Myth making continues in Fiji as supporters of George Speight find all sorts
of reasons to justify the illegal acts of May 19. While the takeover was
portrayed as a nationalist takeover of an Indo-Fijian dominated government,
the real reason was internal power struggles within indigenous Fijian clans.
The chief target was Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara who was seen to be siding with
the government of Mahendra Chaudhry. The configuration of special interests
in Fiji in deposing an elected government must not be ignored. Mara was seen
as a catalyst for exacerbating dissent within the SVT and supporting the
Fijian Association Party, which challenged Adi Samanunu CakobauÕs
citizenship status in 1995. While indigenous Fijian chiefs are related
through kinship and extended families, sibling rivalry had peaked between
the chiefly clans of Kubuna and Tovata.
Following the election of the Peoples Coalition in May 1999, internal
conflict intensified and plans were set into motion to depose the
government. First of all, indigenous Fijian disunity led to the demise of
the SVT in the last general election and members who lost out immediately
started a campaign to form a "united" indigenous Fijian stand against
the
Fiji Labour Party led Coalition. Most of these losers relied on Ratu Mara to
intervene and thwart ChaudryÕs plans to become PM. Unfortunately, that
did
not take place and these losers became fiercely anti-Mara. Moreover, the
inclusion of Adi Koila and Poseci Bune further inflamed anti-Mara
sentiments.
Following the elections, Sitiveni Rabuka resigned and Ratu Inoke Kubuabola
took over. Ratu Inoke was fiercely anti- Chaudhry, anti-Mara and anti-1997
Constitution. The legal challenge mounted by the opposition against MaraÕs
interpretation of the 1997 Constitution with respect to Senate appointments
is one that points to the level of discontent against the Mara-Chaudry
order. The actions of the opposition confirmed two things: that the SVT was
against Mara and that they were working hard to undermine his authority. The
next notable event was the election of Ratu Rakuita Vakalalabure - one of
the chief legal advisors of the George Speight group.
However, moves to unite indigenous Fijian parties were partially successful.
Some members of the Fijian Association Party and the VLV supported the SVT
plan, including former Party of National Unity member Apisai Tora, who
launched the Taukei Movement in April of this year. By then, of course, Suva
businesses had become unhappy with governmentÕs industry policy. ChaudhryÕs
protectionist policy made him enemies among SuvaÕs business community.
The
names of 300 illustrate the level of mobilization against the government.
The two elements - the opposition disenchantment with Chaudhry and Mara, and
behind the scene maneuver by Suva businesses - triggered the takeover of May
19. Clearly special interests were at play albeit claims that the illegal
act was performed to "protect" otherwise "fully protected"
indigenous Fijian
institutions and culture.
The 1997 Constitution had entrenched safeguards to
ensure that indigenous Fijian aspirations are not thwarted by any
government. Issues such as ALTA, mahogany, Land Use Commission, and transfer
of state land were all before the Great Council of Chiefs. The Senate had
the powers to disallow legislation that adversely affected indigenous
Fijians. Even former Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka confirmed that the
Chaudhry government could not undermine or threaten indigenous Fijian land.
Myth making in Fiji is not new. Similar myth making took place during the
1987 coups. One centered around the premise that the FLP-NFP was a socialist
government with connections to Libya and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, the
nationalists claimed that Indo-Fijians were a majority in 1987 and that they
had plans to take over indigenous Fijian land. This time around George
Speight used "Indian colonization" as an ideological justification
of his
illegal act. Some argue that Indo-Fijians have a hidden motive against
indigenous Fijian land.
One Maori site referred to Indian ambition in Fiji as "cultural
imperialism." However, the facts speak for themselves. Indo-Fijians in
their
submissions to the Falvey Committee 1987, the Manueli Committee 1989, and
the Reeves Commission 1995 confirmed that indigenous Fijians need special
provisions to protect their unique culture and traditions and it was agreed
by all parties that social justice must co-exist with economic justice. It
was agreed in principle that special provisions be put in place to lessen
the economic gap between indigenous Fijians and other communities while
implementing a range of policies benefiting all ethnic groups.
The SVT agreed in 1997 that overt discriminatory provisions in the 1990
Constitution would end in two years and that the recommendations in the
Reeves Report will be taken up by the government that comes to power. In
light of the direction agreed to in 1997, Laisania QaraseÕs blue print
for
supremacy endorsed by the GCC on July 13 is nothing more than continuation
of a failed experiment. Indigenous Fijian leaders have yet to seriously
address the contradictions of the "Fijian way of life" with the moves
to
integrate indigenous Fijian into the modern capitalist economy. These
contradictions have not been understood or addressed fully and as a result
we have half-baked, racially weighted measures aimed at creating an "enclave
economy" to shield and steer indigenous Fijians into the arena of commerce
and high finance.
Indigenous Fijians have to learn the very intricacies of saving and
investment. That discipline, unfortunately, flies on the face of indigenous
Fijian village life. Indigenous Fijians own 85% of the land in Fiji and have
control over all natural resources that fall within the boundaries of native
land. Unwise planning coupled with petty rivalries over money continues to
have its toll. That an all-indigenous Fijian government will solve the
problems afflicting the natives and the nationalist rhetoric against
Indo-Fijians is baseless.
For an immediate solution, the President should appoint a Government of
National Unity (GNU) with members from all political parties which were
successful in the 1999 general elections. Following that the GNU should look
at the 1997 Constitution and recommend changes wherever necessary. After all
the changes have been finalized, the President should call for general
elections. Special and sectional interest must not be allowed to dictate the
constitution and government in Fiji.
© Copyright Sanjay Ramesh
July 18, 2000
All enquiries to sanjay_ramesh@yahoo.com.au
This site is best viewed using Netscape 4.0 or higher.
Any problems or kind suggestions, please email: webmaster@lookinglassdesign.com
last revision July 21, 2000