Fiji Election 2014- Part 1: Land, Christianity and Racism

Fiji Election 2014- Part 1: Land, Christianity and Racism

PROLOGUE by Thakur Ranjit Singh:

Laisenia Qarase was seen as a clean banker who Frank Bainimarama appointed as Interim Prime Minister of Fiji in 2000 after Speight coup. Subsequently, he tasted power, and sided with ethno-nationalist and formed SDL Party and won 2001 and 2006 election. He was removed by Bainimarama on 5 December, 2006 because of his actions that divided the nation, his racists policies and tendency to be leader of i-Taukei only.

LAESENIA QARASE, former Prime Minister of Fiji who was appointed by Frank Bainimarama in 2000, and deposed by him in 2006, upon numerous warning to abandon his racist stance and ethno-nationalistic policies. Now, he wants a Christian State and has again gone back to the gutter of racist divisive politics, as reported by Fiji Live. Qarase is de-facto leader of SODELPA party which is headed by his former equally racist Minister of Education, and sister-in-law of Ratu Mara.

In the coming election, he is leading SODELPA- a re-incarnation of his racist SDL Party. In the campaign this week, as reported by Fiji Village, he told people that he believed that God had given Fiji to the Itaukei and not to any other race. He said the reason why he wanted people of other races not to be equal with the Itaukei is because of his belief that God has given the land to the forefathers of the Itaukei people.

Qarase has also come out and said that he wanted Fiji to be a Christian state because Christianity brought civilization to Fiji. It is this type of blinkered and jaundiced leaders that Bainimarama wanted removed from politics. Fiji in a sense is blessed that we have a military which is capable of removing democracy which become mad and rabid.

Read on observation by our Guest Writer, Rajendra Prasad, on the upcoming election.

Part 1:Land, Christianity and Racism

By Guest Writer: Rajendra Prasad, Auckland, NZ.

RAJENDRA PRASAD,  Guest Writer for FIJI PUNDIT blog site. He just returned from Fiji and gives a feedback on what he saw in preparedness for the election 2014.

I spent a week in Fiji (9^th to 16^th July) and saw a nation on the move to claim its place among the democratic nations of the world. On September 17, 2014 Fiji will go to the polls to elect its first Parliament after the military coup of December 5, 2006. It will be held under the new 2013 Constitutions, which is strikingly different to all the previous constitutions. The 1970, 1990 and 1997 Constitution advocated ethnic voting whereas the 2013 Constitution has removed this provision and every citizen of Fiji is now on one roll. The basic precept of such provision is “one person, one vote, one value” for all. Equality and dignity of every citizen is the rallying cry of this Constitution. 

Remarkably, a departure from the norm has gone down well with the majority of people except those who exploited ethnicity to rob their way to power. Ethnic voting kept the nation divided, giving way to racism to flourish. Multiracialism and multiculturalism existed in name. 

There are those who laud the Bainimarama Government for the changes and work it has accomplished in eight years of its rule. Many believe that Fiji’s rotten democracy needed drastic measures for drastic change. The Fijian democracy was a cover for autocracy to prevail by the chosen few who benefitted from the state of anarchy that became the core character of the nation. The Bainimarama Government, though unelected, has given the nation a new taste of what democracy, equality and dignity entails. At least the common citizen feels that he/she is part of a modern, secular, inclusive and equal society and not ruled by racist bigots. Interestingly, security of indigenous land is never an issue except in the period preceding an election. It is used by the racist bigots to camouflage truth, as it fires the emotions of indigenous people on a non-existent threat and they vote en-masse to their ‘so-called champions’. Yet, it has been revealed that, when in power, they had insidiously converted land at Momi and Denarau to freehold.

