This Submission
addresses two areas that the Ghai Commission could usefully examine and comment
on.
First is the
continued Regime allegations that there was electoral fraud in the 2006
elections.
Second, some advice
based on international experience, on what might be appropriateand
cost-effective targets for voter registration and voter turnouts in a rurally
dispersed electorate such as Fiji
The Regime selectively quotes the EU Report,
pointing to disenfranchisement of certain voter groups (not stated who exactly),
flawed registration processes, lack of integrity in the electoral roll, old traditional wooden ballot boxes being
used with some political parties claiming that "the boxes had sufficient
gaps beneath the lids to allow ballot papers to be inserted after the boxes
were sealed", no recount of some close votes, a 101 percent. voter turnout
in one constituency; and electoral officials favouring the SDL.
These are the serious allegations of possible
electoral fraud that the Ghai Commission must examine objectively using the
facts, and either accept or reject these allegations once and for all.
There have been other allegations which even
the Yash Ghai Commission would know to be merely inefficiencies which are
undesirable but little to do with possible electoral fraud: such as, inappropriate allocation of polling stations
and ballot boxes; high levels of invalid votes (bad electoral system); Electoral Commission lacking funding, lack of
institutional knowledge due to the downsizing of the Office of the Supervisor
of Elections; the main voter roll not ready on time for public scrutiny which
resulted in about 20,000 corrections; and the strange Regime reference to "only
12% of polling stations were being headed by women".
This submission
tries to assist the Ghai Commission with an analysis of the "big picture"allegation
of electoral fraud by the Fijian SDL (presumably against the Indo-Fijian FLP)
using the 2007 Census data produced by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics.
On the issue of
appropriate registration and voter turnout targets, a key statistical point
that the Ghai Commission might wish to consider is that having another 10% or
even 5% of potential voters registering to vote, or voting, would have been
extremely unlikely to have made any difference whatsoever, to the elections
outcome- either in the past, or in the future.
[A qualification: Let me state at the outset that I
hold no brief for the SDL, FLP,or any other political party, although I have
been accurately described in the media as a former NFP Parliamentarian (which I
was between 1996 and 1999). Following the 1999 elections, however, I ceased my
political affiliation, although I still
have friends from many of the political parties during my three years in
Parliament. I was able to assist the Electoral Office during the 2006
elections, as well as all the political
parties that attended my voter education workshops throughout Fiji in 2005 and
early 2006.
I now focus on the
substance of this Submission.
What could be indicators of electoral fraud?
I suggest to the
Yash Ghai Commission that if there is any substance at all to allegations of
widespread electoral fraud by the Fijian SDL against Indo-Fijian voters and
parties, then
(a) the numbers of
Fijian voters registered as a
proportion of the actual population aged 21 and over, would tend to be
systematically higher than the similar proportions for Indo-Fijians, both in
individual constituencies and in aggregate; and
(b) the numbers of
Fijians voting as a proportion of those registered to vote, would tend
to be higher than the similar proportion for Indo-Fijians, both in individual
constituencies and in aggregate.
The facts in Annex 1,
Annex 2 and Annex 3, to this submission suggest completely the opposite.
The 2007 Census data
The elections were
held in 2006 and the Census was unfortunately postponed to 2007.
[This was much to
the unhappiness of the Fiji Bureau of Statistics demographers and the few of us
who understand how critical it was to not break the hundred year old cycle of
the ten year gap between censuses.
For political purposes, it would have been far more sensible and cost
effective to have the census first, so that the electoral boundaries could be
more easily established, given the requirements of the 1997 Constitution. In
the end, the costs were wastefully duplicated.]
Regardless of that, anyone
can go to the Fiji Bureau of Statistics website and download all the 2007 Fiji
Census data, by single years.
[My considered
opinion is that, contrary to blog allegations, there has been no political
interference with any FBS data for the last six years, despite the recently
retired Government Statistician being the older brother of Commodore
Bainimarama].
Add up the 2007 numbers
of potential voters (aged 21 and over) for Fijians, Indo-Fijians and Others in
2007.
To estimate the
numbers of potential voters for 2006, reduce the Fijian number by 1.9% (that is
the annual growth rate of Fijian voters).
