated that his personal view is that “Fijian” is not Vosa Vakaviti (the Fijian language), suggesting that the term is an English descriptor of nationality rather than a specific indigenous linguistic marker. By decoupling the English word from the indigenous language, the Prime Minister suggests that the term can serve as an inclusive umbrella for all who call the islands home.
This position reflects a broader effort by the current administration to balance the preservation of indigenous heritage with the require for a unified national identity. For many years, the terminology used to describe citizens has been a flashpoint in Fijian politics, often mirroring the tensions between the indigenous population and those of Indian descent and other minority groups.
The Shift Toward ‘iTaukei’ for Indigenous Identity
To resolve the tension between national identity and indigenous heritage, the Fijian government has already begun transitioning the terminology used in official capacities. Rabuka noted that there is no conflict in using “Fijian” for all citizens because specific indigenous institutions have already adopted the term iTaukei to clearly define their unique status.
This shift is visible across several key government and administrative bodies. By replacing “Fijian” with “iTaukei” in these specific contexts, the state acknowledges the distinct rights and heritage of the indigenous people without restricting the national identity of other citizens. Examples of these changes include:
- The renaming of the Ministry of Fijian Affairs to the Ministry of iTaukei Affairs.
- The transition of the Fijian Land Trust Board to the iTaukei Land Trust Board.
These changes are designed to ensure that indigenous land rights and cultural affairs are legally and linguistically protected under a term that is culturally authentic, thereby freeing the word “Fijian” to function as a civic identity for the entire population.
Contextualizing the Constitutional Review
The debate over nomenclature is not merely semantic; it is central to the ongoing work of the Constitution Review Commission. The commission is tasked with examining whether the current legal framework sufficiently protects the interests of all citizens while upholding the special status of the indigenous population.
The Great Council of Chiefs, which was formally reinstated by the Rabuka government to restore traditional leadership roles, views the exclusive use of “Fijian” as a matter of cultural survival and recognition. Their submission to the commission argues that the term is an intrinsic part of their identity that should not be diluted by general application.
Although, the Prime Minister’s approach suggests a “dual-track” identity system. In this model, iTaukei serves as the ethnic and cultural identifier, while Fijian serves as the legal and national identifier. What we have is similar to how other multi-ethnic nations manage the distinction between “indigenous” status and “national” citizenship.
Stakeholders and the Impact of Identity Politics
The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for various groups within the country:
| Stakeholder | Perspective/Impact | Primary Goal |
|---|---|---|
| iTaukei | Seek recognition of indigenous primacy and cultural heritage. | Preservation of ancestral identity. |
| Indo-Fijians | Seek full social and legal integration and a sense of belonging. | Inclusive national identity. |
| Government | Balance ethnic sensitivities with national unity and stability. | Social cohesion and legal clarity. |
For the iTaukei, the fear is that a generic “Fijian” label erases the unique history and rights associated with being the first people of the land. For other ethnic groups, being called “Fijian” is a vital step toward feeling fully integrated into the national fabric, removing the psychological barrier of being viewed as “guests” or “residents” rather than citizens.
The Path Toward National Cohesion
The Prime Minister’s insistence that “Fijian” is not Vosa Vakaviti is a strategic linguistic move. By framing the word as an English term, he removes it from the realm of sacred indigenous language and places it in the realm of civic administration. This allows the government to maintain that it is not infringing on indigenous culture while still promoting an inclusive national brand.
This approach aligns with the broader goals of the Pacific diplomacy and internal stability efforts, where the goal is to move past the coup-prone cycles of the past by fostering a shared identity. The transition of institutional names to “iTaukei” provides the necessary “safety valve,” ensuring that indigenous rights are not lost in the push for inclusivity.
As the Constitution Review Commission continues its deliberations, the government’s stance suggests that the final recommendations may formalize this distinction: iTaukei for the indigenous people and Fijian for every person holding citizenship of the Republic of Fiji.
The next phase of this process will involve the Commission’s final report and subsequent parliamentary debates, where these definitions will likely be codified into the nation’s supreme law. Further updates are expected as the Commission concludes its public consultation phase.
We invite our readers to share their perspectives on national identity and inclusive citizenship in the comments below.
