History Repeats Itself. Biman Prasad’s ‘Reddy-Rabuka Revival Tour’ Complete with the Classic Handshake Pose |  |
When Biman Prasad rails against political opponents for aligning with coup-born regimes, he should first flush his own party’s history through the pipes of public memory. Right now, his outrage is less moral conviction and more constipation of historical fact.
Recently, Prasad took aim at a political rival, the FLP leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, reminding the nation that the man had joined the post–5 December 2006 military regime in January 2007, a government born out of Commodore Bainimarama’s coup against the SDL/FLP multi-party administration. He went further, dredging up Chaudhry's criminal convictions - one for drunk-driving causing death, the other for breaching exchange controls to the tune of AUD$1.5 million. Prasad's subtext was clear: such a man has no moral authority to lecture anyone. But Prasad forgets that moral authority is a two-way mirror. Look into it for long enough, and you’ll see your own party’s reflection - and it’s not spotless.
The NFP and Rabuka’s 1990 Constitution
In the early 1990s, under the leadership of Jai Ram Reddy, the National Federation Party struck a cooperative arrangement with none other than Sitiveni Rabuka. This was not post-redemption Rabuka under the more inclusive 1997 Constitution. This was Rabuka the coup-maker, presiding over the overtly racist 1990 Constitution, which deliberately skewed Fiji’s parliamentary representation in favour of iTaukei and against Indo-Fijians - NFP’s own core constituency.
Reddy’s NFP helped rehabilitate Rabuka’s political image. In 1999, they went further, entering a formal coalition with him for the general election. Alongside Reddy, prominent figures such as Biman Prasad and Wadan Narsey were part of the NFP leadership circle. The result? A total wipe-out at the hands of Mahendra Chaudhry and his coalition allies, with Chaudhry becoming Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister - only to be toppled a year later by George Speight’s coup.
From Defeat to Deputy PM and Finance Minister
After the 1999 humiliation, Prasad’s road back to political relevance took 15 years. In the 2014 election - under the 2013 Constitution and its new nationwide proportional voting system - he returned to Parliament with just two other NFP MPs. Today, the party has five seats, and Prasad himself holds the positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. Meanwhile, Wadan Narsey has reappeared on the scene, working alongside former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki to design a new electoral system - yet another reminder that yesterday’s coup critic can be today’s constitutional engineer.
Selective Condemnation
If joining a coup-born regime is the unforgivable sin Prasad claims it to be, then where is his condemnation of his own party’s political history? Where is the mea culpa for NFP’s role in legitimising Rabuka long before he was re-branded as a statesman?
Prasad’s selective outrage isn’t new in Fijian politics - but it’s particularly galling from a man who positions himself as the conscience of clean governance and democratic purity. A full historical accounting would show that NFP itself once traded in political compromise with the very architect of modern Fiji’s coup culture.
Moral Authority Demands Consistency
This isn’t about re-litigating the past for the sake of point-scoring. It’s about the simple fact that moral authority in politics comes from consistency. You cannot condemn one man for bedding down with a coup regime while ignoring your own party’s record of doing the same - especially when the regime in question was far more racially toxic and constitutionally unjust than the one you’re denouncing.
Until Prasad can acknowledge this, his political commentary will remain exactly what it is now - a case of constipated memory.
Sidebar: NFP’s Political Timeline – From Rabuka to Today
1987: Sitiveni Rabuka stages two military coups, toppling the Bavadra led NFP-Labour coalition government. Fiji’s democratic order collapses.
1990: Rabuka imposes the 1990 Constitution, heavily skewed toward iTaukei dominance. Indo-Fijians, NFP’s base, are structurally disadvantaged.
Early Mid 1990s: Under Jai Ram Reddy, NFP enters a cooperative arrangement with Rabuka’s SVT government, helping to rehabilitate his political image.
1999: NFP and SVT form a formal coalition for the general election. Led by Reddy, with Biman Prasad and Wadan Narsey in senior roles, the coalition suffers a crushing defeat to Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour-led alliance. Chaudhry becomes Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister.
May 2000: George Speight stages a coup, deposing Chaudhry’s government. The democratic experiment collapses again.
5 December 2006: Commodore Frank Bainimarama stages another coup, removing the SDL/FLP multi-party government.
2013: New 2013 Constitution introduced, creating a nationwide proportional representation electoral system.
2014: NFP re-enters Parliament under Biman Prasad’s leadership with three seats. Prasad becomes the public face of the party’s revival.
2022: NFP wins five seats and forms a coalition government with Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party. Prasad becomes Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
2025: Former NFP stalwart Wadan Narsey resurfaces, working with ex–Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki on a new electoral system.
