04/06/2026
Press Release
Dialogue Fiji Warns Against Electoral System Changes During Active Election Campaign Period
Dialogue Fiji is gravely concerned by recent public statements from Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka indicating that the ongoing constitutional review process may include consideration of changes to Fiji's electoral system.
The timing of such discussions could not be more problematic.
The constitutional deadline for Fiji's next general election is 6 February 2027. Fiji is therefore now less than eight months away from the latest possible date for the next national election.
More importantly, the Electoral Commission has already declared the election campaign period. The campaign is therefore no longer a future event. It has already begun.
Political parties are already recruiting candidates, raising funds, developing campaign strategies, allocating resources and engaging voters based on the existing electoral framework. Yet they are now being told that the very rules governing the election may still be subject to change.This creates an extraordinary and unacceptable level of uncertainty.
International democratic standards are clear on this issue.
The Venice Commission's internationally recognised Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters states that the fundamental elements of electoral law, particularly the electoral system itself, should not be amended less than one year before an election.
This principle exists to protect electoral integrity, ensure legal certainty and prevent actual or perceived manipulation of electoral rules for immediate political advantage.
The rationale behind this principle is straightforward.
Political parties, candidates, campaign managers, donors, volunteers and voters make strategic decisions based on a known and stable set of electoral rules. They determine how to campaign, where to allocate resources, whether to form alliances, how to select candidates and how best to engage voters based on the electoral system under which the election will be conducted.
Changing the electoral system mere months before an election is akin to changing the rules of a game after the players have already entered the field.
In Fiji's case, the players are not merely entering the field. The whistle has already been blown and the match has already commenced. Every electoral contestant would be disadvantaged.
Dialogue Fiji cannot recall a comparable example in a democratic state where an election campaign has already commenced, political parties have begun campaigning, and the government is simultaneously contemplating changes to the electoral system under which that very election will be conducted. If Fiji proceeds down this path, it risks creating a democratic scandal of significant proportions.
Political parties have already invested considerable time, effort and resources preparing for the next election. Some have spent months developing campaign strategies, recruiting candidates, building support networks and mobilising resources based on the current electoral framework. To alter the electoral system at this late stage would force parties to fundamentally reassess their strategies while campaigning is already underway.
Smaller and emerging parties would be particularly vulnerable. Unlike established parties with greater organisational and financial resources, challenger parties often have limited capacity to rapidly adjust to fundamental changes in electoral rules. The result would be an uneven playing field that advantages some contestants while disadvantaging others.
Dialogue Fiji is further concerned that under the current constitutional review timetable, any proposed electoral system changes may not be finalised until November 2026 at the earliest, even under the most optimistic scenario.
This would leave barely two to three months before the latest constitutional deadline for the next general election.
Such a timeframe would be grossly inadequate.
Political parties would be required to reassess campaign strategies. Candidates would need to reconsider electoral prospects. Voters would need to understand a potentially new electoral framework. Election management bodies would need to revise procedures, training manuals, voter education materials and operational arrangements which would drastically affect their election preparedness. The consequences would extend far beyond political parties.
The Electoral Commission itself could be placed in an untenable position.
An election management body cannot reasonably be expected to maintain public confidence in an electoral process where the rules remain uncertain during an active campaign period and may be altered only weeks before polling day. Such a situation would expose the Commission to criticism, controversy and allegations that could have been entirely avoided.
Perhaps most importantly, public confidence in the electoral process could be seriously undermined.
Elections derive legitimacy not merely from the casting and counting of votes but from public confidence that the contest is being conducted under fair, stable and predictable rules. Even where no improper motive exists, changing the electoral system shortly before an election inevitably creates suspicion that the rules of political competition are being adjusted while the competition is already in progress.
This is precisely why democratic systems around the world place such a premium on electoral stability.
Dialogue Fiji has written to the Electoral Commission to publicly affirm the importance of electoral stability and legal certainty and to make clear that any attempt to alter Fiji's electoral system at this late stage would be inconsistent with internationally accepted democratic standards.
The Electoral Commission has a fundamental responsibility not merely to administer elections but to safeguard their integrity. This includes protecting public confidence in the electoral process and ensuring that all electoral contestants operate under a stable and predictable legal framework.
The stakes are extraordinarily high.
If Fiji proceeds with electoral system changes during an active election campaign period and only months before the constitutional deadline for elections, it risks creating one of the most serious electoral integrity controversies in the country's democratic history.
The Venice Commission's one-year stability principle exists precisely to prevent such situations. The rules of the game must be known before the game begins, not rewritten after the game is already underway.
