Av or not AV?: Weighing the Evidence in Fiji.

This essay explores the merits of Fiji's adoption of alternative voting in 1997. As such, it is part of a larger debate regarding the most appropriate electoral forms for deeply divided societies (Reynolds and Reilly 1999). Key players in this debate include Arend Lijphart (2002, 1991, 1977), a consistent advocate of proportional representation (PR) and consociational power sharing, and Donald Horowitz (2002, 1993, 1991, 1985), a proponent of alternative voting. This essay reviews the context for the adoption of AV in Fiji, and discusses the 1999 elections, the Speight coup, and its aftermath. It examines the criticisms advanced against AV by Jon Fraenkel (2001, 2000), who argues AV should be replaced, as well as arguments for AV advanced by Brij Lal (2002) and Ben Reilly (2001). The paper argues the weight of evidence does not support a blanket condemnation of AV. Changes in the way AV has been implemented are in order, but it would be unwise to replace AV before it has a chance to operate over a number of election cycles. Although the disproportional outcome of the 1999 elections may have been a destabilizing factor in the Speight coup of 2000, this action and the Rabuka coups before it are a reflection of deeper problems in Fijian politics. Electoral rules should not be changed lightly (Taagepera 2002). Over time and with modifications, political learning on the part of voters and politicians may enable AV to produce more proportionate outcomes, and it may very well lead to greater inter-ethnic cooperation. No set of electoral rules will work in Fiji unless efforts are made to address the real obstacles to democracy -- a lack of commitment to the rule of law and constitutionalism (Lawson 1996, 1991), conflicts over land, and the imbalance of power between communities (Premdas 1993). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]