Consociationalism in the post-colonial world A comparative study of Fiji and Mauritius Gabriel Lönn Bachelor Thesis, Autumn 2020 Department of Government Political Science C Supervisor: Johanna Pettersson Words (Pages): 13980 (36) Table of Contents Introduction 3 Aim and research question 4 Prior research and theory 5 Democracy in post-colonial states 5 Mauritius and Fiji 5 Consociational Democracy 7 Consociationalism in a post-colonial context 7 Research design and Method 7 Design 7 Method 11 Response to criticism 13 Material 13 Analysis 14 Mauritius constitution 14 The first period (1968 - 1992) 14 The second period (1992-2020) 15 Fiji constitution 16 The first period (1970 - 1992) 16 The second period (1992-2020) 17 Mauritius in practice 19 The first period (1968-1992) 19 The second period (1992-2020) 22 Fiji in practice 24 The first period (1970-1992) 24 The second period (1992-2020) 26 Results and discussion 29 Analysis summary and interpretation 29 Other possible explaining variables 30 Future research 30 Conclusion 31 References 32 Appendix 35 Mauritius Prime Ministers 35 Fiji Prime Ministers 36 2 Introduction The 1960s and 70s saw the birth of many new nations as a consequence of the former European empires - Britain, France and Portugal - letting go of their former colonial holdings in Africa, the Caribbean and the South Pacific, sometimes voluntarily but other times due to violent independence struggles. This significant period in history raised many questions in regard to how these newly formed nations would fare both politically and economically; in particular since many of them consisted of peoples that had never been part of the same society before colonial rule and were now forced to coexist within the same borders. Now some 50 years later it can be concluded that this process has been at least partially successful, with some nations managing to develop functioning structures to handle internal conflict through democratic means rather than violent ones - some scholars even regard this period as a third wave of democratization (Huntington, 1991). Other states have not been as successful, however, and have instead entered into a spiral of authoritarian rule, civil conflict and the suppression of democratic rights. This study will seek to further explore this discrepancy of why some countries manage this democratic transition while others do not. 1 Mauritius is an example of a post-colonial ​ nation that has managed to develop a functioning ​ democratic system in a relatively short period after its independence. This small island nation to the east of Madagascar gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1968 under unusually calm and peaceful circumstances. After an initial setback in which the election of 1972 was cancelled due to a “state of emergency” declared by the government, the country has successfully held eleven national elections between 1976 and 2019 - with three different parties having held the post of Prime Minister at least once. Today, Mauritius is frequently ranked as the most democratic nation in Africa and among the most democratic developing 2 nations in the world .​ What makes it stand out even more, however, is the fact that the nation ​ and its society since the inception has been very heterogeneous, with a wide variety of different ethnic backgrounds, religions and languages all being represented in the population. This is a consequence of Mauritius colonial heritage, since the majority of the population are descendants of people brought to the island either as slaves or later as indentured workers in order to work the sugar fields. While a diverse society with no majority group and many large subdivisions is usually seen as an impediment to democracy, this has not been the case in Mauritius, which makes it an interesting object of study. Fiji, on the other hand, is an example of a post-colonial nation that has developed in a considerably less democratic direction. The initial prospects looked positive; after gaining independence from the United Kingdom in 1970, the nation had a 17-year period of prosperity, when it thrived both economically and democratically. This period came to an abrupt end in 1987, when the nation saw its first change of power due to a democratic election. Less than a month into the mandate, a military coup took place which deposed the government; this was followed by a second coup four months later in which the British 1 Note that the term “post-colonial” in this paper will be used synonymously with “previously colonised” and thus has no direct links to post-colonial theory 2 See for example The Economist’s Democracy Index, where Mauritius ranks 18th among the 167 nations ranked, placing it in the category of “Full Democracy” (EIU, 2020). 3 monarchy was abolished and a republic was established. Two more coups would follow in the next 20 years, a civilian coup in 2000 and yet another military coup in 2006. Lately, the country has been advancing in a more democratic direction but international observers still testify about how the government is committing acts of voter suppression, attacks on 3 independent media and has suspended or even imprisoned its political opponents .​ Much of ​ the political turmoil that Fiji has experienced can be seen as a consequence of ethnic and cultural divides in the population; similar to Mauritius, a large share of the Fijian population descend from individuals that were brought to the islands as indentured workers during the British colonial rule. Unlike Mauritius, however, Fiji has not managed to handle these issues within the boundaries of democracy, which in turn has led to the repeated pattern of military coups and subsequent restructurings of the political system. This makes Fiji an interesting object of study in its own right, but also a suitable object of comparison in relation to Mauritius. Aim and research question This paper seeks to understand why some post-colonial nations with plural societies manage to contain these cleavages within the realm of democratic politics while other nations fail to do so and instead develop oppressive and sometimes violent systems where one or several groups benefit at the cost of others. This is on one hand relevant within the field of democratic research, since traditionally deep cultural divides within a society is seen as purely being detrimental to the development of democracy but as Mauritius shows, this is not always the case. At the same time, the question has a practical relevance since an expanded knowledge on how some nations manage this balancing act may be beneficial to other nations dealing with similar issues. For the purpose of researching this broader topic, this paper will focus on Mauritius and Fiji as cases of successful and failed democratization respectively. The research question chosen for this purpose is therefore: - Why has Mauritius developed a functioning democracy when Fiji has failed to do so? The theory that will be used in order to find the answer to this question is Arend Lijphart’s theory of consociational democracy, which describes a certain type of political system that only exists in some plural societies, that puts emphasis on cooperation between different groups and broad consensus in political decision-making. The hypothesis is that Mauritius political system would more closely resemble Lijphart’s model for a consociational democracy than Fiji’s and that this in turn would explain the difference in democracy between the countries. The theory itself will be further explained in a later section, as will the method for verifying the hypothesis. 3 For a comparison with Mauritius, see The Economist’s Democracy Index where Fiji ranks 81st among the 167 nations ranked, placing it in the category of “Hybrid regime” (EIU, 2020). 4 Prior research and theory Democracy in post-colonial states One of the most famous traditional theories on why some nations develop democracy while others do not is Modernization theory, which in simplified terms state that sustained economic growth in a society will propel the evolution of democracy forward; this connection was perhaps most famously made by Seymour Martin Lipset in his 1960 book Political Man. Since its inception, the theory has seen much support, but also much criticism; ​ it should nevertheless not be ignored considering the massive impact that it has had on the field. Since the latest period of decolonisation in the 1960s and 70s, much scholarly attention within the field of democratic research has been dedicated to the study of post-colonial societies, particularly in Africa. Chimakonam, Agu and Agbo (2014, pp 137-155) argue that the export of Western ideology and capitalism to Africa has been detrimental to the development of democracy on the continent, since these values are difficult to reconcile with the way that African societies traditionally has been governed, through deliberation and unanimity in decision-making. While the authors themselves do not bring up the topic, this is still interesting to relate to the concept of consociationalism since one of its central tenets is to build consensus in decision-making, in order to make decisions with broad support among many different groups. This system of governance may thus be more suited to certain post-colonial contexts - such as that of Sub-Saharan Africa - than more adversarial systems modeled on British or American politics. Witsoe (2011, pp 619-631) instead focuses on the case of democracy in India and argues that democracy in modern society can not be analyzed with a single framework that fits all cases; this is especially true in post-colonial societies. Witsoe illustrates this by using his experiences from observing a local election in the Indian state of Bihar, which he dubs as an “alternate democracy”, that needs to be understood in the historical context which has shaped it, from post-colonial times, through colonization and up until present day.