The Politics of Affirmative Action in Post Colonial Fiji
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The Australian National University PACIFIC ECONOMIC BULLETIN Vakatorocaketaki ni taukei: the politics of affirmative action in post colonial Fiji Steven Ratuva This article examines the relationship between affirmative Steven Ratuva is a political action and regime change in Fiji—in particular, how affirmative sociologist at the University of action has been used as a tool of social engineering. It argues Auckland. that affirmative action is more than an ordinary policy prescription; rather, it has fundamental social engineering and restructuring intent, based on political and ideological considerations. Changes in the affirmative action programs have been associated with changes in the interests of the ruling élites, and, since independence, there have been shifts in emphasis and strategies resulting from the interests of the élites. Many affirmative action programs have led to failure and loss of state resources. Since the military coup in 2006, most of the affirmative action programs associated with past regimes have been removed, including through the dramatic control and then weakening of the indigenous Fijian middle class, which benefited from past affirmative action policies. Paradoxically, under the rubric of ‘rural development’, the interim government has reinvented affirmative action, but it is now targeted at poor rural villagers and shuns the middle class. Affirmative action is an often-controversial on ‘preferential policies’ can be misleading mechanism used by states to address issues because, as shown in countries such as of equity, conflict resolution, historical repa- Malaysia and Fiji, affirmative action can be ration and empowerment for disadvantaged a framework for major restructuring and groups. It is commonly conceptualised social engineering. This article argues that as government-mandated ‘preferential rather than being just a policy response to policies’ towards government-mandated historically defined conditions, it is often groups (Sowell 1990:10). Sowell’s emphasis driven by political, economic and ideo- 168 Pacific Economic Bulletin Volume 25 Number 3 © 2010 The Australian National University Pacific Economic Bulletin Volume 25 Number 3 © 2010 The Australian National University VakatorocakEtaki ni taukEi: THe pOLITICS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN pOST-COLONIAL FIJI logical imperatives for the purpose of social of the underlying assumptions is that the reconstruction and engineering. Affirmative creation of equity and a just society is a action in Fiji has been driven by evolving precondition for political stability (Kende political imperatives—initially, by the push 2009). In some of these counties (the United for multi-racialism after independence in States, India, Canada and Brazil), the 1970; by ethno-nationalism after the 1987 designated categories are minorities, while and 2000 coups; and by counter-ethno- in others (Fiji, Malaysia, South Africa and nationalism after the 2006 coup—all for the Namibia), the designated categories are not purpose of socially engineering a new order only ethnic but also politically dominant (Ratuva 2009). majorities. Cottrell and Ghai (2007) make The theoretical discourse on affirmative the argument with respect to Fiji that indig- action spans a number of areas includ- enous Fijians were not exploited minorities ing political representation, educational and did not deserve affirmative action; opportunities, employment, and economic however, the complex interplay between advancement for disadvantaged social politics and ethnicity created a situation groups, identified on the basis of gender, where ‘affirmative action becomes deeply class, caste, ethnicity or physical disability implicated in inter-community politics as (Kellough 2006; Lipson 2006; Sterba 2009; well as in the structure of the state’ (Cottrell Wines 2006). There has also been recogni- and Ghai 2007:228). tion of the importance of psychological The criticism of affirmative action as approaches concerning the cognitive and ‘reverse discrimination’ is based on the behavioural dispositions of designated assertion that it is contradictory and mor- and non-designated communities and the ally repugnant to use categories such as impact of these on society as a whole (Bobo sex, religion or race—which were the basis 1998; Crosby and Franco 2003). The question for earlier discrimination—as the basis for of who should be part of the designated affirmative action (Faundez 1994:4). While category and the justification for defining ethnic affirmative action is highly contro- the designated category are often political versial, gender affirmative action is the least (Neblo 2009) based on