The debate over the restoration of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) has become a debate about much more than an institution. It has become a debate about what kind of democracy Fiji wants to be.
Those questioning restoration have raised legitimate concerns: democratic legitimacy, equal citizenship, accountability, separation of powers and the place of customary authority in a modern constitutional state. These concerns deserve to be heard.
But there is another question: must Fiji simply reproduce a Western model of democracy, or can we build a democracy that reflects who we are as Pasifika people—one that accommodates representative government while recognising customary authority, communal responsibility, culture and tradition? I believe we can. Indeed, we must.
I write from within the Vanua—not as a lawyer or political strategist, but as an iTaukei, a chief and someone who understands that this debate is not merely about constitutional architecture. It is about identity, belonging, responsibility and the relationship between generations. For the iTaukei, the Vanua is not an abstraction. It is lived.
That is why I support the full restoration of the BLV. But I support something larger than restoration: the opportunity to build a uniquely Pasifika democracy.
Communalism is Not the Enemy of Democracy
A few months ago, I wrote about iTaukei communalism: beyond the fear of the word. The word “communalism” carries a heavy history in Fiji. For many Indo-Fijians, it evokes the coups of 1987 and the fear that ethnicity could become more important than citizenship. That fear is understandable.
But another truth must also be understood. For the iTaukei, communalism is not simply a political doctrine. It is a way of life—veilomani, solesolevaki, veivuke; the Yavusa and Mataqali; the relationship between people, land, ancestors, custom and responsibility. When an iTaukei speaks of Vanua, s/he is not speaking simply of territory. Vanua is land and people, history and ancestry, obligation and identity. It is a different grammar of belonging.
To ask the iTaukei to abandon that communal identity to prove commitment to democracy misunderstands both the Vanua and democracy. The question is not whether communal identity should exist. It is whether we can create a constitutional order in which it exists without becoming exclusionary or oppressive. That is where the BLV matters.
The BLV is About More Than Chiefs
The Vanua is not the BLV, and the BLV is not the entire chiefly system. The institution we restore cannot simply reproduce another era. But neither should we pretend it has no relationship to the deeper customary systems of iTaukei society.
The BLV represents a tradition of chiefly deliberation, consultation, responsibility and mediation. Those values should not be treated as relics incompatible with democracy. They can be part of democracy.
The CRC has proposed giving the BLV a dedicated constitutional place, with defined functions, institutional independence and accountability, including roles touching customary law, provincial councils, village bylaws, iTaukei institutions and national social cohesion.
The deeper question is not whether chiefs should have a ceremonial role. It is whether the Vanua should have a legitimate constitutional voice. I believe it should.
But if we ask Fiji to accept the BLV, we must be honest about what we are restoring. What kind of body will it be? What powers will it have—and what powers will it not have? Who will select its members? How will women, young people and those without chiefly titles participate? How will it relate to Parliament, Government, the courts, Bose Vanua, the Bose ni Yasana and the lewenivanua? Will its decisions be binding? If so, in what areas? If not, what constitutional weight will they carry?
These are not hostile questions. They are the questions of a mature institution.
Here, the Chairman of the BLV, Ratu Viliame Seruvakula, recently clarified an important point. The iTaukei Trust Fund is a statutory body under the iTaukei Trust Fund Act 2004. It is not funded by taxpayers; its funds come from investment portfolios in local and international markets. Its financial affairs are subject to internal accountability and independent audit, and its reports go to the BLV—not to Parliament. That distinction matters. It would be wrong to treat the BLV as a government department, or to assume parliamentary tabling as if public money were involved.
But autonomy is not the same as unaccountability. If the BLV is to have a constitutional voice, its integrity must be beyond suspicion. Its independence must be real; its accountability must be genuine. A binding code of conduct, independent audit, financial transparency within its own structures, and clear mechanisms for misconduct are not threats to chiefly authority. They protect it.
