Lead finding
FijiFirst's deregistration and weaker PAP support could transform the party system
The single most consequential political development reflected in Wave 1 may be the possibility that Fiji is moving away from the highly concentrated two-party electoral contest of 2022 towards a more fragmented parliamentary party system. In the 2022 General Election, FijiFirst received 42.55% of votes cast and the People's Alliance (PAP) received 35.82%. Together they commanded 78.37% of the vote and won 47 of Parliament's 55 seats, or 85.45% of the seats. Only four parties secured parliamentary representation.
FijiFirst was deregistered on 1 July 2024. Consequently, the party that attracted more than two-fifths of votes in 2022 is no longer available as that same electoral organisation. This creates a significant contest for its former support base, although FijiFirst's 42.55% should not be treated as a single transferable bloc of voters: former supporters may have moved to several parties, become undecided, or changed their preferences in other ways.
At the same time, Wave 1 places PAP at 27.5% of decided respondents, compared with the party's 35.82% share of votes cast in 2022. The approximately 8.3-percentage-point numerical difference is politically noteworthy, but is not a like-for-like estimate of an electoral swing: an actual election result based on votes cast and a population-weighted opinion poll of decided respondents have different denominators and sources of uncertainty. Nevertheless, the combination of FijiFirst's deregistration and PAP's lower measured support is consistent with a more widely distributed field of party preferences.
Eight parties record at least 5% support among decided respondents in Wave 1: PAP, Unity Fiji, SODELPA, NFP, People First, FLP, NextGen Alliance and One Nation. This contrasts with the four parties that obtained seats in 2022. It suggests a plausible opening for several smaller parties to gain parliamentary representation, provided their eventual election-day totals meet the legal threshold. Several of the smaller parties are relatively close to that threshold, however, and a poll cannot establish that they will clear it.
Why the 5% threshold and D'Hondt matter
Fiji distributes its 55 parliamentary seats through a single nationwide constituency using an open-list proportional representation system. To participate in the seat allocation, a political party or independent candidate must first clear a statutory threshold of 5% of the total votes cast. Once this hurdle is cleared, seats are distributed using the D'Hondt highest-averages method, which divides each qualifying contestant's votes by successive integers.
While the D'Hondt formula itself produces a modest "large-party premium," the true driver of disproportionate representation is the 5% threshold. By excluding votes cast for underperforming minor parties, the threshold artificially amplifies the seat share of the remaining qualifiers. In the 2022 general election, for instance, Fiji's two largest parties captured 78.37% of the popular vote but secured 85.45% of the parliamentary seats—a gap largely fueled by the fact that 7.6% of total votes went to parties failing to cross the threshold.
The broader systemic implications of this framework depend heavily on how minor-party votes are distributed. If support is highly dispersed among several small parties that all fall short of 5%, their votes are discarded. This compresses the legislature into a highly consolidated structure, frequently giving rise to a "two-and-a-half-party" system—resembling the historical dynamics of Spain—where two dominant political titans are flanked by a singular, vital minor party holding the balance of power. Conversely, if medium and smaller parties successfully coordinate to surpass the 5% mark, the system shifts toward true multi-party pluralism.
Interpretation
The emerging story is not simply that one major party has disappeared and another is polling below its 2022 result. It is that both developments may have weakened the previously concentrated distribution of party support, creating room for a larger number of parties to compete for parliamentary seats. Whether Fiji ultimately elects a more fragmented Parliament will depend on actual election-day votes, the 5% threshold, the parties that qualify for allocation, and any intervening changes in public preferences. Wave 1 identifies a potentially important change in the structure of political competition; it is not a prediction of the next election outcome.
1
Party loyalty and preferred Prime Minister
1
People First supporters prefer Bainimarama to their own party leader by more than two to one
35.0%People First voters preferring Bainimarama
16.9%People First voters preferring Seruiratu
This is one of the most consequential findings of the poll.
Among People First supporters, 35.0% name Voreqe Bainimarama as their preferred Prime Minister, compared with just 16.9% naming People First leader Inia Seruiratu. In addition, 7.7% prefer Praveen Bala, the party's deputy leader.
People First is made up substantially of former FijiFirst figures. People First also has the word "First" in its name, which came to be strongly recognised with the name "FijiFirst".
Given the choice of Bainimarama, who is not aligned with People First, it seems probable that voters are confused about the parties' identities.
2
A majority of PAP supporters do not name Rabuka as their preferred Prime Minister
43.0%PAP supporters naming Rabuka as preferred PM
57.0%Prefer someone else, no preference, undecided or another response
Only 43.0% of PAP supporters name Sitiveni Rabuka as their preferred PM. The remaining 57.0% either prefer another person, express no preference, remain undecided or provide another type of response. Notably, Manoa Kamikamica receives 8.9%, and Lynda Tabuya receives 5.3%.
Interpretation: Support for PAP does not translate automatically into personal preference for Rabuka. This could reflect support for other PAP personalities, the party's broader political identity, or other considerations.
