Fijian diplomat Filipo Tarakinikini has injected a new line of argument into the national Constitution debate, urging leaders and the public to move beyond the polarised question of whether Fiji should be declared a Christian State or remain secular. Writing as a private citizen in a newly published opinion piece, Tarakinikini says the conversation has been misdirected and that the more urgent question is philosophical and moral: “Why do you have dignity?”
Tarakinikini told readers the focus on labels — Christian or secular — risks overlooking the foundation on which rights and belonging are built. “The question is not what label we put on the State. The question is this: why do you have dignity?” he wrote, arguing that dignity must rest on something more durable than constitutions or transient political majorities. “Not because the Constitution says so — constitutions can be overthrown, as we know better than most. Not because parliament voted for it — parliament can vote it away,” he said.
To underline his point, Tarakinikini pointed to Fiji’s turbulent constitutional history, noting the country has had four constitutions in 50 years and that each was eventually set aside. He used that record as evidence that rights anchored only in political consensus remain vulnerable when regimes change or emergency powers are invoked. “Each one overthrown… not because the rights they listed were wrong, but because they rested on political agreement alone, and when that agreement broke down, the rights broke with it,” he wrote.
From that history, Tarakinikini argues for a more universal foundation for human rights and constitutional dignity. He proposes grounding rights in the conviction that “every Fijian is made in the image of God,” describing this as a basis that would be beyond the reach of coups, parliamentary votes or emergency decrees. He framed the idea not as a sectarian imposition but as a universal claim intended to apply “to every person regardless of their faith.”
Tarakinikini’s intervention reframes the debate in theological and philosophical terms rather than constitutional formalities. By prioritising a shared moral premise about human worth, he seeks to shift public discussion from a binary contest over the State’s official religious character to a search for underlying principles that could sustain rights and inclusivity through political upheaval.
He makes clear that his aim is unity rather than division, stressing that his proposal is meant to provide a common ground across Fiji’s diverse religious and cultural communities. In his full opinion piece, Tarakinikini outlines how the nation might move beyond the Christian-versus-secular framing and build what he calls a “more durable and honest constitutional foundation.”
The comments add a fresh voice — from a serving diplomat speaking in a private capacity — to an already heated national conversation about identity, governance and the protection of rights. Whether his theological framing gains traction among policymakers, constitutional drafters, religious leaders and civil society remains to be seen, but Tarakinikini’s column shifts the terms of debate from institutional labels to the deeper question of what principle should underpin civic dignity in Fiji.