Recently, Prasad took aim at a political rival, the FLP leader Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, reminding the nation that the man had joined the post–5 December 2006 military regime in January 2007, a government born out of Commodore Bainimarama’s coup against the SDL/FLP multi-party administration. He went further, dredging up Chaudhry's criminal convictions - one for drunk-driving causing death, the other for breaching exchange controls to the tune of AUD$1.5 million. Prasad's subtext was clear: such a man has no moral authority to lecture anyone. But Prasad forgets that moral authority is a two-way mirror. Look into it for long enough, and you’ll see your own party’s reflection - and it’s not spotless.
The NFP and Rabuka’s 1990 Constitution
In the early 1990s, under the leadership of Jai Ram Reddy, the National Federation Party struck a cooperative arrangement with none other than Sitiveni Rabuka. This was not post-redemption Rabuka under the more inclusive 1997 Constitution. This was Rabuka the coup-maker, presiding over the overtly racist 1990 Constitution, which deliberately skewed Fiji’s parliamentary representation in favour of iTaukei and against Indo-Fijians - NFP’s own core constituency.
Reddy’s NFP helped rehabilitate Rabuka’s political image. In 1999, they went further, entering a formal coalition with him for the general election. Alongside Reddy, prominent figures such as Biman Prasad and Wadan Narsey were part of the NFP leadership circle. The result? A total wipe-out at the hands of Mahendra Chaudhry and his coalition allies, with Chaudhry becoming Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister - only to be toppled a year later by George Speight’s coup.
From Defeat to Deputy PM and Finance Minister
After the 1999 humiliation, Prasad’s road back to political relevance took 15 years. In the 2014 election - under the 2013 Constitution and its new nationwide proportional voting system - he returned to Parliament with just two other NFP MPs. Today, the party has five seats, and Prasad himself holds the positions of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance. Meanwhile, Wadan Narsey has reappeared on the scene, working alongside former Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki to design a new electoral system - yet another reminder that yesterday’s coup critic can be today’s constitutional engineer.
Selective Condemnation
If joining a coup-born regime is the unforgivable sin Prasad claims it to be, then where is his condemnation of his own party’s political history? Where is the mea culpa for NFP’s role in legitimising Rabuka long before he was re-branded as a statesman?
Prasad’s selective outrage isn’t new in Fijian politics - but it’s particularly galling from a man who positions himself as the conscience of clean governance and democratic purity. A full historical accounting would show that NFP itself once traded in political compromise with the very architect of modern Fiji’s coup culture.
Moral Authority Demands Consistency
This isn’t about re-litigating the past for the sake of point-scoring. It’s about the simple fact that moral authority in politics comes from consistency. You cannot condemn one man for bedding down with a coup regime while ignoring your own party’s record of doing the same - especially when the regime in question was far more racially toxic and constitutionally unjust than the one you’re denouncing.
Until Prasad can acknowledge this, his political commentary will remain exactly what it is now - a case of constipated memory.
Sidebar: NFP’s Political Timeline – From Rabuka to Today
1987: Sitiveni Rabuka stages two military coups, toppling the Bavadra led NFP-Labour coalition government. Fiji’s democratic order collapses.
1990: Rabuka imposes the 1990 Constitution, heavily skewed toward iTaukei dominance. Indo-Fijians, NFP’s base, are structurally disadvantaged.
Early Mid 1990s: Under Jai Ram Reddy, NFP enters a cooperative arrangement with Rabuka’s SVT government, helping to rehabilitate his political image.
1999: NFP and SVT form a formal coalition for the general election. Led by Reddy, with Biman Prasad and Wadan Narsey in senior roles, the coalition suffers a crushing defeat to Mahendra Chaudhry’s Labour-led alliance. Chaudhry becomes Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister.
May 2000: George Speight stages a coup, deposing Chaudhry’s government. The democratic experiment collapses again.
5 December 2006: Commodore Frank Bainimarama stages another coup, removing the SDL/FLP multi-party government.
2013: New 2013 Constitution introduced, creating a nationwide proportional representation electoral system.
2014: NFP re-enters Parliament under Biman Prasad’s leadership with three seats. Prasad becomes the public face of the party’s revival.
2022: NFP wins five seats and forms a coalition government with Rabuka’s People’s Alliance Party. Prasad becomes Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance.
2025: Former NFP stalwart Wadan Narsey resurfaces, working with ex–Chief Justice Daniel Fatiaki on a new electoral system.
- Should a Formerly Defeated 1999 NFP Candidate Be Designing Fiji’s New Electoral System?
