Senior members of Fiji’s Great Council of Chiefs have publicly opposed the use of the word “Fijian” as the common national identity for all citizens, saying the term should be reserved exclusively for indigenous iTaukei — a stance that has surfaced as the government’s review of the 2013 Constitution gets under way.
The 2013 Constitution begins with the declaration “WE, THE PEOPLE OF FIJI,” and explicitly lists the iTaukei, Rotumans, the descendants of those who came as indentured labourers, and those who arrived as free settlers and immigrants. It recognises iTaukei and Rotumans as the country’s indigenous communities while also setting out equal fundamental rights and obligations for all citizens of the sovereign democratic Republic of Fiji. Proponents of a single national identifier argue the label “Fijian” reflects that shared citizenship.
Those contesting that usage point to the distinctive historical and legal status of the iTaukei. The incoming coverage highlights two grounds commonly cited to justify indigenous exclusivity: first, that the iTaukei were the first people to settle Fiji; and second, that their proprietary rights are entrenched through the Deed of Cession of 10 October 1874 and modern law. The iTaukei, the article notes, own in common about 92 percent of land in Fiji — a fact often raised in discussions about identity and resource custodianship and protected today under the iTaukei Lands Act and the Constitution’s provisions (sections 28 and 30).
Supporters of retaining “Fijian” as a national descriptor counter that the name denotes shared citizenship rather than ethnic identity. They point to everyday usages — from national sports teams to diplomatic delegations — where “Fijian” denotes all citizens representing the state. The article also recalls Fiji’s obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), under which the state must avoid practices amounting to racial discrimination.
Voices appealing for inclusive care and unity were also invoked in the new article. It cited a public statement by the late Archbishop Petero Mataca, made around 1978, reminding Fiji’s residents that, irrespective of how or when they came to live in the islands, “it is today home to us all” and that everyone therefore has a duty of care to look after one another as neighbours and fellow citizens. Former political leaders Hon. Jai Ram Reddy and Hon. Mahendra Chaudhry were also recalled for their past appeals to the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV, the Great Council of Chiefs) to look after the welfare of all Fiji’s communities.
The piece also characterises the 2013 Constitution as “an imposition,” language that underlines grievances some leaders and communities have expressed about how that charter was framed and adopted. That framing — combined with fresh objections from senior customary leaders — marks the debate over who may legitimately call themselves “Fijian” as one of the central, politically sensitive issues now facing the constitution review.
As consultations continue, the contest between an inclusive, citizenship-based national identity and claims to an exclusive indigenous nomenclature tied to history and land rights is likely to shape public submissions and political bargaining. How the review addresses the term “Fijian” could carry legal and social consequences for identity, customary custodianship, and community relations across Fiji.
Leave a comment