Professor Unaisi
Nabobo-Baba, Laisa Tifere, Mosese Natuilagilagi, Sereima Takiveikata, Joseph
Veramu (College of Humanities and Education, Fiji National University & CLCT INTEGRITY FIJI)
Introduction
The
traditional National Integrity System (NIS) assessment used by Transparency International
evaluates key ‘pillars’ in a country’s governance system, such as the judiciary,
public sector, media, both in terms of their internal corruption risks and
their contribution, as integrity systems, to preventing and fighting corruption
in society. The rationale for this approach is that strengthening the National
Integrity System promotes better governance across all aspects of a society and
contributes to a more just nation.
Small and
relatively isolated nations present challenges when applying an NIS assessment
model, with all its pillars. For example, in small island nations, government
functions are often integrated and centralised. Many nations do not have a
fully functioning mainstream media, for example.
In
Pacific Island States, there is often a disjoint between how well the pillar
concepts fit with local culture. Cultural institutions, for example, especially
in Melanesian and Polynesian nations, have a strong influence on ethical
practice, such as the Fa’amatai in Samoa or the Fijian Chiefly system.
Transparency
International New Zealand faced this challenge when trying to incorporate the Treaty
of Waitangi and tikanga within the integrity systems in New Zealand.
CLCT
Integrity Fiji
and the College of Humanities & Education of the Fiji National
University notes that traditional governance systems in the Fijian culture runs
as a parallel system to the Westminster national governance system. Integrating
variables from the traditional integrity system in the assessment tools will
provide a more realistic picture of the NIS situation.
The CHE /
FNU academics have provided these discussion notes under the following NIS
assessment strategies.
1.1 Design of Pacific
small nation NIS assessment should be flexible enough to ensure that the
concept and approach best captures governance and integrity elements unique to
the nations. This could include social and cultural integrity frameworks,
social values and governance institutions.
There is a strong Christian dimension that
intertwines Fijian and Pacific cultural ethos. This dimension, together with
culture, predicates how islanders ‘read’ the world and engage with notions of
integrity and good governance. “Integrity is the glue that holds our way of
life together. We must constantly strive to keep our integrity intact. When
wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when
character is lost, all is lost” Billy Graham.
Design and development of the NIS: The factors that are driving the assessment of NIS has to be from and of the people. We cannot
assume that the people in the Pacific perceive the world in the same way as the
people in the Metropolitan nations; they are different, they have their own
cultures (Lafitau, pp1712 to 1717).
The indigenous people
of the Pacific need to tell their stories. They need to articulate how the
“integrity” concept is defined, implemented and assessed. (Tuhiwai-Smith, 2012, pp 2) and (Vaai, 2017
pp18). They have their own views and ideas as a group of people with distinct
languages, cultures, traditions and worldviews to share. However, the
composition of their narratives was usually interpreted through non-Pacific
cultural lenses (Vaai, 2017 pp 18, Smith, 2012, pp 2).
Pacific islanders also
have their own set of values, skills and attitude that are being transmitted
from one generation to another; this ensures the continuity of their society
and along with it their history, value system and view of the universe. Baba,
T. L., (1986).
The integrity
assessment tools should be predicated on cultural variables that are “socially situated and demands the placing
of the owner of the knowledge at the center. (This) knowledge system and its
ethos, should be the basis of enquiry and understanding” (Nabobo- Baba, U. 2008).
1.2 NIS assessments
should take close account of the country context. This may mean accounting for
such things as relative progress for emerging democracies, size elements that
affect centralisation and linkages between integrity elements.
1.3 Small nations’ NIS
assessments need to include contextual vulnerabilities that can impact upon
integrity resilience, such as environmental degradation; disaster risk,
regional power dynamics; aid dependencies’ economic shocks, stubborn poverty
and inequity; distance; digital poverty and variable literacy.
Baba stressed the need
to understand the critical factors of ‘islandness’ which is the key to
developing a theoretical framework that is crucial to guiding their
development. Baba, T. L., (1986). To ensure that the NIS assessment accurately
measures Pacific integrity systems, its objectives (of the assessment tools)
should be understood by the people for which it was designed.
Given the pervasive
influence of Colonial structures in our national integrity pillars, it is often
the case that the cultural governance system exists as a parallel system with
modern day Western pillars. In Pacific nations, the laws that govern the
integrity pillars are written in legal English that most citizens do not
understand. While national policy writers reference these laws when writing
reports of how their nations are complying with various UN Conventions and
Protocols (that Pacific nations are signatory to) the bulk of the people get by
on their traditional integrity systems which is usually based on oral
traditions!
Assessment should take
cognizance of how traditional and the Westminster systems can complement each
other and contribute to traditional integrity systems enriching the pillars
that are to be measured.
A key issue raised by
Baba that could be an underlining factor is the differences in the focus.
Through their Faith, the people are concerned with the total change of their
society based on Christian principles. This communal approach is quite
different from the national integrity pillars that emphasize the individual’s
role in complying with national laws.