Fiji is once again standing at the crossroads of electoral reform. Whether the country clings to its 2013 Constitution’s nationwide proportional representation system or ventures back toward variants of the 1997 Constitution’s Alternative Vote (AV) model will determine the shape of its democracy for decades. In such a high-stakes national conversation, the integrity, neutrality, and perceived impartiality of those tasked with designing a new system are paramount.
This is why the participation of Wadan Narsey, a former failed 1999 National Federation Party (NFP) candidate, as co-principal architect of any new electoral framework warrants careful scrutiny.
1999: The Historical Context
The 1999 general election, conducted under the 1997 Constitution’s AV system with both communal and open constituencies, is one of Fiji’s defining political turning points.
- The NFP, in coalition with Sitiveni Rabuka’s Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT), suffered a historic defeat, winning no seats despite securing around 15% of the national vote.
- Narsey, contesting as an NFP candidate, was among those rejected by the electorate.
- The loss wasn’t just numerical - it was a crushing repudiation of the coalition’s credibility, the AV system’s susceptibility to ethnic bloc voting, and the inability of NFP–SVT preference-swapping to overcome deep political distrust.
Any electoral reform discussion led by a figure tied directly to that electoral debacle is inevitably coloured by this historical baggage.
The Legal–Constitutional Dimension
Electoral systems are not merely mechanical vote-counting devices - they are constitutional architecture. Under Fiji’s legal framework:
- Legitimacy: Any reform must meet the tests of impartiality and be defensible under the principles of political rights in Sections 23 and 26 of the 2013 Constitution, or equivalent rights clauses in any future constitutional order.
- Conflict of interest: A lead designer with a past as a partisan candidate -especially one defeated in an election under a proposed or similar model - invites both actual and perceived conflicts of interest. This opens reform to judicial challenge on the grounds of procedural bias.
- Process integrity: International standards, such as the Venice Commission’s Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, emphasise that electoral law reform should be the product of broad, cross-party consensus and independent expert input, not the legacy project of a former partisan.
Political Perception Risks
- Perceived partisanship:
- Opponents will argue that the reforms are designed to favour NFP’s structural interests or to rehabilitate a discredited AV model that failed the NFP in 1999.
- Even if this is untrue, perception is politically fatal.
- Historical baggage:
- The 1999 wipe-out remains in political memory. A reform package associated with that failure risks being dismissed as an attempt to rewrite the rules in favour of those who lost under them.
- Loss of public trust:
- Fiji’s electoral system has already been contested terrain since 1987. Trust will not be rebuilt by placing it in the hands of actors with a partisan past unless they are visibly balanced by figures from across the political spectrum
Wadan Narsey should be one voice among many - perhaps contributing as a technical economist or academic analyst - not as a co-architect of a new electoral system.
Conclusion
Electoral reform in Fiji must pass two tests: constitutional defensibility and political legitimacy. Appointing a 1999 NFP candidate like Wadan Narsey as the designer of a new system risks failing both.
Even if his technical competence is not in question, the optics are terrible, the historical record is unforgiving, and the risk of perceived partisanship is unacceptably high. Fiji cannot afford to taint the next chapter of its democratic evolution with the ghosts of 1999.
“If Mahendra Chaudhry is constipated then Biman Prasad is to be blamed. But it is not surprising because this is the only brand of politics that Chaudhry has played throughout the term of the Coalition government – blame me for all the problems,”
Prof Prasad said.
“This is coming from a person whose political credibility drowned in a cesspool when he happily joined a military regime in January 2007 that was born out of the 5th December 2006 coup, which toppled a democratically elected SDL/FLP multi-party government,” he added.
Professor Prasad also said, “A man twice convicted of criminal offences, once for causing the death of a pedestrian while driving when drunk, and then for breaching Exchange Control regulations after keeping AUD$1.5 million abroad that he claimed was raised to resettle his family in Australia, should be the very last person to lecture me or anybody else.”
Prof Prasad said.
“This is coming from a person whose political credibility drowned in a cesspool when he happily joined a military regime in January 2007 that was born out of the 5th December 2006 coup, which toppled a democratically elected SDL/FLP multi-party government,” he added.
Professor Prasad also said, “A man twice convicted of criminal offences, once for causing the death of a pedestrian while driving when drunk, and then for breaching Exchange Control regulations after keeping AUD$1.5 million abroad that he claimed was raised to resettle his family in Australia, should be the very last person to lecture me or anybody else.”
 |  |
COMING SOON: |  |
When Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Finance Biman Prasad told Mahendra Chaudhry that if he was “constipated” it was Prasad’s fault, he probably didn’t expect the metaphor to bounce back with such force. Because if political constipation means holding something in far longer than is healthy, then Prasad’s record on asset declarations under the Political Parties Act is a textbook case from 2014 to 2024.
*We repeat that he must be charged and expelled from Parliament.
