1997 Constitution of Fiji: Chapter 5

Last updated

Chapter 5: Social Justice.Chapter 5 of the Fiji Constitution is titled Social Justice. It is one of the shortest chapters of the constitution, comprising only one section - section 44. [1]

Section 44, the sole section of Chapter 5, charges Parliament with the responsibility to make provision for "effective equality of access" to education and training, land and housing, and participation in commerce and in public service, for groups that are seen to be disadvantaged. Despite otherwise implicitly affirming the essentially capitalist nature of Fiji, the Constitution recognizes that there are certain sectors of the population who have not shared fairly in Fiji's economic, social, and political development, and that the state has a responsibility to create an environment of equal opportunity. The Fiji Constitution does not seek equality of results, but equality of opportunity is presupposed as a basic human right.

Ethnic Fijians and Indo-Fijians are both intended to benefit from this provision. The multiracial capital, Suva, has excellent educational services, but more rural areas, populated mostly by ethnic Fijians, are often poorly served. Indo-Fijians predominate in commerce and the professions, while the public service and the Armed Forces are overwhelmingly ethnic Fijian. This constitutional provision is meant to redress the reasons for these imbalances by authorizing appropriate legislation. There is a caveat, however: "A program established under this section must not, directly or indirectly, deprive any person not entitled to its benefits of: (a) any position or seniority in the service of the State: (b) any place in an educational or training institution; (c) a scholarship or other financial support; or (d) a right to carry on any business or profession or to enjoy any other opportunity, amenity or service; to which that person has already become, and would otherwise remain, entitled." In other words, the giving of special help to disadvantaged groups must not discriminate against a member of another group.

An affirmative action program may be established for a maximum of ten years. It is to be reviewed annually, to assess whether or not its goals are being met, and if so, whether the program is still needed. On expiry at the end of ten year (or earlier, if it was set to run for a shorter period), it may be renewed by appropriate legislation if the need for it is perceived still to exist.

Chapter 5 recognizes that not all cases of proportional underrepresentation are necessarily the result of disadvantage. In some cases, the preferences of certain communities may be a factor; religious or cultural objections to certain forms of work may in some cases explain the underrepresentation of a particular community in a particular category of employment. In formulating affirmative action legislation, such factors are to be taken into account.

Related Research Articles

Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to benefit marginalized groups. Historically and internationally, support for affirmative action has been justified by the idea that it may help with bridging inequalities in employment and pay, increasing access to education, and promoting diversity, social equity, and social inclusion and redressing alleged wrongs, harms, or hindrances, also called substantive equality.

Racial quotas in employment and education are numerical requirements or quotas for hiring, promoting, admitting and/or graduating members of a particular racial group. Racial quotas are often established as means of diminishing racial discrimination, addressing under-representation and evident racism against those racial groups or, the opposite, against the disadvantaged majority group. Conversely, quotas have also been used historically to promote discrimination against minority groups by limiting access to influential institutions in employment and education.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">House of Representatives of Fiji</span> Former lower house of Fiji; abolished in 2003

The House of Representatives was the lower chamber of Fiji's Parliament from 1970 to 2006. It was the more powerful of the two chambers; it alone had the power to initiate legislation. The House of Representatives also had much greater jurisdiction over financial bills; the Senate could not amend them, although it might veto them. Except in the case of amendments to the Constitution, over which a veto of the Senate was absolute, the House of Representatives might override a Senatorial veto by passing the same bill a second time, in the parliamentary session immediately following the one in which it was rejected by the Senate, after a minimum period of six months.

Chapter 2: Compact. The second chapter of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji contains Sections 6 and 7 of the Constitution. They summarize, in "compact" form, the intent and purpose of the Constitution, as well as the goals that it seeks to accomplish. It establishes the principles on which the Fiji government are to be based, and according to which the Constitution is to be interpreted.

Chapter 3: Citizenship. The third chapter of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji, comprising Sections 8 through 20 of the Constitution, set out the rules for citizenship in Fiji.

Chapter 4: Bill of Rights.Chapter 4 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji is titled Bill of Rights. It is one of the longest chapters of the Constitution, comprising a total of twenty-three sections.

Chapter 6: The Parliament.Chapter 6 of the Fiji Constitution is titled The Parliament. The five Parts, further subdivided into forty sections making up this chapter, set out the composition, functions, and powers of Fiji's bicameral legislature.

