In his 2013 New Year’s message, Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama announced his government’s intention to change the national flag of Fiji.

What had been a national symbol of unity and pride since 1970 needed to change to ‘reflect a sense of national renewal’ and ‘strengthen a new Fijian identity’.

There was no consultation on whether the Fijians wanted to change their flag.

Civic participation only occurred when members of the public were encouraged to send their designs to a 13-member flag committee.

It was a money contest.

By June 9, the committee had selected 23 designs for public deliberation.

Responses from all forms of mainstream, social and alternative media were immediate and overwhelming.

Fijians objected to the new designs and preferred the old blue noble banner.

The government did not give up easily.

It followed with the National Flag Protection Bill 2015.

The bill contained rules that, among other things, discouraged citizens from using the flag to belittle, disrespect, or insult the state, government, any member of government, etc.

Fines of up to $20,000 and prison terms of up to 10 years have been proposed.

Inevitably, the government was then forced to abandon plans to change the flag of Fiji.

Mr. Bainimarama said in a statement on August 18, 2016 that the government had decided that “the flag should not be changed for the foreseeable future”.

The reason was that it was to “reset national priorities as our people continue to recover from Tropical Cyclone Winston”.

TC Winston had caused widespread devastation in February 2016 and money was needed to deal with the natural disaster.

“The cost of any flag change is better spent at this time helping Fijians get back on their feet,” Mr Bainimarama said while justifying why the flag change plan was scrapped.

But we all know that the reason was not so much the competing priorities, but because the Fijians had simply rejected the proposed flag(s) from day one.

At the time, many segments of society said the government had a responsibility to include key stakeholders in the decision-making process when crafting major changes like changing a national flag.

Today, public consultation is not a luxury.

It is a necessity, especially when proposing a radical change that affects every citizen.

It is a legislative tool used to improve the transparency, efficiency and effectiveness of our laws and to encourage you and me to participate in decision-making.

When the government informs the public about key decisions, it is simply communicating information to its citizens.

It is unidirectional and top-down in nature.

Holding a public consultation is different.

First, in terms of political governance, it is about actively soliciting the opinion of interest groups and individuals.

Unlike notifications, it involves a two-way flow of information and is largely concerned with collecting information as a basis for developing policies and laws.

In this way, the laws correspond to the needs of the people.

Second, through the process of consultation, the citizen is empowered to actively take part or participate in public life.

Third, through the participation of individual citizens or groups, they become more willing to comply with or obey laws, consensus is reached, and political support is gained.

People feel valued when they are consulted.

This increases their sense of “ownership” of the change and their commitment to change.

The police bill caused a huge public outcry in March 2021.

It was yet another example of how the lack of public consultation could lead to public outcry and distrust of public authorities.

The intention was relatively good, namely to “revise the Police Act 1965”, but for a law that went far, especially when it proposed to give a wide range of powers to the police, the public should have been more actively involved.

There was the July 17, 2021 Bill, which was criticized by much of the Fijian public.

Again, his problem was that landowners were not consulted.

There are other examples of laws passed without considering proper and genuine public consultation and participation.

All of this caused a public outcry and created a hole in the government’s image.

Recently, concerns have been expressed about the quality of public consultation on the minimum wage rate.

In Labasa, the largest city in the north, from where I’ve been writing in recent weeks, the consultation on the minimum wage rate was only scheduled for two hours.

Some felt that there should have been a few more consultation sessions so that the submissions could be more representative in nature.

The time allotted for any consultation on national issues should be realistic in order to allow sufficient time for the public to provide a considered response.

Two hours is not enough.

A public consultation where the public is not widely consulted, or where participants complain about the lack of time to react, will result in a rushed document that does not really reflect the mood and thinking of the public.

We are now hearing concerns that the Fijian Elections Office voter registration and outreach sessions may be too short or not long enough to enable effective engagement.

Whatever the truth with the last two public consultation and outreach sessions happening simultaneously right now, we hope our leaders will ensure that best practices are followed when conducting them.

Consulting the public is one thing.

Doing it with a real purpose is quite another matter.

Pseudo-consultation only ticks a box and is a waste of time and public money.

When you go to rural and remote areas where people’s level of education affects their ability to participate, it is important to spend more time building the necessary capacity before they can make a comment, make a point or form an opinion.

Consultation should be broad and sufficient resources should also be allocated to ensure fair representation of minority groups and vulnerable segments of the population.

As citizens, everyone should not be afraid to take responsibility for participating in public consultations.

It is not only a right but also a noble duty.

We all need to see public participation as an opportunity to be empowered to make important decisions that affect us.

We must demand that it be done correctly.

When thought out well and implemented correctly, the time and effort spent on public participation can pay off.

This can result in more widely acceptable and sustainable decisions that people would be more willing to accept and support.

Until we meet again on this same page at the same time next week, stay blessed, stay healthy and stay safe.