92 Fijian Studies Vol 13, No. 2 bureaucracy and the military. This participation of chiefs in public offices, and more particularly in national politics, within a framework that did not adequately demarcate or reconcile the traditional structure of Democracy and the Fijian Chiefly System: Fijian society with the modern structure of Fiji society continued to An Ongoing Problem render the institution of chief vulnerable in the face of unrelenting and inexorable change. Nayacakalou saw this problem way back in 1975 Subhash Appana when he wrote: Malcolm Abbott There are already changes toward a more democratic type of leadership. But the process is difficult owing partly to the resistance of groups which have a vested interest in the Abstract preservation of the old order, and partly to actual conflict of Fiji, once held as a shining example of multi-cultural authority between traditional and modern leaders (1975: 7- democracy, moved through pariah phases for 27 years because 8). of what was considered to be 'continuing political instability' emanating from coups that plagued the Pacific island state The hybrid structure that continued to be used contained within it since 1987 when the gun was first accepted as the instrument dilemmas inherent in juxtaposing traditional authority with modern of choice to change government within a democratic democratic rule. Moreover, the advent of education as well as the framework. At the centre of all major political decisions, from inevitable influences of modernization, that could not be prevented from 1874 to the 2006 Bainimarama coup, lay the Fijian chiefly affecting Fijian society led to subtle redefinitions of the institution of system. This paper critically examines the changing role(s) the chief as his role within the modern structure underwent expected as well Fijian chiefly system has played historically. as unexpected changes. The institution of chief has, therefore, been under increasing pressure that has taken on the proportions of a siege of late with Bainimarama’s declaration that chiefs pose a major obstacle in the Introduction path to true democracy in Fiji (Fiji Sun 7/03/12). This paper critically examines the changing role(s) the Fijian chiefly There is little arguing that the Fijian chiefly system played a key system has played historically from the time the chiefs were engaged by role in supporting and complementing the different models of governance beachcombers to establish some sort of a centrally-organized authority in in Fiji at different times. It needs, however, to be noted that what the a fragmented Pacific Island (pre-1874), to the signing of the Deed of colonial administration 'froze' as the traditional Fijian chiefly system in Cession (1874), independence in 1970, the first military coup of 1987, 1874, was based on the context and prevailing power relationships at that through all other coups until 2006 when the Bainimarama government point in time on an ever-changing power-political stage. This fossilization declared itself opposed to the structure of chiefs in Fiji. The paper raises a did not foresee the challenges that would inevitably test and threaten the number of key points about the changed context, related agendas and the system. The chiefly system thus formed the back of the liberal-democratic challenges these pose to not only the chiefly system, but to what emerges system that presented the 'face' of government in Fiji after independence as the new framework for governance in Fiji. It then clearly demarcates in 1970. It was, therefore, very important that the hierarchy seen at the the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) from the Fijian chiefly system in back (i.e. the chiefly structure) reflected that seen at the front (i.e. the providing a provocative in-depth discussion - based on the precepts of government). This was accomplished, at times with great difficulty, pragmatism, compatibility and contradiction - of what role the Fijian through the appointment of chiefs in key positions within government, the chiefly system could play from here onwards or whether it has surpassed its use value for governance in Fiji. Fijian Studies Vol. 13 No. 2 © Fiji Institute of Applied Studies 91 Democracy and Fijian Chiefly System 93 94 Fijian Studies Vol 13, No. 2 Background established the Great Chiefly Council (later Great Council of Chiefs and then Bose Levu Vakaturaqa or BLV) in 1875, he was enshrining the chief From 1987 when the gun was first accepted as the instrument of within the national government machinery. Government in Fiji was thus choice to change government, Fiji has been maligned, vilified, cajoled predicated on the back of a traditional system that was shaped, fossilized and assisted, at different times to varying extents, towards developing a and maintained by the colonial administration. In his landmark study on functioning democratic framework of governance for the country. In power in pre-colonial Fiji, Routledge writes, 'the traditional socio- September 2013, Fiji got its latest constitution after a painstaking and oft- political