3
The Bainimarama factor is significant
Among One Nation voters, the preferred-PM results are:
- Voreqe Bainimarama: 42.7%
- Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum: 10.3%
- Inia Seruiratu: 5.8%
Together, 81% of respondents who named Bainimarama nationally are supporters of either People First or One Nation.
There is relevant political context. One Nation previously attempted to register under the name FijiansFirst, but the Registrar rejected that proposed name because of its similarity to the deregistered FijiFirst party.
Interpretation: The former FijiFirst political constituency appears to have identifiable connections with more than one current party — in particular One Nation and People First. The survey provides evidence of overlapping leadership preferences, but does not establish whether voters consider either party the rightful successor.
4
Unity Fiji and FLP have much stronger leader-party alignment than PAP or People First
| Party | Named political figure | Share of party supporters preferring that figure |
|---|
| Unity Fiji | Savenaca Narube | 69.3% |
| Fiji Labour Party | Mahendra Chaudhry | 66.8% |
| NFP | Biman Prasad | 46.1% |
| PAP | Sitiveni Rabuka | 43.0% |
| NextGen Alliance | Apisai Moce | 36.8% |
| People First | Inia Seruiratu | 16.9% |
These figures demonstrate considerably different relationships between party identification and leadership preferences.
Interpretation: Unity Fiji and FLP have a particularly close association between support for the party and preference for its principal leader. PAP and People First attract substantial support from respondents who do not name their respective leaders as preferred PM.
This could be an important distinction when examining how party preferences develop over successive polling waves.
5
Many voters separate their preferred political party from their preferred Prime Minister
This pattern appears across several parties, and is either an indication of a significant degree of political ignorance, or mistaken political identities.
Among SODELPA supporters, 8.4% prefer Rabuka as PM. Among NFP supporters, 3.9% also name Rabuka. Conversely, some PAP voters name people associated with other parties.
An equally interesting finding is that 9.2% of respondents who are undecided about their party choice nevertheless name Rabuka as their preferred PM.
Interpretation: The survey reveals an important distinction between party identification and leadership preference. This appears to be evidence of political ignorance. It also raises a question about how well voters understand the relationship between their party vote and the eventual selection of a Prime Minister.
2
Ethnic voting patterns
6
NFP records the highest electoral support among decided Indo-Fijian voters
Weighted percentages among 427 decided Indo-Fijian respondents.
21.8%NFP
17.8%People First
17.2%FLP
NFP's 21.8% is the highest measured share among decided Indo-Fijian respondents. People First follows at 17.8%, while FLP receives 17.2%.
Interpretation: NFP retains a significant position among Indo-Fijian voters in this survey, but its lead over People First and FLP should not be overstated. The more important finding may be that no party is anywhere near majority support among decided Indo-Fijians.
7
Indo-Fijian electoral preferences are divided across several parties
The three parties with the highest measured Indo-Fijian support — NFP, People First and FLP — account for a combined 56.8%. Another 26.1% support PAP and One Nation combined.
This is noteworthy because the Indo-Fijian electorate cannot be understood simply as a contest between NFP and FLP.
Interpretation: Indo-Fijian party preferences are dispersed across established and newer political organisations with different political histories and leaderships.
Whether this constitutes a longer-term realignment can only be established through successive survey waves or comparisons with reliable earlier data.
8
PAP leads among iTaukei voters, but most support other parties
Among decided iTaukei voters:
35.2%People's Alliance
18.0%SODELPA
16.4%Unity Fiji
Together, these three parties account for 69.6% of the decided iTaukei vote.
Interpretation: PAP has a substantial lead among iTaukei respondents, but nearly two-thirds of decided iTaukei voters support other parties. The iTaukei electorate is therefore far from politically unified behind a single party.
9
Some parties demonstrate much broader support across Fiji's two largest ethnic groups than others
| Party | iTaukei share | Indo-Fijian share |
|---|
| PAP | 35.2% | 13.3% |
| SODELPA | 18.0% | 4.0% |
| Unity Fiji | 16.4% | 6.0% |
| NFP | 8.1% | 21.8% |
| People First | 7.5% | 17.8% |
| FLP | 3.6% | 17.2% |
Interpretation: Ethnicity continues to be strongly associated with voting preferences in this survey, although no major party draws support exclusively from one ethnic group.
NFP's 8.1% among iTaukei decided voters is especially noteworthy when compared with FLP's 3.6%. People First receives a similar iTaukei share of 7.5%. This provides a useful starting point for examining whether parties' support is becoming more or less ethnically diverse over subsequent polling waves.
10
One Nation's support is considerably more concentrated among Indo-Fijian voters
One Nation receives:
- 12.8% among decided Indo-Fijian voters
- 2.4% among decided iTaukei voters
Its measured Indo-Fijian electoral share is therefore more than five times its iTaukei share.
Combined with the earlier finding that 42.7% of One Nation supporters name Bainimarama as their preferred PM, this suggests a distinctive combination of ethnic voting patterns and leadership preferences. The data does not, however, establish these voters' previous party affiliations or what motivates their choices.