FRANK BAINIMARAMA -though un-elected, he has given the nation a new taste of what democracy, equality and dignity entails. He is heading Fiji First Party in election 2014

But let us dispassionately review the land issue. Let there be no illusion, it is implied that such threat comes from Indo-Fijians. They have been in Fiji for 135 years and in this period they have not appropriated an inch of indigenous owned land. However, many had leased such land but when the leases expired or upon extra-legal action taken by landowners, largely at the instigation of their leaders, they vacated such land without resistance or demand for compensation. Today, most of such land is lying fallow, compounding the poverty of landowners whose rental income has ceased forever. Further, since independence for 36 years (1970-2006) the iTaukei elite have been in power for 35 years and yet they did nothing to liberate their people from poverty but always blamed Indo-Fijians for it. 

Bizarrely, they pursued policies to marginalize and dispossess Indo-Fijians so that the two communities gained parity in destitution when they should have promoted the prosperity of both to economically benefit the nation. The current Government is advocating prosperity for all and equitable sharing and distribution of resources. Rental income will no longer be shared by others, as in the past, which left peanuts for the landowners. They are now being encouraged to lease their land through the TLTB or Land Bank to enable them to receive regular rental income. Indeed, productive use of land resources by landowners themselves or tenants is in the best interest of everyone.  God gave this vital gift to humanity to use it for its livelihood and prosperity. Those who own such resources should not squander the opportunities that abound.

Land and religion in Fiji comprise the most volatile fuel to kindle the racial conflagration. Religion is now also being dragged by the advocates of racism in a desperate bid to win the election. Most, if not all, project themselves as devout Christians. Yet, Christianity is a religion that is anchored to love. Christianity without love equates to heathenism. People who use Christianity to pursue their racist agendas will struggle to make it through the narrow gates. In Christianity, it is not the cover but content and adherence to Bible’s noble precepts that identify Christians. Those who use malice, hatred and violence, the weapons of the devil, to justify the unjustifiable demean Christianity. Indeed, there is no point in declaring Fiji a Christian State when those who advocate it hold the sword of violence to achieve their goals and objectives. Indeed, Christianity could have been effectively used to rout racism in Fiji; instead it has been used as a weapon against the lost who shun it as a religion bereft of love, tolerance and goodwill. They also rightly claim that today, in Fiji, more Christians are in prison than those whom they label as pagans. Could this also be attributed them, as iTaukei poverty is?

Indeed, racism in Fiji is a British legacy. Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna had famously said that the two races were locked in their racial kennels and they barked and snarled at each other.  He knew it but did nothing to destroy the kennels that the colonial masters had constructed. With passage of time, racial compartmentalization, as presaged by the British consolidated. It was the worst gift the British gave to independent Fiji. Rightly, it should have been rejected, which is a sad commentary on the vision of leaders of that era who, by accepting it, chose racism to shape the destiny of the nation. The result is before our eyes, as a nation once considered the jewel of the Pacific has become the pariah of the Pacific. Only beneficiaries were the leaders who relished power, position and perks, leaving the masses to scramble for the crumbs. A nation with the potential to become economically rich and a flag bearer for the island nations in the Pacific became a pauper. But the parasitic attachment of its leaders to feed their greed remained persistent. [To be continued…

 Sheer lack of remorse and moral conscience of some of the leaders, convicted for abuse of office or violation of taxation laws: Some leaders playing key role in election 2014. [ Fiji Sun photo] 

TO BE CONTINUED.....Fiji Election 2014- Part 2: Controls on Media and Divisive Politics promoted better race relations…

What amused and also saddened me was the sheer lack of remorse and moral conscience of some of the leaders, convicted for abuse of office or violation of taxation laws, as they campaigned for their political parties. They moved around defiant and dismissive of their past when common decency expected them to leave the public domain.

E-Mail: raj.prasad@xtra.co.nz / thakurji@xtra.co.nz

[About the Author: Rajendra Prasad is the author of “Tears in Paradise”, former Ba Town Clerk and an analyst on Fiji’s struggling efforts to seek an appropriate form of democracy.]

Government by Greed: Part 3 – Power in Perpetuity or Coup

Government by Greed: Part 3 – Power in Perpetuity or Coup

By Guest Writer Subhash Appana

It is no secret that the architects of the 1970 constitution, apart from the Indian delegation, envisaged power in perpetuity for the Fijian Establishment-backed Alliance Party of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara…..

