A New Security Land scape: Sanday
‘We need to get our house in order first, before we can go preach about peace and stability in other parts of the world, or have pretensions about regional leadership’
The December 2022 National Elections was an important turning point in Fiji’s history.
The one-vote parliamentary majority it gave to the PAP-NFP-SODELPA coalition, halted the slide towards an illiberal democracy that was a defining feature of the 16-year (2006-2022) rule of the previous FijiFirst government.
The coalition victory provided an opportunity for Fiji to put the past behind.
It also opened up the space for democratic reform in many areas of governance, especially in the defence and security sectors.
The Coalition Government decided very early after its assumption of governance, to conduct a review of its national security apparatus, to formulate a national security policy and strategy for Fiji; and in formulating its own national security policy, Fiji should embrace current national security concepts and put in place laws, resources and capabilities that protect Fiji from harm.
This included putting in place the structures and processes that consolidated civilian control of the military, and establishing a professionalisation agenda for the RFMF and other elements within the security sector.
Thus, the aim of the review was to propose a national security framework for Fiji.
Such a framework would also serve as the basis of a professionalisation agenda for the RFMF.
The Minister of Home Affairs Pio Tikoduadua contacted Jim Sanday, a former commissioned officer of the pre-coup Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) and a retired public servant of the Australian Commonwealth Government (Department of Defence).
Mr Tikoduadua encouraged Mr Sanday’s involvement.
After an expressions of interest (EOI) exercise, Mr Sanday was appointed to lead the review.
To the question many have asked about why Mr Sanday was chosen to lead the review, he said it boiled down to one word, trust.
Besides his academic qualifications and experience, the issue of trust was an important criterion.
Fiji Sun spoke with Mr Sanday who was in Australia at the time of this interview.
Elbourne: What were the considerations in the selection of the review team?
Sanday: In keeping with the Government’s wishes that the review be independent, we decided that to obtain community support and buy-in, the review team:
■ Must be seen as a Fiji-led exercise, carried out under a ‘Made in Fiji’ label;
■ Comprise Fiji nationals, or former Fiji nationals, with an accomplished record of service and good socio-cultural understanding of Fiji;
■ May not be tainted by previous coup behaviour, nor covered by the immunity provisions of the 2013 Constitution, i.e. they must be clean;
■ Reflect the diversity of the Fijian nation, in terms of ethnicity and gender.
All these requirements are reflected in the current composition of the review team. Others will be
Firstly, having the military assume a guardian role by giving it responsibility for the well- being of the nation, is repugnant to democratic norms. Jim Sanday
added to the team as and when the requirement for specific expertise arises.
Elbourne: What do you see as the security problem?
Sanday: That’s a very good question. In my view, Fiji’s more immediate problem revolves around issues of governance.
I have defined the broad study problem for any reform of the security sector in the following terms:
■ How can the Government’s security framework and apparatus be structured to consolidate democracy and build resilience in the areas of civilian governance and in governance of the security sector?
This study opens up a number of subsidiary questions related to Fiji’s national security, including:
What can be done to strengthen Fiji’s institutional capacity for civilian governance and governance of the security sector?
m How can democracy be consolidated in the ‘new’ Fiji?
m What are the key traditional and non-traditional security challenges facing Fiji, and, how can Fiji best respond to them?
m What can be done to promote stable civil-military relations in the ‘new’ Fiji?
How can we reposition the military in Fiji (as well as other agencies within the security sector) as loyal servants of the State serving Fiji’s national interests?
These are some key questions guiding the review.
The focus is on governance, as it should be, in my view. We need to get our house in order first, before we can go preach about peace and stability in other parts of the world, or have pretensions about regional leadership. Elbourne: What are the main outcomes of this review? Sanday: The Fiji Cabinet led by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabua has directed that we provide them basically with:
■ A National Security Policy framework. They want a whole-of-government policy framework that articulates more precisely what Fiji’s core values, national interests and objectives are, as a nation-state. This framework will be developed through a process of constructive and nonpartisan engagement with the community.
■ A National Security Strategy, which is a whole-of-government strategy statement outlining Fiji’s preferred national security policy in the international system.
I know it sounds all rather fancy, but that is the nature of the beast. National security and strategy are indeed complex domains …rather esoteric … as the old folk in my mother’s village in Tailevu North would say.
Elbourne: Will all this require changes to the 2013 Constitution?
Sanday: I have to be very careful here in what I say, as I am aware that there have been recent calls for constitutional review and change.
Let’s be fair; there are many good things in the 2013 Constitution.
To those advocating change, I would say: be careful, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
Elbourne: What are your concerns with the 2013 Constitution?
Sanday: My concern relates mainly to Section 131 (2) which confers upon the military the responsibility for the “… security, defence and well-being of Fiji and all Fijians.”
I believe that section needs to be amended for a number of reasons.
Firstly, having the military assume a guardian role by giving it responsibility for the well- being of the nation, is repugnant to democratic norms.
Good governance is about civilian control and the primacy of civil power. Section 131 (2), in my view, surrenders sovereignty to the military. Sovereignty should reside in Parliament not elsewhere.
It makes the military the arbiters of the 2013 Constitution.
More importantly, it separates the military from the larger political system, and society at large.
The military should be considered part of the society to which it belongs, not sit outside it, in a policing or guardian role.
The military is not trained to resolve contentious political issues that should remain the responsibility of politicians.
Calls for the Commander RFMF to step in to resolve a political issue is an admission of the failure of democratic politics and that politicians are not doing the job they are being paid for.
This reinforces my point that the problem remains one of governance.
Elbourne: So what role can the public play in national security?
The efforts of the various security sector agencies (military, police, border security, etc) are not enough.
How Fiji survives in the new globalised security order will rest on the commitment of every Fijian to the defence of Fiji, its values and its identity as a diverse multicultural nation that seeks to live in harmony with nature, and with the rest of the global community.
For Fiji to become a stronger and more resilient nation, social cohesion is the key.
Fiji’s national security lies in the hearts and minds of each and every Fijian.
I am firmly of the view that once we consolidate democracy then social cohesion will follow as a consequence.
In that spirit, I appeal to all Fijians to come forward and collaborate with us in designing a new Fiji security landscape that will serve Fiji well in the years and decades ahead.