And reduce the
Indo-Fijian number by a much smaller 0.1%, the growth rate of Indo-Fijian
voters around 2007 (but note that the growth rate of Indo-Fijian voters has
been negative for the last five years- expect fewer Indo-Fijian voters at the
next election in 2014).
You will get the
following interesting table for 2006:
Table 1
|
Fijians
|
Indo-Fijians
|
Registered voters in 2006
|
256014
|
204470
|
Estimated Number Of Voting age in 2006
|
261876
|
205723
|
Percentage registered
|
98%
|
99%
|
The last row indicates
that 98% of eligible Fijian voters were
actually registered to vote in 2006.
But that was lower
than the 99% of Indo-Fijian voters who registered.
There is little
possibility of hordes of non-existent Fijian voters being registered twice by
the SDL or any Fijian political party.
And what percentage
of those registered voters actually voted?
The last row of Table
2 tells you that 87% of registered Fijian voters actually voted, compared to a
higher 89% of registered Indo-Fijians who voted.
Table 2
|
Fijians
|
Indo-Fijians
|
Registered voters in 2006
|
256014
|
204470
|
Actually voting
|
222660
|
182476
|
Percentage voting:
|
87
|
89
|
Nationally, a higher
proportion of potential Indo-Fijian voters were registered than Fijians.
AND a higher proportion of registered Indo-Fijian voters
actually voted, than Fijians.
Whatever happened in
that one Cakaudrove East constituency, certainly was not replicated throughout
the constituencies in aggregate (see Annex 3) nor in individual constituencies
(see Annex 2).
Annex 2 shows that
the Cakaudrove East result (of more voters than registered) was just one
constituency out of 46, and only in 2006.
There was no such result in either 1999 or 2001, when Fijian parties
were also in control of the election processes. i.e. 1 anomaly out of 138 communal constituencies
(and I show below that even that was trivial).
The Yash Ghai
Commission should insist on hard evidence from anyone who keeps alleging that
there was widespread electoral fraud in the 2006 elections.
If it wants to
satisfy itself, the Yash Ghai Commission can commission similar analysis at the
division and the province level. Just
request and please pay for assistance from the last few remaining
demographersat the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (before they emigrate to better
paying jobs at regional organisations and elsewhere).
To get the Ghai
Commission started, I present Annexes 1, 2 and 3 at the bottom of the paper, of some analysis I
did three years ago, to see if there was any evidence to support the allegations
of electoral fraud in any of the
constituencies.
Annex B suggests
that these allegations of electoral fraud are not substantiated by these
numbers.
Annex 3 shows that
for all three elections (1999, 2010, and
2006) a higher proportion of Indo-Fijians registered, actually voted than did
Fijians.
What of the anomaly
in Cakaudrove East, where there was indeed a 101% voter turn-out.
What of the Cakaudrove East anomaly?
Of course, you
cannot have 1% more voters than the number supposedly registered.
But was this clear
evidence of electoral fraud by the SDL, perhaps with their hand-picked
electoral officials secretly stuffing the ballot boxes with extra votes for
SDL, through gaps below the lids of wooden boxes?
If you examine this
anomaly closely, you find that not only was Cakaudrove East a small rural constituency
(with only 7639 voters), but the "extra" 1% voters amounted to a mere
52 votes (that is right, fifty two).
Right alongside was
another Fijian constituency, Cakaudrove West, where a much larger 1987
registered voters did not vote.
I would not be
surprised to find that some voters registered in the Cakaudrove West mistakenly
voted in Cakaudrove East.
The Ghai Commission
should also note that the SDL won Cakaudrove East with 6120 votes, and a
massive margin of 5353 votes over all the others combined.52 extra votes was a
drop in that big bucket.
I doubt if any one
from the SDL would have bothered to cheat in that constituency, even if some
political parties alleged that "the boxes had sufficient gaps beneath the
lids to allow ballot papers to be inserted after the boxes were sealed").
The Ghai Commission
should note that the FLP had one year in the Interim Government, and the
Military Regime has had more than five years, to find any evidence of electoral
fraud. They have not found any.
Continued repetition
of allegations of electoral without an iota of evidence should be rejected by
the Ghai Commission, and seen for what they are: a refusal by political parties
to abide by the "rules of the game" when the game goes against them,
and other agenda.
The other flimsy excuses
Extremely strange are
the Regime allegations that "only 12% of polling stations were being
headed by women", as if that amounts to electoral fraud.