Chapter 7: Executive Government.Chapter 7 of the 1997 Constitution is titled Executive Government. There are five Parts, further subdivided into thirty sections, which set out the organization, functions, and responsibilities of the executive branch of government. Modeled on the Westminster system, Fiji's constitution does not separate the Executive and Legislative branches of government as strictly as do many democracies, but despite considerable overlap, the branches of government are nevertheless constitutionally distinct.

Chapter 9: Judiciary.Chapter 9 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji is titled Judiciary. It is divided into twenty-two sections, setting out the composition and functions of the Judicial branch of the Fijian government.

Chapter 10: State Services.Chapter 10 of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji is titled State Services. Its fifteen sections establish certain civil service offices, specify their functions and jurisdictions, set out the qualifications and preconditions required of persons holding such offices, and prescribes the manner of their appointment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 209</span> Referendum banning affirmative action

Proposition 209 is a California ballot proposition which, upon approval in November 1996, amended the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the California Civil Rights Initiative was authored by two California academics, Glynn Custred and Tom Wood. It was the first electoral test of affirmative action policies in North America. It passed with 55% in favor to 45% opposed, thereby banning affirmative action in the state's public sector.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms contains guaranteed equality rights. As part of the Constitution of Canada, the section prohibits certain forms of discrimination perpetrated by the governments of Canada with the exception of ameliorative programs.

Chapter Two of the Constitution of South Africa contains the Bill of Rights, a human rights charter that protects the civil, political and socio-economic rights of all people in South Africa. The rights in the Bill apply to all law, including the common law, and bind all branches of the government, including the national executive, Parliament, the judiciary, provincial governments, and municipal councils. Some provisions, such as those prohibiting unfair discrimination, also apply to the actions of private persons.

United Kingdom employment equality law is a body of law which legislates against prejudice-based actions in the workplace. As an integral part of UK labour law it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because they have one of the "protected characteristics", which are, age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, religion or belief, sex, pregnancy and maternity, and sexual orientation. The primary legislation is the Equality Act 2010, which outlaws discrimination in access to education, public services, private goods and services, transport or premises in addition to employment. This follows three major European Union Directives, and is supplement by other Acts like the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Furthermore, discrimination on the grounds of work status, as a part-time worker, fixed term employee, agency worker or union membership is banned as a result of a combination of statutory instruments and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, again following European law. Disputes are typically resolved in the workplace in consultation with an employer or trade union, or with advice from a solicitor, ACAS or the Citizens Advice Bureau a claim may be brought in an employment tribunal. The Equality Act 2006 established the Equality and Human Rights Commission, a body designed to strengthen enforcement of equality laws.

Employment equity, as defined in federal Canadian law by the Employment Equity Act, requires federal jurisdiction employers to engage in proactive employment practices to increase the representation of four designated groups: women, people with disabilities, visible minorities, and Indigenous peoples. The act states that "employment equity means more than treating persons the same way but also requires special measures and the accommodation of differences".

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986), was a case before the United States Supreme Court. It is the seminal case for the "strong-basis-in-evidence standard" for affirmative action programs.

<i>National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs</i> South African legal case

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others, [1999] ZACC 17, is a 1999 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa which extended to same-sex partners the same benefits granted to spouses in the issuing of immigration permits. It was the first Constitutional Court case to deal with the recognition of same-sex partnerships, and also the first case in which a South African court adopted the remedy of "reading in" to correct an unconstitutional law. The case is of particular importance in the areas of civil procedure, immigration, and constitutional law and litigation.

<i>Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom</i> South African legal case

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Substantive equality</span> Concept of equality of outcome for groups

Substantive equality is a substantive law on human rights that is concerned with equality of outcome for disadvantaged and marginalized people and groups and generally all subgroups in society. Scholars define substantive equality as an output or outcome of the policies, procedures, and practices used by nation states and private actors in addressing and preventing systemic discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 16</span> Measure to undo the states ban on affirmative action

Proposition 16 was a failed California ballot proposition that appeared on the November 3, 2020, general election ballot, asking California voters to amend the Constitution of California to repeal Proposition 209 (1996). Proposition 209 amended the state constitution to prohibit government institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, public contracting, and public education. Therefore, Proposition 209 banned the use of race- and gender-based affirmative action in California's public sector and public university admissions.

References

  1. "University of Minnesota Human Rights Library".