Chiefly leadership is ultimately about service. A title without responsibility is merely status.
A restored BLV must not become a parallel government. Nor should it become an instrument of any political party or government of the day. It should be a constitutional voice for the Vanua—nothing more, but nothing less.
Fiji Should Not Have to Borrow Its Democratic Imagination
We often speak of “democracy” as though there is only one legitimate institutional form. But democracy is a principle, not a single cultural template.
Elections, universal citizenship, fundamental rights, judicial independence, representative government and accountability are essential. But in a Pasifika society, so too can consultation, collective responsibility, reconciliation, communal stewardship and respect for customary authority.
Why must these be placed in opposition? Why must Fiji choose between the individual and the community?
A Fiji that is modern does not have to become culturally Western. A Fiji that is democratic does not have to become culturally rootless. Different institutions can derive legitimacy from different sources while operating within one constitutional order.
That is the foundation of the Pasifika democracy I believe Fiji can build.
A Different Grammar of Belonging
The misunderstanding between iTaukei and Indo-Fijians often begins here. For many Indo-Fijians, communal identity has been shaped through religious organisations, community associations, cultural bodies and networks forged through indenture and subsequent generations. For the iTaukei, communal identity is more deeply embedded in ancestry, land and inherited obligation.
Neither experience should be dismissed. But they are different.
When an iTaukei defends communal land, s/he may not be thinking about an economic asset. S/he may be thinking about whether his/her grandchildren will still have a place to belong.
When an iTaukei speaks about the Vanua, hear home, not hierarchy. When an Indo-Fijian speaks about enterprise, hear aspiration, not greed. These translations are necessary if Fiji is to move beyond mutual suspicion.
And belonging must be reciprocal.
Indo-Fijians are fully Fiji citizens. But citizenship and cultural belonging can deepen through understanding the indigenous culture of Fiji. Learning Vosa vakaViti, understanding iTaukei customs and appreciating the obligations embedded in the Vanua can be bridges into a deeper sense of home—not a surrender of Indo-Fijian identity.
Equally, iTaukei must understand the histories, anxieties and aspirations of Indo-Fijians. Belonging is a two-way journey.
Customary Authority is Not Domination
None of this means that everything customary is automatically legitimate, or that chiefs should be above scrutiny. The Vanua itself must evolve.
Custom has always evolved. Our ancestors encountered Christianity, colonialism, education, commerce and the modern State and found ways to retain identity while adapting to change. The BLV must do the same.
A living tradition is not one that never changes. It is one that knows how to change without losing itself.
This is particularly important when we discuss women and younger generations. Some customary systems remain rooted in patrilineal chiefly succession. But custom cannot become a synonym for immobility.
If change is simply imposed from outside, it may produce compliance without ownership. If the Vanua engages honestly with change, customary institutions can evolve in ways that are both authentic and sustainable.
Protecting the Vanua is Not Excluding Others
The most difficult questions concern the constitutional protection of iTaukei land, customary rights and institutions.
Land is not merely a commodity to the iTaukei. The relationship between people and land is foundational to the Vanua. Anxiety about land alienation is therefore not simply economic. It can be existential.
The desire for constitutional protection should not automatically be interpreted as hostility towards other citizens. It is a form of collective self-preservation.
But protection must not become domination.
If the BLV receives meaningful constitutional powers, those powers must be carefully defined and responsibly exercised. The BLV should be a shield for the Vanua, not a sword against Fiji.
That distinction is essential. The iTaukei can protect what they value without becoming what they fear.
Equal Citizenship Does Not Require Cultural Sameness
Some critics understandably ask whether guaranteed iTaukei representation is consistent with equal citizenship. It is a legitimate constitutional question.
But equality does not necessarily mean sameness. The iTaukei are the indigenous people of Fiji, with a particular historical relationship to land and customary institutions. Recognising that reality does not make another less of a citizen.
At the same time, indigenous recognition cannot justify treating others as permanent outsiders. Both truths must stand.