The women members of
the Ghai Commission would know that most female civil servants (and civil
servants are usually the polling officers) will not want to be working at odd hours
in polling stations, with their families worried about their safety, or
probably more likely male family members clamouring at home: "who is going
to cook the dinner?".
Such a complaint is
indeed strange coming from an all-powerful dictatorial Regime which has
appointed only 1 female Minister in an otherwise all male Government,
especially when one Superman is allegedly looking after 7 ministries of his
own, and probably another 6 as well for the Boss. (Goodness me. The Ghai Commission could even recommend that
the Fiji Cabinet can do with just 2 Ministers - one Superman, and one
Super Woman - to have gender balance! But paid one salary each, of course.)
The allegation that
the composition of the polling staff did not reflect the balance of Fiji
If the Regime is to be consistent about the
issue of ethnic balance in electoral officers, the Ghai Commission might record
in their Report that if the Regime continues to use the Fiji Military to
conduct the bulk of the voter registration exercise, that will also reflect the
99% indigenous Fijian balance in the military while Fiji's ethnic balance would
require 33% of these officers to be Indo-Fijian.
Why do most Indo-Fijians still believe the allegations of SDL electoral
fraud?
I have little doubt that if the Ghai
Commission were to ask a large number of Indo-Fijians if they believed that
there was electoral fraud by the SDL in 2006 or 2001, I suspect the majority
would say "yes".
Most Indo-Fijians believed the FLP's
allegations of electoral fraud in 2001 and 2006, and these allegations have not
been retracted to this day.
In Australia
It is important for the Ghai Commission to
understand the reasons for this continued but misplaced belief.
The harsh reality is that the Indo-Fijian
community have not forgotten the 1987 and 2000 coups which removed their
political leaders from control of government, and all the associated random and
targeted violence against them.
Those wounds have not healed and the few racist
political statements since the 2000 coup have not helped either.
Such violence has never been targeted against
the general indigenous Fijians population even after the 2006 coup, although
many have suffered violence at the hands of the military.
It should be noted that while the elected
Fijian leaders may have been deposed by the 2006 coup, they have been replaced
by another set of Fijian leaders, albeit from the military.
Two Indo-Fijian swallows in the Bainimarama
Cabinet do not make for an Indian summer, however prominent one may be in the
media.
It is to be hoped that the current
rapprochement between all the political parties such as SDL, FLP, NFP, and UPP
will result in genuine reconciliation between all the parties, most of whom
have by now made the mistake of supportingone military coup or another.
[NAP, SVT, PANU, BLV, MV etc.may surface one
of these days- in one form or another, once they understand the likely
advantages to themselves, should a proportional electoral system come into
being for the 2014 elections.]
What are sensible targets for voter registration and voter turnout?
There is currently a frenzy of spending of
tax-payers funds, on electronic methods of voter registration, with the
objectives of improving the proportions
of voter registration, and voter turnout.
These are theoretically good objectives in themselves.
But the Yash Ghai Commission should note that
Fiji
Have a look at the international comparisons here.
This sensible article points out that voter
turnout depends on "trust in government, degree
of partisanship among the population, interest in politics, and belief in the
efficacy of voting.
For Fiji
But even in 2001, the Fiji
Note also, that the voter turnout in 2006
returned to the much higher levels of around 89% of 2006, indicating that the
vast majority of voters were once more engaging with the electoral process.
I submit that the Ghai Commission should note
the following four aspects of voter turnout rates and voting effectiveness in
the Fiji
First, the proportions of invalid votes in
future will almost certainly be drastically reduced by the likely changes in
the electoral system and the simplification of the ballot papers.
Secondly, for many voters who live far from
the polling stations, especially rural indigenous Fijians, the logistics and
costs of getting to the polling stations far outweighs any benefits of voting
for their party of choice.
(Regardless of other benefits that the two
former Fiji parliamentarians on the Ghai Commission will remember, with mixed
feelings no doubt, such as the free transport of voters, food, grog, and jovial
company that usually awaits voters at polling stations, often merrily enjoyed
without necessarily giving the bribing political aspirants, their vote, in the
secrecy of the polling booth).
