During the past month (now going on to two months) there have
been numerous calls to reinstate Mahendra Chaudhry's
democratically elected government and the 1997 constitution as a
solution to our current crisis, but to do so would be akin to a doctor
treating only the symptoms of a disease and expecting the patient to
be free of the illness once and for all.
During the duration of the crisis it seems there are some among us
who think that democracy is a panacea, a cure for all the flaws
(depends on how one looks at it) in our political system. You have a
society (in this case Fiji) and upon the introduction of democracy,
the nation is relieved of all it's (political) problems.
It then becomes an ideal place to live in. I sincerely hope this was
the case. Unfortunately it is not so. Those who have been calling for
the restoration of democracy do not seem to appreciate the
conditions (problems) which are endemic to Fiji.
Therefore to bring in unmodified laws or a body of laws, systems of
government and expect them to function effectively is not very
realistic to say the least. The two coups of 1987 and the one on 19
May this year seriously question the viability of the existence of
democracy in Fiji.
The three coups very clearly demonstrate that we are not ready for
the kind of democracy the west expects of us. Some will go a step
further and say that we are just not ready for any kind of democracy
at all. Democracy is generally defined as the rule of the people for
the people.
Or as some would have it, majority rule. A gentleman (Przeworski was his name
if my memory serves me
correct) said "... democracy is best understood as a system of power under
which no group can guarantee that
its interests will automatically or always prevail.
It is a system under which everyone must subject his or her interests to competition
and uncertainty." The
democracy we have (or are supposed to have) is the kind embraced by the western
world.
What most people do not know, or if they knew they conveniently forget, is
that democracy in these countries,
especially Britain and those of western Europe, was achieved as an end result
of development. Democracy was
not there from the beginning. It evolved through the centuries into what it
is today.
These countries did not have the luxury of simultaneously having rapid development
(industrialisation) and
democracy. This type of thinking lends credence to the school of thought saying
the ideals of democracy will
sometimes be a hindrance to development.
So to expect a developing country like Fiji to have that kind of democracy
is not fair to Fiji and also not
realistic. It has been said that a country needs to have certain conditions
to be able to sustain a viable
democracy. One such condition is the existence of recognised frameworks within
which the country operates.
These include recognised and accepted constitutional , geographical and political
frameworks. Without these
the survival of democracy will always be precarious and there will always be
the threat of coups, counter coups
and secession. In light of our three coups no more has to be said about the
recognition and acceptance of our
constitutional and political framework.
Up till the coup, maintenance of democracy in Fiji presupposed there was a
secure consensus based on the
rules of the politics game. Those who lost in general elections take on the
role of loyal opposition.
They must not use undemocratic means or democracy itself (collective power
of trade unions etc) to disrupt
normal, everyday lives to an extent it weakens the country as a whole and so
forth. In light of recent events this
third condition might be, to some, the most important one.
The winning party or parties must exercise restraint when carrying out policies
relating to contentious issues.
This is very true for democratically elected (minority) governments or governments
with slim legislative
support and dubious support for major reforms which threaten major interests,
as was the case with ALTA and
the proposed LUC.
This is because democracy is the politics of accommodation, it is compromising
and does not take sides. It is
the politics of the centre. Because of the diverse interests in Fiji there can
be no other way. In Fiji when one
talks about politics (or any other topic for that matter), one has to talk about
race.
In a country so polarised (racially and economically) as ours it is imperative
that a political or institutional
solution be found if democratic politics is to have a chance. To expect a solution
that will erase racism would
be naive. What I am thinking of is a solution that will relegate race to secondary
importance or even much
further back would be better.
Now on what Przeworski said about democracy. It all sounds very well and good
especially to those who
champion or to whom it will advantageous to have democracy. But here in Fiji,
here on the ground, what does it
mean to the indigenous Fijian? If he subjects his interests (land and natural
resources) to (democratic)
competition and loses out?
What becomes of him then? He is not very well educated (the cause is another
issue), he is not wealthy, so
what has he to fall back on, what will be his security in these uncertain, rapidly
changing times? Like what has
been mentioned in the preconditions, if the itaukei engages in the role of loyal
opposition.
During this time, government, using legal means, takes away what is his only
security. Where are the ideals of
democracy then, equality, equity and justice etc. Therefore if democracy is
to work in Fiji there must be some
guarantee that Fijian interests will not be too badly affected in the course
of competition.
If this is not done, and democracy without modifications remains our political
system, then coups will be a
regular feature of our political landscape. That is the long and short of it.
No group will commit itself to the
democratic process if it feels it will be wiped out in the process. And a certain
section of the Fijian community
fears just this.
These fears, their causes and the recommended solutions were very well put
in words by Professor John
Davies in his submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on the
constitution review. In a nutshell
Prof Davies said democracy is alright when it is practised in a society where
the competition is between equals.
According to him this is not the case in Fiji. The scales are tipped heavily
in favour of Indians which is why he
says they are strongly pro-democracy.
Fiji's Daily Post
Note: This editorial appeared on the Fiji Live website but without any attribution
as to the identity of the author. - mjf
This site is best viewed using Netscape 4.0 or higher.
Any problems or kind suggestions, please email: webmaster@lookinglassdesign.com
last revision July 9, 2000