State Society and Governance in Melanesia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies State, Society and Governance in Melanesia State Society and in Governance Melanesia DISCUSSION PAPER Discussion Paper 2009/6 THE HistoricaL TRAJectorY OF FIJIAN POWER Fiji’s army-backed interim regime is an INTRODUCTION ROBERT organisation of indigenous Fijian power Norton that paradoxically has been forged against supposed threats to the military A dialectical process has driven and the multi-ethnic nation from Fijian transformations in indigenous Fijian political ethnic extremism. It starkly highlights the leadership from late colonial times to the importance of distinguishing between present - a process centring on the assertion potentially accommodative institutional and containment of Fijian nationalism, and expressions of Fijian power and excluding the significance of institutional forms of Fijian nationalism. This difference is a feature Fijian power for this containment. Several of Fiji’s political development that can be paramount Fijian chiefs constrained and traced back over many decades to the times exploited this potential in building their of Apolosi Nawai and Ratu Lala Sukuna. This collective political leadership in the lead-up paper examines episodes in the trajectory of to Fiji’s independence. It is Fijian nationalism, Fijian power from those times to the present. the militant demand of “Fiji for the Fijians”, Fiji’s problem in political development has that has, since 1987, brought the army been in large part the dilemma of how to into the political arena, just as it was institutionalise Fijian political pre-eminence primarily this nationalism that gradually in a way that neutralises the aggressive undermined the political leadership of the nationalist potential. Could a constitutional high chiefs. One body of indigenous Fijian provision for a role for the army in the political power has replaced another, both founded system achieve this objective where other in late colonial institutions that established approaches have failed without entailing a indigenous Fijian power in the state: the deepening entrenchment of vested interests chiefly bureaucratic and political elite shaped that typically accompanies prolonged military in the Fijian Administration, and the officers interventions? of the Royal Fiji Military Forces (some of them chiefs). The Historical Trajectory of Fijian Power For all Commodore Bainimarama’s flexibilities that mark Fiji’s political life despite 2 rhetoric about his vision of a “non-racial” Fiji, the starkly contrasting visions of the nation the most significant fact about his army-based that have divided the main political parties. regime is its being the strongest expression of indigenous Fijian power. Commentators There have been three paradigms for nation have remarked on the striking irony in this: making in Fiji: the marriage, initially, of the major institutional 1. The ethno-nationalist: An aggressive construction of Fijian power, with leaders assertion of the indigenous Fijian claim of the group, the Fiji Labour Party, that had of their right to political power, allowing been viewed by most Fijians as embodying little representation to non-Fijians; the long-feared threat of Indo-Fijian political 2. Accommodative entrenchment of Fijian domination. The supreme apparatus of Fijian political paramountcy, allowing substantial power proposing to fulfil a vision of Fiji that representation to others; had long been diametrically opposed to 3. The liberal-democratic: a common the dominant Fijian political leadership and franchise and full equality of the citizens; ideology. emphasis on economic and other shared interests cutting across the ethnic divide The army which had once overthrown - affirming the importance of class rather the progressive Labour Party/NFP coalition than race or ethnicity. government, and its ideology, came eventually to adopt that ideology in alliance with the Rabuka’s two coups championed the first Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry of these visions in opposition to the third and two of his lieutenants. The Labour Bainimarama’s coup-based interim regime Party men have since left the regime. But champions the third against the first, albeit their universalist ideology rejecting political within the context of supreme institutional communalism and indigenous paramountcy Fijian power. The key to this paradox is the remains the regime mantra, including threat that Fijian nationalism came to pose particularly a determination to introduce the to the integrity and political independence of common franchise, the prospect of which the military institution itself, and personally to Fijians had once been encouraged by their its commander. leaders to fear as the greatest threat to their security. The current army-backed regime highlights the importance of distinguishing between Fiji’s modern political history is replete potentially accommodative institutional with ironies, particularly since the first coups expressions of Fijian power and antagonistic - beginning with the Labour Party leaders’ excluding Fijian nationalism. This difference support for Rabuka’s successful bid for the is a feature of Fiji’s political development that office of prime minister (against a Fijian rival) in can be traced back over many decades to the first elections under the 1990 constitution the times of millenarian Fijian leader Apolosi (Rabuka had promised concessions that he Nawai and comprador colonial high chief later resisted fulfilling). The Labour Party Ratu Lala Sukuna. had been the spearhead of the coalition that Rabuka overthrew at gunpoint after its After Sukuna and fellow chiefs encouraged victory in the 1987 elections. Twelve years the colonial governor to keep the “disaffected later, the Labour Party won government native” Apolosi in exile on the island of with the support of Fijian nationalist groups Rotuma, Sukuna eventually became the that opposed Rabuka’s agreement to liberal founder of the chiefly bureaucratic-political constitutional reform which they viewed as elite whose successors were to dominate a betrayal of his coup objectives. Rabuka the national political stage from the late had hoped for a return to power in alliance 1960s until the first coup d’etat in 1987. In with Jai Ram Reddy, another of the Indian this paper I want to retrace the development leaders he had ousted in 1987, but who of this chiefly political elite, its attempt to ten years later worked closely with him for achieve a multi-ethnic vote base, its fateful constitutional reform. Ratu Mara, whose rule conflict with militant Fijian nationalism, how had been overturned by Mahendra Chaudhry the chiefs’ electoral defeat and the nationalist and colleagues in the election of 1987, response became the crucible for the army’s was now pleased, as President, to anoint political interventions, and the warriors’ Chaudhry as prime minister following his replacement of the chiefs (albeit with some 1999 electoral victory over Rabuka. Such high chiefly support) as the Fijian substance paradoxical twists testify to the intriguing of the state. The Historical Trajectory of Fijian Power Since late colonial times it has been on Apolosi remains largely confined to widely believed by indigenous Fijians that confidential files in the Fiji national archives, 3 state power should above all protect them, a book-length biography in Japanese by that the ending of colonial rule should return anthropologist Naoki Kasuga, and papers sovereignty to them, and that this right is by Ratu Sukuna, Timothy MacNaught, and enshrined in the relationship with the British Charles Weekes4. Throughout the colonial Crown established by the Deed of Cession era and even for some years after, there by which leading chiefs gave their islands was a tight restriction on research access to to Britain in 1874. It was a conviction that, the Apolosi files. This fact, and his several although partly encouraged by them, began forced exiles under a “disaffected natives” to greatly trouble senior British officials in law, are compelling evidence of the colonial Fiji in the last few years of their rule. The government’s and the leading Fijian chiefs’ Secretary for Fijian Affairs remarked in a apprehensions about him. Apolosi continued confidential despatch to London in 1962: to trouble the colonial officials and the “There is still a feeling among the Fijians leading chiefs through his emissaries, and that the Governor belongs to them, and that he inspired radical Fijian groups long after his he personally, or through his British officers, death in 19465. looks after them first and foremost, and that they are not interested in what happens to the Apolosi had tried to promote indigenous others”1. Governor Jakeway later reinforced Fijian participation in the business economy the assessment: “There is an element of by organising the Viti Kabani (Fiji Company) racial arrogance in the Fijian makeup which to supervise the harvesting and marketing of must be reckoned with. He really does copra and bananas, independently of non- regard this country as belonging to him…The Fijian traders. He sold shares to thousands Fiji Intelligence Committee has placed first of village people throughout the colony, and amongst possible internal security threats, began to challenge the colonial authorities the withdrawal of loyalty by the Fijians in and to encourage Fijians to look forward consequence of doubts as to whether the to the coming of a “new era” when they British Government is adequately looking would prosper and rule their