The third point is that some 5% of potential
voters in Fiji
But the fourth and probably the most
important point to consider is a statistical one, related to the ultimate
objective of all elections, which is to identify accurately and fairly
"who the people want to govern the nation" in their, and the public
interest.
How big a voter turnout do you really need?
Every good statistician and Bureau of
Statistics knows that if a proper random sample is taken of the entire
country of voters, then a mere 5% (I repeat, a mere five percent.) would
tell you quite accurately which party is likely to be the winner (don't take my
word for it, go and ask a good statistician at the FBS or USP).
This great statistical result is what
household surveys by bureaus of statistics, good "opinion polls" or
"exit polls" rely on,in the developed world.
Nobody questions that a "sample"or
"voter turnout rate" as large as 48% (which is apparently the voter
turnout rate in US) or 58% (in the world's largest democracy, India ) or 75% (in UK
The Ghai Commission should consider that
increases of voter registration beyond 90% or voter turnout beyond 90% is
extremely unlikely to change the result of any election: why would the last 10%
of potential voters be any different in political views than the first 90% who
have already voted?)
All accountable and resource-scarce countries
in the world understand that once you have reached the 85% mark (as Fiji
already has) then the "marginal costs" of increasing both the
registration rate and the voter turnout rate
will result in negligible marginal benefits in identifying winning
parties, while imposing great cost to tax-payers- as we may end up doing
currently.
The Ghai Commission should guard against
costly and un-necessarily high targets for voter registration or voter turnout,
especially when there are many more urgent needs for the use of taxpayers'
funds, such as in poverty alleviation, health, education or rural development.
All political parties would similarly gain,
if they mutually agreed to not provide all the incredibly costly
"bribes" that voters have come to expect from aspiring candidates,
often discouraging poor candidates from standing.
While this is something that cannot be
enforced (even though there is absolutely no evidence that in Fiji such
electoral "bribes" actually work), the Yash Ghai Commission might
wish to make a recommendation on this issue, and the political parties might
wish to come to some agreement on this (to reduce their own expenditures). Let
the voters vote, based on their commitment.
Conclusion
I urge the Yash Ghai Commission to ensure
that they do not repeat or give any credibility to any allegations of alleged electoral
fraud in either 2001 or 2006, without definitive and objective evidence.
It is accepted that the Regime's new
arrangements for electronic electoral registration, individual voter cardsmay be
improvements on the past systems and should be welcomed by all the political
parties- provided they are not too costly and they not suffer from glitches
(have a look at the FBS disastrous belated attempt to use electronic scanners
for the 2007 Census forms).
However, I submit to the Yash Ghai Commission
that they keep in mind that such minor improvements in the logistics of the
electoral processes are extremely unlikely to make any great difference to the
eventual election outcomes, or confer any significant benefits to the
tax-payers and the nation.
Far more useful for the country's improvement
of electoral processes would be a genuine dialogue, rapprochement and the
building of goodwill, between the political parties and the Military Regime,
with independent NGOs as facilitating intermediaries.
Annex Tables
Annex 1
|
Voters Listed
|
Numbers Voting
|
||||||
No
|
Constituency
|
Type
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1
|
Bua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
6357
|
6972
|
6749
|
5966
|
6050
|
6245
|
2
|
Kadavu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
5845
|
6540
|
6089
|
5371
|
5328
|
5476
|
3
|
Lau Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
6807
|
7536
|
6612
|
6343
|
6197
|
5943
|
4
|
Lomaiviti Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8131
|
8743
|
7650
|
7265
|
7009
|
6906
|
5
|
Macuata Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
9377
|
9964
|
9823
|
8545
|
8076
|
8956
|
6
|
Nadroga/Navosa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
16051
|
17415
|
19044
|
14718
|
13672
|
16704
|
7
|
Naitasiri Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
11449
|
12488
|
12067
|
10511
|
10214
|
10874
|
8
|
Namosi Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
2856
|
3053
|
3340
|
2658
|
2531
|
3066
|
9
|
Ra Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
9570
|
10589
|
10880
|
8831
|
8586
|
9590
|
10
|
Rewa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
6289
|
6832
|
7341
|
5798
|
5636
|
6675
|
11
|
Serua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
3903
|
4065
|
4473
|
3630
|
3423
|
4112
|
12
|
Ba East Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
10019
|
11115
|
11836
|
9201
|
8955
|
