My intention in this chapter is to explore the extent to which international parliamentary democratic norms—including gender sensitive parliamentary norms—have found their own roots in the political context of Fiji. I begin with a brief description of parliamentary norms articulated at the international level and then present an overview of the gendered institution of parliament in this Pacific nation. From this discussion, I identify three tensions in the translation of democratic norms in Fiji: first, that a concern with ethnic diversity has taken precedence over gender diversity in Fiji; second, that collective deliberation has been thwarted by a political tendency towards decision taking rather than decision making; and third, that parliamentary staff are bound by cultural hierarchies over bureaucratic hierarchies, making it difficult to present frank and fearless advice to political elites. I suggest that much of this tension is driven by a disconnect between Fijian social and cultural norms and Western-defined parliamentary democratic norms. While similar disconnects are characteristic of many post‐colonial parliaments, there are also uniquely Fijian elements at play.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Local Context: Parliamentary Democratic Norms in Fiji

  • Sonia Palmieri

摘要

My intention in this chapter is to explore the extent to which international parliamentary democratic norms—including gender sensitive parliamentary norms—have found their own roots in the political context of Fiji. I begin with a brief description of parliamentary norms articulated at the international level and then present an overview of the gendered institution of parliament in this Pacific nation. From this discussion, I identify three tensions in the translation of democratic norms in Fiji: first, that a concern with ethnic diversity has taken precedence over gender diversity in Fiji; second, that collective deliberation has been thwarted by a political tendency towards decision taking rather than decision making; and third, that parliamentary staff are bound by cultural hierarchies over bureaucratic hierarchies, making it difficult to present frank and fearless advice to political elites. I suggest that much of this tension is driven by a disconnect between Fijian social and cultural norms and Western-defined parliamentary democratic norms. While similar disconnects are characteristic of many post‐colonial parliaments, there are also uniquely Fijian elements at play.