RATU SIR KAMISESE MARA- Fiji's first Prime Minister from 1970 -1987, when after 17 years of Alliance rule, the 1970 Constitution , all of a sudden was found lacking, when his Alliance Party lost the election. That Constitution was deemed good as long as the Eastern Chiefs ruled Fiji.

Democracy in Fiji was thus meant to ensure power in perpetuity to the Alliance Party and no one could really expect any different for the country. The role of the military as a protector of this shakily established façade of democracy was therefore, always open to revolutionary introspection – Rabuka’s coup should not have been such a big surprise.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Power in Perpetuity or Coup

It has been contended here that in the initial post-1970 scheme of governance (and politics) in Fiji, the Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) was supposed to play the usual role of any military in a democracy – protect the constitution and everything it stood for. The problem arose in understanding what democracy entailed and what the constitution was supposed to stand for within a functioning democratic framework.

It is no secret that the architects of the 1970 constitution, apart from the Indian delegation, envisaged power in perpetuity for the Fijian Establishment-backed Alliance Party of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. In fact many have argued that this would have served Fiji best. I beg to differ - a benevolent dictatorship with periodic elections to perpetuate the carefully crafted façade of democracy based on ethnicity would have had limited life at best in a changing traditional context with a large immigrant community.

But that is not the point of this article; we want to see how the military’s role was kept hazy for those who could not “see” through the delirium and euphoria of independence. Firstly there was a direct link between the military hierarchy and national government – both had Fijian chiefs amongst a sprinkling of white key personnel. The chiefs at the apex of the chiefly system, and the military and government had very close blood ties.

Secondly, the electorate was expected to remain divided along ethnic lines forever. This, coupled with the expectation of a united Fijian government (with a multi-racial hue), and a bickering Indian opposition, was supposed to characterize democracy Fiji-style. In the event of any disruptions to these expectations, the disproportionate number of “Others” in parliament was expected to hold the balance of power – a powerful trump card for government.

Democracy in Fiji was thus meant to ensure power in perpetuity to the Alliance Party and no one could really expect any different for the country. The role of the military as a protector of this shakily established façade of democracy was therefore, always open to revolutionary introspection – Rabuka’s coup should not have been such a big surprise. The first jolt had already come in April 1977 when the NFP won against all expectations. Adroit constitutional and political manoeuvring prevented any unwanted fall-out at that stage.

A young Brigadier -General Sitiveni Rabuka, who was identified as a tool to ensure continuous rule by Eastern Chiefs through Military intervention, if things did not work the Alliance Party way. Read Part 4 for more on this.

After 1982, the writing was on the wall and talks began to emerge of a government of national unity. Political immaturity prevented this from materializing. In the meantime, a common political platform began to emerge among the working-classes as the Mara government started implementing necessary, but unpopular economic policies. One of these, the 1985 wage freeze, led to the formation of the Fiji Labour Party by Fiji’s main labour unions on 6^th July 1985.

This heralded the arrival of a non-ethnic political platform in the country that up till then could only envisage politics through the ethnic lens. There was an expectation within the Fijian Establishment that democracy was only acceptable so long as it assured power and victory to the Establishment-backed party at any and every election. This was the Fijian position on government. And it stemmed from an omission to prepare them for real democracy and a commission to keep them distrustful of Indians, the main perceived political threat.

I recall an indicative incident in 1977. The NFP had won and was poised to form government as Fiji waited on edge. A pall of despondency and darkness descended on my village, Vuna in Taveuni. Life came to a standstill and there was much consternation, then confusion, then complaining among kava drinking. In a trip to the local liquor outlet, the Wainiyaku Butchery, an inebriated and unhappy chief lamented loudly, “sa oti - all is lost” to Adrian Tarte of the prominent Tarte family.