10215
|
13
|
Ba West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
12435
|
13141
|
15348
|
11076
|
10077
|
12650
|
14
|
Tailevu North Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8946
|
9534
|
9682
|
8407
|
7838
|
8687
|
15
|
Tailevu South Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8738
|
9635
|
10303
|
7938
|
7934
|
9389
|
16
|
Cakaudrove East Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8054
|
8808
|
7587
|
7120
|
6923
|
7639
|
17
|
Cakaudrove West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
9062
|
9855
|
11609
|
8426
|
8328
|
9622
|
18
|
North East Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
13234
|
14477
|
17155
|
10785
|
10618
|
14560
|
19
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
15307
|
16306
|
18864
|
12965
|
11531
|
15550
|
|
20
|
South West Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
12070
|
13215
|
15093
|
10174
|
9728
|
12518
|
21
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
11653
|
12663
|
12707
|
9914
|
9337
|
10435
|
|
22
|
Tamavua/LaucalaFijan
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
12573
|
13701
|
16068
|
10801
|
10139
|
13491
|
23
|
Nasinu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
11538
|
12417
|
15694
|
9857
|
8980
|
13357
|
24
|
General
|
3772
|
4107
|
3523
|
3231
|
2956
|
2896
|
|
25
|
North Eastern General
|
General
|
4556
|
4894
|
4701
|
3860
|
3694
|
4042
|
26
|
Western/Central General
|
General
|
5701
|
5942
|
5593
|
4890
|
4328
|
4657
|
27
|
Vitilevu East/Maritime Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
7760
|
8230
|
7256
|
7324
|
7006
|
6621
|
28
|
Tavua Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
8477
|
9197
|
8536
|
8070
|
7873
|
7912
|
29
|
Ba East Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
10049
|
10487
|
8203
|
9394
|
8912
|
7532
|
30
|
Ba West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
10188
|
11240
|
11538
|
9450
|
9149
|
10155
|
31
|
Lautoka Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9667
|
10253
|
11200
|
9104
|
8304
|
9841
|
32
|
Ind.Comm.
|
11849
|
12356
|
12308
|
10806
|
9285
|
10634
|
|
33
|
Vuda Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
11286
|
11584
|
10526
|
10413
|
9316
|
9239
|
34
|
Nadi Urban Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
12336
|
13019
|
13081
|
11437
|
10088
|
11453
|
35
|
Nadi Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9678
|
10160
|
11467
|
9079
|
8629
|
10394
|
36
|
Nadroga Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
11179
|
11833
|
11240
|
10552
|
9879
|
10350
|
37
|
Vitilevu South/Kadavu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
7839
|
8290
|
8407
|
7222
|
6623
|
7586
|
38
|
Ind.Comm.
|
13280
|
14435
|
12568
|
11837
|
10055
|
10618
|
|
39
|
Vanualevu West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
8839
|
9186
|
7754
|
8200
|
7612
|
7193
|
40
|
Laucala Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
14453
|
15343
|
18610
|
13171
|
11374
|
15983
|
41
|
Nasinu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
12090
|
13075
|
14789
|
11218
|
10393
|
13327
|
42
|
Tailevu/Rewa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
10875
|
11519
|
11641
|
10257
|
9108
|
10525
|
43
|
Labasa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9668
|
9996
|
10248
|
8793
|
8148
|
8986
|
44
|
Labasa Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9775
|
10113
|
7416
|
8806
|
8568
|
7012
|
45
|
Macuata East/Cakaudrove Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
8332
|
8721
|
7682
|
7641
|
7203
|
7115
|
46
|
Rotuma
|
Rotuman Comm.
|
5232
|
5567
|
5373
|
4682
|
4255
|
4737
|
Annex 2
|
Percent. Voting
|
Percent. Not Voting
|
||||||
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
|||
1
|
Bua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
94
|
87
|
93
|
6
|
13
|
7
|
2
|
Kadavu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
81
|
90
|
8
|
19
|
10
|
3
|
Lau Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
82
|
90
|
7
|
18
|
10
|
4
|
Lomaiviti Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
89
|
80
|
90
|
11
|
20
|
10
|
5
|
Macuata Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
91
|
81
|
91
|
9
|
19
|
9
|
6
|
Nadroga/Navosa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
79
|
88
|
8
|
21
|
12
|
7
|
Naitasiri Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
82
|
90
|
8
|
18
|
10
|
8
|
Namosi Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
83
|
92
|
7
|
17
|
8
|
9
|
Ra Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
81
|
88
|
8
|
19
|
12
|
10
|
Rewa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
82
|
91
|
8
|
18
|
9
|
11
|
Serua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
84
|
92
|
7
|
16
|
8
|
12
|
Ba East Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
81
|
86
|
8
|
19
|
14
|
13
|
Ba West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
89
|
77
|
82
|
11
|
23
|
18
|
14
|
Tailevu North Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
94
|
82
|
90
|
6
|
18
|
10
|
15
|
Tailevu South Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
91
|
82
|
91
|
9
|
18
|
9
|
16
|
Cakaudrove
East Fijian
|
Fijian
Comm.