order consisted of small, kinship-structured and locality-oriented criticized process. In September 2014, elections followed and Rear entities fighting and intriguing for advantage over one another.' (1985: 5). Admiral (Ret’d) Commodore Bainimarama’s Fiji First Party won with 32 Political power play, intrigue and internecine rivalry had no small part to seats to the opposition’s 18 (SODELPA 15, NFP 3). At this point in time play in these socio-political adjustments. Toward the end of the 18th Fiji is on a 'developmental phase' on its avowed path to democratic century circumstances pushed these vanua further into combining to form governance. Despite the fact that there are numerous complaints about the still larger units called matanitu (confederacy). Thus these social units manner in which voices of dissent are 'managed', there is little arguing emerged 'within the context of political processes', and therefore, were that Fiji is on the long-missed path to economic development as the best- 'power constructs articulated by the continual exercise of force' endowed country in the South Pacific region. (Routledge, 1985: 29). In the 19th century, as contact with beachcombers, There was a marked difference between the 2006 coup and those missionaries, traders, planters, and labourers began to impact further on preceding it in that it did not seek to find justification in the notion of internal social and economic relationships, strategic alliances and kinship Fijian self-determination, cultural protection and preservation. Instead, it bonds began to take on a new significance. It was this social and political sought to propagate the more universal notion of equal opportunity, equal organization of Fijian society that the colonial administration encountered weightage and equal impact of individual votes. In the process, the and subsequently entrenched through its administrative strategy of Bainimarama regime hobbled the Methodist Church, sidelined the Fijian 'indirect rule'. chiefly system and strengthened the government apparatus in rural/Fijian Furthermore, the Fijian derives his identity from his links with the Fiji by elevating the role of divisional commissioners, district officers and qele and the vanua to which he belongs and which belongs to him. The Roko Tuis. Each of these changes has had lasting implications not only Fijian social structure is, in turn, designed, based on this link as Fijian for what has emerged as the framework for governance in Fiji, but more society is organised around the turaga (chief). There is a chief at every importantly for what was painstakingly developed and accepted as Fiji- level of the Fijian social hierarchy, and at the apex stands the paramount style democracy until the 1987 elections tested its unspoken assumption chief of the matanitu. 'The scheme … is of a hierarchy of chiefs, graded of power in perpetuity for the Fijian establishment-backed political party in relation to one another according to the relative position of the units (Appana, 2009). Since 1987, many of the assumptions behind that under their command' (Nayacakalou, 1975: 37). The institution of chief framework continued to come up for scrutiny as Fiji’s political equation has traditionally been surrounded by a degree of mysticism. Tuwere became multi-polar, diminishing the significance of the ethnic variable (2002: 54) says that 'in old Fiji, the chief represented the god'. The that provided much of the rationale for earlier bi-polar models of installation ceremonies are closely linked to the gunu where the god is governance. believed to enter the new chief through the traditional drink of yaqona. Sahlins (1985: 75) puts it more bluntly when he says that the Fijian chief Fijian Social Structure – A Fossilized Construction is perceived to be the embodiment of god. In fact the chief has generally been accepted as being the embodiment of the kalou-vu or progenitor – After Fiji’s cession in 1874, Governor Gordon’s 'indirect rule' was this made him a key structure within the traditional framework of designed to 'seize the spirit in which native institutions had been framed, governance. and develop to the utmost extent the capacities of the people for the It is little appreciated that the office of the chief was traditionally an management of their own affairs, without exciting their suspicion or achieved position (Nayacakalou, 1975: 39). Conquests and warfare were destroying their self-respect' (quoted in Legge, 1958: 204). When Gordon a common means of acquiring chiefly office. Certain outstanding traits, Democracy and Fijian Chiefly System 95 96 Fijian Studies Vol 13, No. 2 characteristics, and/or circumstances could also lead to the assumption of the Fijian Administration – a parallel government apparatus that helped chiefly positions. The succession process of traditional Fijian leadership retain and maintain the protected and special status of the Fijian. This is as well as the physical chiefdoms were not a part of 'tradition' as is now where the chiefs were employed most effectively in maintaining the made out to be.