Nitya Reddy: Power share test for Chaudhry

As the two parties finalise the composition of the Cabinet, Prime Minister Lasenia Qarase has already declared that the new Fijian Government will have to promote his SDL party's policies ahead of Mahendra Chaudhry's FLP.

His offer of Cabinet positions to Chaudhry's Labour Party comes with a stern warning that the Westminster conventions of collective Cabinet responsibility will have to be adhered to.

The constitution requires Qarase to invite all parties who have won 10 or more seats to be represented in Cabinet. He refused to abide by this covenant during the past five years of his prime ministership, despite unambiguous directives by the court.

Even now he rejects the central tenet of this multi-party provision and argues that policy differences between the SDL and FLP parties are so irreconcilable that any power sharing will be a sham.

In accepting Qarase's offer, Chaudhry may have been manoeuvred into a political arrangement that is at best a token act of compliance with the constitution and at worst a poisoned chalice for him and his party.

There is nothing to suggest that Qarase's fundamental disdain of the multi-party concept has abated in the past week.

The manifestos of the two parties reflect many defining issues such as land leases, the Reconciliation Bill, amnesty for the coup perpetrators, economic reforms and the rights of Indo-Fijians. That these policies were the centrepiece of their electoral mandates further limits the extent of compromise.

The multi-party structure in Fiji differs significantly from the voluntary nature of the coalitions that we see in New Zealand. Unlike Fiji, there is no constitutional compulsion in New Zealand for parties to coalesce, and the MMP model is based on policy tradeoffs and compromises. Fiji's preferential alternative voting system makes such power sharing compulsory.

Then there is the subterranean issue of race. The results of the Fiji elections reveal a country irreparably choreographed with racial and regional divisions.

In increasing his seats from 28 to 32, Chaudhry has claimed more cross-ethnic Fijian support than Qarase received from the Indians. With only two Indians in his team of 35, Qarase cannot make any credible claims to a multiracial mandate.

Chaudhry, on the other hand, has won all the open multiracial seats in the western part of Fiji. In the powerful provinces of Ba and Nadroga, the main engine room of the Fijian economy, western Fijians are increasingly disenchanted by the dominance of the eastern provinces in Fiji's national governance.

Chaudhry enjoys widespread multiracial support and adulation in the west and has the support of many of the influential western Fijian chiefs. He will not commit his party to any deal that even remotely threatens to dilute his party's brand or compromise on any key policies. This is where this constitutional journey of partnership could see its first cracks and even lead to its ultimate ruination.

Qarase lacks chiefly pedigree, and other than his Lauan heritage he has few credentials for national leadership. Many Fijians view him as a perpetuation of the Ratu Mara dynasty of Lauan ascendancy. Western Fijians, in particular, consider this to be an anachronistic injustice which they deeply resent.

Qarase also faces a major challenge in being able to manage and contain the aspirations of his large team. Accustomed to the privileges of political power, many will face difficulty realigning themselves to the new reality. Many see Chaudhry as their nemesis.

The potential for discontent in his camp ought not to be underestimated as only six of his 35 members can be accommodated in his scaled down Cabinet. Qarase might not be averse to such a mutiny as it would vindicate his position against the multi-party concept.

The military continues to be an irritant for Qarase. The open hostilities of the past five years have not dissipated, with Fiji military commander Frank Bainimara calling Qarase a "liar working against the interests of the nation". Australia and New Zealand have cautioned the military not to impose its agenda on the newly elected Government. However, Bainimara has vowed to continue opposing what he terms as the "racially divisive policies of Qarase".

Fiji's economy is in a parlous state with almost negligible growth, record high unemployment, substandard health, housing and education, mushrooming squatter settlements in all major areas and collapse of the water, roading and utility infrastructure.

Why would Chaudhry want to tarnish his party's reputation by becoming part of that mess?

Can he change that deeply entrenched culture of corruption, lack of transparency and accountability that runs rampant through the corridors of public service? Can he inject an added dose of confidence and attract meaningful foreign investment?

Is it in Qarase's or his SDL party's interest to allow him to succeed, or is it better to embroil him deeper into the quagmire and destroy him politically?

There is little doubt that this mission is the biggest test of Chaudhry's strategic and leadership skills.

For the future of Fiji, it is at least worth a try.

* Nitya Reddy was an MP in the 1987 Bavadra Government.