While national
integrity pillars, ensure citizens compliance through deterrent legal
safeguards, the traditional system ensures integrity compliance through
appealing to how anti-social behavior affects the society holistically. Risk
management strategies, where the extended family and clan become social
‘policemen’, ensures that islanders adhere to societal standards of integrity.
The National Integrity
System (as a construct of Government) focuses on the socio-economic wellbeing
of the nation.
The traditional
integrity system concentrates on the citizen as a holistic part of the extended
family, clan and nation. When these multifaceted variables are taken into
account, it will enable a more accurate assessment of the integrity pillars.
In a multicultural
nation like Fiji which has gone through five coups, the democratic system is
illiberal. If the NIS assessment tools are predicated strictly on liberal
democracy, then the scores will be very low (when compared to advanced
democracies like Germany or the US.)
One of the aims of the
NISA is for nations to improve their integrity systems. It becomes
self-defeating if the NISA is predicated on an advanced liberal democracy
integrity system (rather than an emerging developing nation democratic system).
It becomes an exercise in futility since we would already know the assessment
scores at the outset!
These discussions on
liberal and illiberal democracy point to the need for NIS assessment tools to
be predicated on risk management rather than a purely compliance framework in
its variables.
1.4 NIS assessments are
more effective as advocacy tools when they encompass: • Clarity on the current
state of corruption risk and integrity elements; • Consideration of the
relative impact and importance of values driven outcomes and compliance driven
outcomes; • Clarity in the scope (e.g. all sectors of society or public sector
lead focus) • Closer focus on areas of higher risk/lower integrity; • Strategic
engagement with key stakeholders throughout the NIS process; • Recommendations
that are measurable and impactful, targeted and achievable; • Sustained
advocacy on the recommendations; • Sustained monitoring, with key stakeholders,
of progress against recommendations.
1.5 A core element of
any NISA for Pacific nations needs to be the interplay between public awareness
and expectation, and the effectiveness of the institutions of integrity.
1.6 Any regional NIS
assessment would benefit from having natural synchronicity with local and
national reforms; regional and collective reforms and reforms needed to impact
on forces/factors which affect the region but are external to it.
The notion of “thinking
globally, acting locally” in the context
of integrity means that the people in their respective traditional communities are
guided by their communal values of sharing and caring.
According to Mahina,
(2018) we can look into the past, identify what worked then, contextualise it
and use it for our betterment in the future.
Culture changes and can
be integrated with the best of our Colonial heritage and other enduring values
resulting from our globalized existence.
The important message
is that traditional knowledge and governance
strategies have evolved to become a dynamic system. It has stood the test of
time and space. It must act as a beacon guiding people as they navigate the
present and future (Mahina,
2018).
1.7 NIS assessments
would benefit from integrated planning of impact objectives, and an evaluation
framework that takes into account the various impact dimensions.
According to
Nabobo-Baba one cannot and should not work with the indigenous people who make
up more than 60% of the population without taking into account the: language,
indigenous knowledge protocols, philosophies and their life principles (Nabobo-Baba,
U. 2008).
The assessment tools should
follow that framing by not measuring the current national integrity pillars as
something intrinsic in itself. The tools should also assess the traditional and
Western based integrity systems in a holistic manner. The integrity pillars
assess the national governance system to ensure that it functions in a
democratically dynamic way to benefit its citizens. The citizens using their
traditional ethos engage with Government through their extended family and clan
communal lens. This will ensure that the national integrity system encased in
the Constitution and legal documents becomes a living functioning tool for
promoting integrity. (The current situation is that these laws governing
integrity pillars are written in legalistic English which the bulk of citizens
cannot comprehend since they communicate mainly in their vernacular languages.)
Pacific regionalism and
integrity systems
Through the Fiji
National University which has students from various Pacific nations (and other
local and regional Universities) research leading to publications can be
undertaken on national integrity systems. Studies can also be undertaken on
best practices in various island nations. This initiative can promote
regionalism in enabling best practices to be adapted.
Reference
Baba, T. L., (1986)
‘Education in Small Island States of the Pacific: The search for alternatives’,
in Equity and Diversity: Challenges for Educational Administrations, Record of
proceedings of the sixth International Intervisitation Programme in Educational
Administration (Ed Edwards, W. L.) August, 1986, Massey University, Palmerston
North. Pp 79 – 84.
Mahina, H. O. (2018).
Philosophying Past, Present and Future. Paper presented at the Inaugural
Pacific Philosophy Conference (2018). Suva, Fiji.
Nabobo- Baba, U. (2008).
Decolonising Framings in Pacific Research: Indigenous Fijian Vanua Research
Framework as an Organic Response. University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.
Vol. 4, Iss. 2. pp. 140-154
Smith, L. T (2012)
Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Second Edition.
Zed Books Ltd, The Foundry, 17 Oval Way, London SE115RR, UK.
Vaai, U. L (2017).
Relational Hermeneutics: Decolonising the Mindset and the Pacific Itulagi.
University of the South Pacific Press. Suva. Fiji. pp 17-4