|
88
|
79
|
101
|
12
|
21
|
-1
|
17
|
Cakaudrove West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
85
|
83
|
7
|
15
|
17
|
18
|
North East Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
81
|
73
|
85
|
19
|
27
|
15
|
19
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
85
|
71
|
82
|
15
|
29
|
18
|
|
20
|
South West Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
84
|
74
|
83
|
16
|
26
|
17
|
21
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
85
|
74
|
82
|
15
|
26
|
18
|
|
22
|
Tamavua/Laucala Fijan
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
86
|
74
|
84
|
14
|
26
|
16
|
23
|
Nasinu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
85
|
72
|
85
|
15
|
28
|
15
|
24
|
General
|
86
|
72
|
82
|
14
|
28
|
18
|
|
25
|
North Eastern General
|
General
|
85
|
75
|
86
|
15
|
25
|
14
|
26
|
Western/Central General
|
General
|
86
|
73
|
83
|
14
|
27
|
17
|
27
|
Vitilevu East/Maritime Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
85
|
91
|
6
|
15
|
9
|
28
|
Tavua Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
95
|
86
|
93
|
5
|
14
|
7
|
29
|
Ba East Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
85
|
92
|
7
|
15
|
8
|
30
|
Ba West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
81
|
88
|
7
|
19
|
12
|
31
|
Lautoka Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
81
|
88
|
6
|
19
|
12
|
32
|
Ind.Comm.
|
91
|
75
|
86
|
9
|
25
|
14
|
|
33
|
Vuda Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
92
|
80
|
88
|
8
|
20
|
12
|
34
|
Nadi Urban Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
77
|
88
|
7
|
23
|
12
|
35
|
Nadi Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
85
|
91
|
6
|
15
|
9
|
36
|
Nadroga Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
83
|
92
|
6
|
17
|
8
|
37
|
Vitilevu South/Kadavu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
92
|
80
|
90
|
8
|
20
|
10
|
38
|
Ind.Comm.
|
89
|
70
|
84
|
11
|
30
|
16
|
|
39
|
Vanualevu West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
83
|
93
|
7
|
17
|
7
|
40
|
Laucala Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
91
|
74
|
86
|
9
|
26
|
14
|
41
|
Nasinu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
79
|
90
|
7
|
21
|
10
|
42
|
Tailevu/Rewa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
79
|
90
|
6
|
21
|
10
|
43
|
Labasa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
91
|
82
|
88
|
9
|
18
|
12
|
44
|
Labasa Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
90
|
85
|
95
|
10
|
15
|
5
|
45
|
Macuata East/Cakaudrove Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
92
|
83
|
93
|
8
|
17
|
7
|
46
|
Rotuma
|
Rotuman Comm.
|
89
|
76
|
88
|
11
|
24
|
12
|
Annex 3
|
Percentage voting in elections of
|
Percentage Not Voting in elections of
|
||||||
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
|||
Fijian Communal
|
89
|
78
|
87
|
11
|
22
|
13
|
||
Indian Communal
|
92
|
80
|
89
|
8
|
20
|
11
|
||
General Communal
|
85
|
73
|
84
|
15
|
27
|
16
|
||
Rotuman
|
89
|
76
|
88
|
11
|
24
|
12
|
||
Percentage Change
|
||||||||
1999 to 01
|
2001 to 06
|
|||||||
Fijian Communal
|
-12
|
11
|
||||||
Indian Communal
|
-13
|
11
|
||||||
General Communal
|
-14
|
14
|
||||||
Rotuman
|
-15
|
15
|
||||||
No comments:
Post a Comment