Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, March 2, 2001Return to democracy
in Fiji may be comingThe issue: An appeals court has ordered a return to democracy in Fiji.
A court decision in Fiji has raised the prospect of an early return to constitutional government. But it may produce more turmoil if the ruling is defied. Responsible citizens should support the judiciary and resist calls to oppose the decision.
Fiji went into crisis last May when an unsuccessful businessman, George Speight, led gunmen into parliament, taking officials hostage and holding some cabinet members for 56 days.
The hostages were eventually freed and Speight and his henchmen arrested. Most of the plotters are in custody awaiting trial on treason charges.
An interim government backed by the military assumed power after the coup. A lower court ruled last November that the interim government is illegal and should step down in favor of a new administration formed by the old parliament, which has not met since the coup.
The interim government appealed the ruling to the country's high court. Five foreign judges heard the case last week, with the government arguing it should be allowed to stay in power to lead the country back to democracy in elections in March 2002.
Now the appeals court has upheld the lower court ruling that the government is illegal and ordered it to relinquish power.
Declaring that the interim government had not proved its right to rule, the court said President Ratu Josefa Iloilo must summon the disbanded parliament and step down by March 15.
The court found that parliament was never dissolved by the coup and that Fiji's constitution remains the country's supreme authority.
In a television and radio broadcast, President Ratu Josefa Iloilo and Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase said the government accepted the decision, but would hold a series of meetings to decide how to implement it.
This isn't going to be easy. The Speight revolt was fueled by simmering resentment by indigenous Melanesians against the large Asian Indian minority. The revolt overthrew a government headed by an Indian, Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.
Chaudhry has vowed not to share power with any politicians linked to the coup, making it difficult to form a new government. Moreover, Fijian nationalists and some elements of the military are unlikely to accept Chaudhry's return.
The court ruling could spark anti-Indian protests and perhaps a resurgence of violence. But the chaos produced by the revolt last May should deter Fijians from defying the order.
There must be a better way to resolve Melanesian-Indian conflicts.
Ruling protects poor
THE fact that the federal government is paying lawyers who serve the poor does not give the government the authority to prohibit those lawyers from suing the government over the loss of welfare benefits.
In that 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court majority viewed the issue as one of freedom of speech, and indeed the ruling advances that cause. It overturns a decision by Congress to condition funding for the Legal Services Corp. on a promise not to challenge existing welfare law. In practice, that meant Legal Services lawyers could not sue over effects of the 1996 welfare overhaul passed by the Republican-led Congress.
"The Constitution does not permit the government to confine litigants and their attorneys in this manner," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority.
Kennedy acknowledged that Congress was under no obligation to fund an organization like the LSC or to pay for its activities. However, the government cannot violate the First Amendment in order to protect itself from court challenges, he wrote.
Steven R. Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, noted, "The opinion says that the government cannot use its power over funding to manipulate the terms of public debate. Merely because the government gives up the money doesn't mean it can impose any restrictions it wants."
The four-member minority argued there is little difference between the restriction on legal services lawyers and one that had already passed high court muster -- the prohibition enacted by Congress against doctors talking to patients about abortion if the doctors received federal funds for a family planning program. That 1991 decision also was the result of a 5-4 split.
The court may choose to revisit the question in future cases in an attempt to resolve this apparent contradiction.
Congress also barred use of Legal Services funds for class-action lawsuits, lobbying legislators, providing aid to certain immigrants, seeking lawyers' fees or representing prison inmates.
A challenge to those restrictions is awaiting Supreme Court action. Lawyers said they expect the justices to send the case back to a federal appeals court for reconsideration in light of Wednesday's decision.
There is something peculiar about lawyers paid with government funds challenging laws in the courts, but the First Amendment's protection of free speech is unqualified and should be given the broadest possible interpretation.
It would be regrettable if Congress reacted to this decision by cutting off funding for the Legal Services Corp.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
Frank Bridgewater, Acting Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