3
Geographic differences
11
PAP's measured electoral support is notably lower in Western Division
PAP's weighted decided-voter support by division is:
| Division | PAP support |
|---|
| Northern | 32.9% |
| Central | 30.9% |
| Western | 22.6% |
| Eastern | 22.1% |
Interpretation: PAP's national electoral share conceals substantial regional variation. Its measured support is higher in the Northern and Central Divisions than in the Western and Eastern Divisions.
This illustrates why the Tracker's divisional analysis is important. A party's national percentage may conceal very different geographic patterns.
12
SODELPA has substantially stronger measured support among rural respondents
19.5%SODELPA — rural decided voters
10.9%SODELPA — urban decided voters
SODELPA's measured rural share is 8.6 percentage points higher than its urban share. FLP displays the opposite pattern, receiving 9.5% among urban decided voters compared with 3.4% among rural decided voters.
Interpretation: Urban and rural voting preferences differ materially for some parties. The findings suggest that geographic residence is another important dimension of Fiji's political landscape.
4
Age, gender and vote certainty
13
People First has particularly strong measured support among the youngest voters
18.2%People First — decided voters aged 18–24
10.9%People First — national weighted share
4.8%People First — decided voters aged 55–64
Among decided respondents aged 18–24, People First receives 18.2%, compared with its national weighted share of 10.9%. Its support is much lower among respondents aged 55–64, at 4.8%.
Interpretation: People First's support in this survey is particularly pronounced among younger voters. It would be interesting to investigate whether this is associated with attitudes towards the former FijiFirst government, current party leadership, or other characteristics. The survey does not measure those motivations directly.
14
Unity Fiji's support is particularly strong among respondents aged 55–64
Unity Fiji receives:
- 22.3% among decided voters aged 55–64
- 10.2% among decided voters aged 18–24
- 13.6% nationally
This suggests a substantial age difference in Unity Fiji's measured electoral support.
Interpretation: Unity Fiji's support is not evenly distributed across age groups. Whether this relates to Savenaca Narube's personal appeal, economic-policy preferences or other factors remains an open question.
15
Women are less likely than men to have identified a political party
78.6%Female respondents who had made a party or independent-candidate choice
85.0%Male respondents who had made a party or independent-candidate choice
This represents a 6.4-percentage-point difference.
Interpretation: Women in the survey were less likely than men to name a definite electoral option. However, this measure includes undecided respondents and those declining or not intending to vote, so it should not be interpreted exclusively as greater indecision among women. This could be investigated further in future waves.
16
Northern Division has the highest proportion of respondents without a decided party choice
| Division | Respondents naming a party or independent |
|---|
| Eastern | 94.3% |
| Western | 83.0% |
| Central | 82.6% |
| Northern | 71.7% |
These are weighted percentages of all respondents within each division.
Interpretation: The Northern Division has a notably larger proportion of people who have not identified a party or independent candidate compared with the other divisions. This may reflect different levels of political engagement, uncertainty or willingness to disclose party preferences. The data alone cannot identify which explanation is correct.
17
People First and SODELPA supporters report less certainty in their voting choices
This is among the most useful findings for understanding how settled the party-preference figures are.
| Party | Final choice | Could still change |
|---|
| PAP | 61.1% | 34.1% |
| One Nation | 58.5% | 37.9% |
| FLP | 55.7% | 40.3% |
| NextGen | 55.1% | 39.3% |
| NFP | 54.2% | 43.3% |
| Unity Fiji | 51.9% | 42.0% |
| SODELPA | 45.4% | 47.5% |
| People First | 42.1% | 51.3% |
Among all decided voters, 53.2% say their choice is final, while 41.5% say they could still change their minds.
Interpretation: Being a decided voter is not the same as being firmly committed to a party. PAP supporters report relatively high vote firmness, while People First and SODELPA have larger shares of supporters who say they could change their choices.
This does not establish that any party's support will actually change. It measures respondents' stated willingness to reconsider.
5
The issues influencing voters
18
Leadership and economic concerns dominate nationally, but younger voters place unusually strong emphasis on drugs and crime
Nationally, the most frequently coded issue themes include:
| Issue theme | Weighted share mentioning |
|---|
| Leadership, integrity and manifestos | 20.5% |
| Jobs, wages and economy | 20.0% |
| Drugs, crime and public safety | 12.3% |
| Education and training | 12.0% |
| Healthcare and HIV | 10.9% |
| Cost of living and prices | 10.8% |
An especially interesting result appears among 18–24-year-olds:
- Drugs, crime and public safety: 18.8%
- Jobs, wages and economy: 18.4%
- Leadership, integrity and manifestos: 17.7%
- Education and training: 14.7%
Interpretation: Contrary to an assumption that youth electoral concerns would necessarily be dominated by employment, the survey records drugs, crime and public safety as the most frequently mentioned coded issue theme among the youngest respondents. The national results also suggest that questions about leadership and integrity are as prominent as employment and economic concerns.
These issue percentages come from thematic coding of open-ended answers. Since some answers mention multiple themes, categories overlap and do not total 100%.
