[Photo: FILE]

The creation of a new citizen-led election observer group is raising questions about public confidence in Fiji’s electoral system.

If existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient, critics question why another monitoring body is needed to assure voters that future elections will be free, fair, and transparent.

A Memorandum of Understanding signed establishes the Citizens’ Observer Group to independently monitor future elections. The initiative aims to boost transparency while prompting debate over Fiji’s electoral safeguards and civic participation.

The group’s independence is questioned, particularly as the initiative has developed with support from government agencies and international partners.

Responding to Questions, Nilesh Lal, Chief Executive of the Centre for Democracy and Dialogue, insisted the group was not being created to address failures in the electoral system.

“We are not really responding to any gaps in the election system here. This is about what normally happens during election processes in democratic countries.”

He argued that local observers can identify cultural and community-level issues that may be overlooked by international observer missions.

Lal acknowledges past concerns about election observation, noting that the elections minister has traditionally approved observer missions.

“We’ve had a problem with that because the minister responsible for elections is a political actor.”

Although organisers maintain the group will operate autonomously, Lal establishes that government cooperation was necessary to establish the framework.

Chantelle Khan, Director of the Social Empowerment and Education Programme, adds greater scrutiny to strengthen public trust.

“The more we scrutinise it from every side, the more credible the results become very credible as we go forward.”

Questions remain about whether an observer network backed by organisations that have worked closely with government and international partners can truly be perceived as independent.

Khan defends the coalition, saying member organisations were politically neutral.

“We are apolitical. We may have our own personal politics, but in terms of organisations, we remain apolitical.”

The group is still developing its operational framework and observer methodology.

The credibility of the group hinges on demonstrating genuine independence and delivering oversight beyond existing electoral safeguards.