That is why the idea of the BLV as “chiefs for everyone” matters. Its particular responsibility may be to the iTaukei, but its contribution should be to the peace, cohesion and wellbeing of Fiji as a whole.
As Ratu Viliame Seruvakula has said, the BLV stands ready to lead its indigenous people while creating a conducive environment for the peace and prosperity of other ethnicities who live among us.
That is stewardship.
Towards a Pasifika Democracy
This is why Fiji’s constitutional future should not be measured solely by how closely it resembles Western democracies.
A Pasifika democracy would recognise that individuals have rights but also obligations; that communities matter; that indigenous identity is not cultural decoration; and that customary authority can have constitutional space while remaining subject to constitutional accountability.
It would allow Parliament to govern the nation while giving the Vanua a meaningful constitutional voice. It would protect fundamental rights while recognising that land, culture and communal identity carry obligations that cannot always be reduced to individual property rights.
It would seek consensus where possible without making consensus a substitute for democratic decision-making. It would draw from modern constitutionalism without assuming that everything valuable must have originated elsewhere.
That is not a rejection of democracy. It is democracy adapted to the soil in which it is planted.
Let the Vanua Deliberate
The questions being raised about the BLV should not frighten us. They should make us more deliberate.
The iTaukei deserve to know precisely what is being proposed: what powers the BLV will have, how members will be selected, how it will be funded, how it will relate to Parliament and Government, how customary authority will interact with the courts, and how its decisions will be held accountable.
The Vanua must have time to deliberate. The Bose Vanua must be heard. The Bose ni Yasana must be heard. Women must be heard. Young iTaukei must be heard. And the wider Fijian public must understand what is being proposed.
Constitutional documents should be translated into Vosa vakaViti and made accessible. Consultation must not mean asking the Vanua to endorse a settlement already determined elsewhere. It must mean allowing the Vanua to help shape it.
That is genuine restoration.
One Ship
Ultimately, this debate is not simply about whether chiefs should return to the Constitution. It is about whether Fiji has the confidence to define democracy on its own terms.
Can we recognise indigenous authority without abandoning equal citizenship? Can customary law have constitutional space without undermining the rule of law? Can communal responsibility coexist with individual rights? Can chiefly institutions evolve without losing their cultural legitimacy? Can the iTaukei protect their inheritance while extending their hand to every other Fijian?
I believe we can.
Fiji does not have to choose between being modern and being Pasifika. We can be both.
The restoration of the BLV should therefore not be about resurrecting yesterday. It should be about building tomorrow: a democracy rooted in universal citizenship, but not stripped of communal responsibility; a constitutional order that protects individual rights while recognising indigenous collective rights; a modern Fiji that does not require the iTaukei to become less iTaukei in order to become fully Fijian.
That is what I mean by a Pasifika democracy.
Not chiefly rule. Not ethnic domination. Not a rejection of democracy. But a constitutional settlement that grows from the soil of Fiji itself.
The BLV can be one of its most important institutions—not because it represents a return to the past, but because it can help Fiji reconcile two truths we have too often treated as opposites: the survival of the Vanua and the unity of Fiji.
We are in a ship called Fiji. Within the Vanua are confederacies, provinces, yavusa, mataqali and countless relationships shaped by genealogy, history and obligation. We disagree. We always have. But the ship is one.
The BLV is not the ship. It is not the captain. It is not the State. It is part of the crew. And a member of the crew has a particular responsibility while remaining responsible for the safety of the whole vessel.
Perhaps that is the democratic grammar Fiji now needs: veilomani, solesolevaki, veivuke and communal responsibility alongside elections, rights, representation and accountability.
A grammar in which the Vanua is not feared, but understood. And perhaps, in understanding it, we may discover that the survival of the Vanua and the unity of Fiji were never meant to be opposing goals.
Same ocean. Same shore. Same storm. One ship.
