A new master’s study from the University of the South Pacific challenges the notion of Fiji’s social fabric as a simple ethnic divide. Merewalesi Nailatikau, presenting her research on “Social cohesion or ‘myth of oneness’?”, uses census data from 1976 to 2014 and applies regression and decomposition methods to show a gradual decline in the role of ethnicity in education and home ownership. Yet ethnicity still continues to influence socio-economic outcomes, underscoring a more nuanced picture than a single narrative of unity or division.
Nailatikau notes the ongoing debate around including ethnicity data in censuses, pointing to Australia’s decision not to ask about ethnicity in its next census. Health policy advocates have voiced concerns about how the absence or presence of ethnicity data could affect understanding how different communities experience health, well-being, and access to economic opportunities. She argues that publishing ethnicity-related statistics remains a global standard that informs policy decisions and national findings, a view she believes should apply to Fiji as well.
The discussion also places census data in historical context. Nailatikau reminds audiences that censuses emerged in part from imperial projects and that Fiji’s practices have evolved through independence and changing political landscapes. She stresses that this political context shapes how statistics are collected, presented, interpreted, and discussed—and highlights the need for careful, transparent engagement with data.
Beyond data, she advocates for an integrated national data system to support truth and reconciliation processes and argues that social cohesion should be citizen-driven.
Linking to broader conversations in Fiji, a related high-level forum organized with the United Nations Development Programme and the Fijian government stressed the importance of a deliberate approach to building a national framework for social cohesion as the country moves toward a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. While leaders emphasize the value of unity, they caution against rushing new legal frameworks and urge careful use of existing laws. They also highlight the role of the media in shaping cohesion, calling for clear definitions of hate speech and the safeguarding of free expression, while integrating international human rights standards into future cohesive policies. The consensus is that Fiji’s nation-building effort must balance legal frameworks with a shared national identity and freedoms that support democracy.
The overarching message is one of cautious optimism: with ongoing reform, greater stakeholder engagement, and robust data governance, Fiji can deepen understanding across communities and build a more cohesive, inclusive society.
Takeaways and value adds:
– Ethnicity continues to influence outcomes, but its impact is diminishing in some areas, indicating complexity beyond a binary divide.
– Ethnicity data remains a policy-relevant tool for tailoring programs and measuring progress.
– An integrated national data system could support truth and reconciliation efforts and help ground policy in evidence.
– National dialogue should be citizen-driven and anchored in existing constitutional values, with careful consideration of any new legal frameworks.
– The media’s role in shaping perceptions of ethnicity and cohesion is pivotal; calls exist for responsible reporting and clear hate-speech definitions.
– Aligning data collection and policy with international human rights standards can strengthen Fiji’s path toward unity.
Summary: Fiji is moving toward a more sophisticated understanding of its social fabric, balancing data-informed policy with national reconciliation and inclusive governance. The path ahead emphasizes evidence, dialogue, and shared national identity as foundations for a more cohesive future.
Positive note: The research and accompanying discussions point to a constructive trajectory where diverse communities are understood, valued, and engaged in shaping Fiji’s collective future.
Leave a comment