negotiating the bigger controversial because of the cross-communal issues: ethnic relations, conflict, culture, and increasingly internationalised and power and equality. Attempts at implemen- universally accepted principle of gender tation through use of labour-market quotas equality. There is a strong argument that have been contested by some on the basis if gender-based affirmative action—or of equity and justice—the same arguments any other form of affirmative action for used to justify affirmative action in the first that matter—is compensatory or based on place (Jain, Sloane and Horwitz 2003). reparation then it is morally justified (Pincus Some justificatory principles for affirma- 2003). tive action are quite common in some The debate about affirmative action in countries. The notion of ‘correcting historical Fiji has largely revolved around a number of wrongs’ is used in the United States (Pincus issues, including the need for equity, nation 2003), South Africa (Horwitz 2009), Canada building, conflict resolution, rights of indi- (Agocs 2009) and Namibia (Usiku 2009); genes, and the definition and composition while ‘equity creation’ is used in Malaysia of the ‘disadvantaged’. The first argument, (Gometz 2009), Brazil (Bernardino-Costa based on the International Labour Organisa- 2010), Northern Ireland (Harvey 2010), Fiji tion (ILO) Convention of Indigenous Rights (Ratuva 2010) and India (Parikh 2010). One (169), was that indigenous Fijians—because 169 Pacific Economic Bulletin Volume 25 Number 3 © 2010 The Australian National University PACIFIC ECONOMIC BULLETIN of their relative lack of entrepreneurial development carried out within the ambit participation, educational and profes- of the People’s Charter (Government of Fiji sional achievement, and socioeconomic 2008)—a social engineering framework for development, and by virtue of their being socioeconomic and socio-political transfor- indigenes—should be the main designated mation in Fiji. category (Fijian Initiative Group 1992; Gov- One of the first tasks of the military ernment of Fiji 1990; Qarase 1995). Herein regime when it captured state power in was a veiled warning that failure to address the December 2006 coup was to engage in the Fijian question would continue to create comprehensive political engineering—a conditions for ethno-political volatility and component of which was the eradication conflict (Fisk 1970; Government of Fiji 2001). of any institution, program or policy from So, affirmative action was seen as serving the old order that it considered archaic, cor- multidimensional interests—as a means of rupt or racist. Affirmative action was one redressing inequality, as an unquestioned of their main targets, primarily because it natural right of indigenous Fijians, and as was seen to be pro-indigenous Fijian and a conflict-resolution mechanism. was thus considered ‘racist’, and, worse The second and contrary position was still, affirmative action was shrouded in that the disadvantaged category should controversy as a result of a major corruption be de-ethnicised and inclusive to include scandal (the so-called ‘agricultural scam’) anyone from any ethnic group considered under the deposed government of Laisenia to be socioeconomically disadvantaged—a Qarase (‘Agriculture scam trial continues’, principle that was seen to reflect the spirit Fiji Times, 7 July 2008). Affirmative action of multiculturalism, inclusivity and ‘social has never been mentioned in any of the justice’ enshrined in the 1997 Constitution military regime’s policy statements, except (Government of Fiji 1997:s. 44, pp. 32–3). in derogatory terms when reference has The third argument was that affirmative been made to the Qarase government (‘Fiji action should be targeted at addressing pov- goes on the offensive’, Island Business, 4 erty because poverty was trans-ethnic and December 2008). The paradox is that the was worsening as a result of a number of military regime has reinvented affirmative factors, including the contracting economy action to shift it away from consolidating an and lack of opportunities (Chand 2007; indigenous middle class to service delivery ECREA 2005). to indigenous rural villagers as a strategy The fourth argument—advocated by to boost indigenous Fijian development the current ruling military regime—is that (vakatorocaketaki ni taukei) (Government of affirmative action is fraudulent and a tool Fiji 2009). One of the consequences of this of rent seeking and corruption by both approach was the general weakening of the indigenous Fijian and non-indigenous Fijian established indigenous middle class through élites, rather than a means of advancement forced removal of prominent individuals for disadvantaged groups (Ratuva 2009). from key public service, board and state The military