Table of Contents
Discussions about Fiji’s politics inevitably revolve around military coups. For many years Fiji was preoccupied with the turbulence and aftermath of the two coups in 1987. Then it was the 2000 coup that preoccupied people. Now we have another coup to analyze, to explore, to use as our current reference point; one which took place in December 2006. This installed a military-backed and led interim regime, with the purported mandate of the President.
The periodic upheavals we have experienced over the last twenty years have given rise to the perception that we have a ‘coup culture’. Whether this ‘coup culture’ is something we can overcome is perhaps the greatest challenge facing us as a nation. The notion of a ‘coup culture’ suggests a pattern of instability that is repeatedly being played out. However, the latest coup has been portrayed as different from the previous ones; according to its supporters it is the coup that will end once and for all the ‘coup cycle’.
Previous coups were carried out in the name of indigenous rights and were broadly popular among ethnic Fijians and Fijian institutions (including the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) and the Methodist Church). The 2006 coup, by contrast, was carried out by the military in the name of good governance and anti-corruption. It was not even called a coup by the military: It was called a ‘clean-up campaign’. Moreover, the coup-leader has expressly defied – if not ridiculed and marginalized – traditional Fijian institutions. Apart from suspending the GCC, there has been a suggestion from the interim regime of a non-indigenous President, and the formation of a state-based land use commission. Perhaps the most compelling feature of this coup has been the deafening silence of Fijian nationalism. The nationalist voice has been shut out. But the question remains for how long – given the highly emotive nature for indigenous Fijians of issues such as land, the presidency, and chiefly structures.
Previous coups put into office governments that pursued a nationalist (some would say racist) agenda (such as affirmative action for indigenous Fijians and land reform favouring Fijians). According to the current military commander, this nationalism – and the fact that it fuelled a culture of corruption – was the problem with the previous government. The 2006 coup was – ostensibly – against nationalism, racism and affirmative action; it installed an interim government comprising people who have been the voice of multiculturalism and political moderation.
Previous coups led to the abrogation of the existing constitution – usually to allow for a more pro-indigenous, racially-based constitution. This happened in 1987 (September). The constitution was also purportedly abrogated in May 2000 by the military, but the courts subsequently ruled that the constitution still existed as there was no legal basis for abrogating it. This time the military has not attempted to abrogate the constitution, claiming instead that all their actions have been about preserving it. There has even been a legal document drawn up purporting that the coup was legal because it overthrew an illegal regime (that events dating from 2000 were in violation of the constitution).[2] It remains to be seen, however, whether it becomes necessary to abrogate the constitution sometime in the future. We are also yet to see the outcome of any court challenge to the takeover.
Previous coups alienated the minority and non-indigenous races; in particular they were seen as ‘anti-Indian’ and they tended to unleash an anti-Indian backlash, manifesting at one level in attacks on rural Indian communities or on Indian businesses. The 2006 coup has been welcomed by many Indo-Fijians (grateful that at least this time they are not the targets). It is not that that this coup is seen as pro-Indian (although that is how some might see it); it is that this coup has been seen as redressing past injustices and grievances committed against Indo-Fijians in previous coups. And that this somehow makes it right. But that does not mean the backlash won’t happen. The great concern now is that the Fijian nationalist elements that have been side-lined represent a potentially dangerous and volatile force.
Previous coups created what appeared to be a fairly stark, if false, dichotomy in Fiji’s political culture – promoting indigenous rights on the one hand and the rule of the law on the other. There has been a strongly held view amongst Fijians that the government or the State should remain in indigenous Fijian control in order to safeguard Fijian interests and lift Fijian socio-economic standards (such as through affirmative action programs). That was the motivating force and rationale behind past coups: To put back into power a Fijian leadership that had been removed by the ballot box. The rule of law was secondary to Fijian rule. Moreover, individual human rights were viewed as antithetical to the more communal traditional Fijian authority.
This coup has thrown up a different – but also ironic – dichotomy. This time it is between social justice and good governance on the one hand, and the rule of law on the other. Past anti-coup/pro-democracy activists appear to have become transformed into sceptics of the relevance of legal democracy in Fiji. The arguments that are being heard now take the line that ‘It seems regrettable that those who condemn the military takeover are obsessed with the ‘violation of democracy’ perspective and fail to recognize the anti-racist and pro-people aspects of the takeover’. This could be termed the ‘social justice’ perspective. So this is seen as a ‘pro-people’ and ‘anti-racist’ coup, which somehow makes it legitimate.
Furthermore, it has been generally claimed that the deposed government clearly showed how democracy could be manipulated to serve narrow Fijian nationalist interests. In other words, our democracy was not real democracy. It was deeply flawed and corrupt. Such a flawed democracy is not as legitimate and needs to be questioned and re-thought.
The third line of argument – following from this – is that democracy, as measured by elections, is not the panacea. Before we have elections we need to address many deep underlying issues. To do this, one person has even argued that we need a ‘benevolent dictator’ in Fiji to solve our problems. Until then we are not ready for democracy.
These arguments underpin the rationale for the promotion by the interim regime of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji. Its task is to develop a ‘People’s Charter’ which would provide a roadmap for taking the nation forward, ‘to transform Fiji toward better governance, sustainable participatory democracy, equity, stability, peace and progress’.