SUBHASH APPANA, Guest Author for FIJI PUNDIT, was born and bred in the Chiefly village of Vuna in Taveuni. As a young man in 1977, when first Alliance party lost the election, he experience first-hand that indigenous Fijians were not ready for a change in government from the chiefly rule of Eastern Chiefs.

Adrian’s response, “no, nothing has gone wrong, that’s the way it is”. After that, there were mutterings as the group moved across the road from the butchery with boxes of Fiji Bitter. I was only a child then, but distinctly remember the frills-free emotional outbursts that followed. One point kept coming through, how could this happen to us! Our country cannot be ruled by outsiders, this is not right! That was the level of understanding of democracy that persisted into 1987 as Fiji geared for its most crucial elections yet.

And as mentioned earlier, a new phenomenon had entered the political scene in the form of the multi-racial Fiji Labour Party that espoused a non-ethnic, issues-focused political platform. Its victory-focused coalition with the Indian-dominated National Federation Party diluted this somewhat, but the writing was on the wall. On the other hand, Fijian unity had begun to fray within an outdating chiefly system as Butadroka pranced on his anti-Mara platform.

Once a Deputy Minister in Ratu Mara's Alliance Government, SAKIASI BUTADROKA formed Fijian Nationalist Party, determine to oust Ratu Mara, which he succeeded in doing in 1977 ( half-done) and finished the job with the loss of Alliance in 1987, which, as predicted, resulted in coup.

When Mara’s Alliance Party finally did lose in April 1987, an unsuspecting Fijian electorate was apparently caught absolutely unawares. What was not meant to be had happened! The Indians had tricked Fijians into joining the FLP! Little India in Fiji! How dare they disrespect chiefs! The Fijians thus were not willing to accept the verdict of the ballot box. And more importantly, even though Ratu Mara made his famous speech on “democracy is alive and well in Fiji”, his defeated colleagues rejected the outcome.

In that silently crackling cauldron all that was needed was an outlet for Fijian reaction. That’s where Apisai Tora and the Taukei Movement emerged. The first roadblocks were mounted in Tavua as Emperor Gold Mines decided its business interests were under threat from a socialist-leaning government. Fiery ethno-nationalist speeches, hymns, sermons, nationalistic songs, food, transport and an underlying threat of unmitigated violence became part of an orchestrated movement against the Bavadra government.

 

APISAI TORA,  a natinalist politician, who once was a politician in Indian National Federation Party (NFP), has been instrumental in leading unrest that ultimately resulted in the coups of 1987, as well as 2000. His biggest past-time was organising anti-Indian marches, that tended to cause political instability in Fiji.

While this was happening, others had begun to explore the military option to right the wrong that democracy and an ungrateful, conniving Indian community had dropped on Fiji. The RFMF’s 3^rd-ranking officer was suddenly playing golf on the same Pacific Harbour course as the defeated PM. More Alliance politicians had begun to appear openly at Taukei rallies. A drastic solution had to be found for Fiji. Coup was in the air. [Keep reading]

[E-Mail: appanas@hotmail.com  / thakurji@xtra.co.nz

Stay tuned - Part 4: The Military Card Had to Be Played

After the 1987 elections, as the orchestrated rebellion against the verdict of the ballot box became more strident and violent, a dark silent group began making overtures to the RFMF. And Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka was identified as the right choice to execute a coup-de-tat even though he was number 3 in the military hierarchy.

was finally in place: the taukei marchers, power preachers, escalating and apparently uncontrollable crime and violence, chiefly withdrawal, US complicity, key business support, and a primed military goon squad under the command of a committed senior officer. Next stop, treason at 10. Keep tuned.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[About the Author: Subhash Appana is an Indo-Fijian academic with Fijian family links. He was brought up in the chiefly village of Vuna in Taveuni and is particularly fond of the Fijian language and culture. Subhash has written extensively on the link between the politics of the vanua, Indo-Fijian aspirations and the continued search for a functioning democracy in Fiji. This series attempts to be both informative and provocative keeping in mind the delicate, distractive and often destructive sensitivities involved in cross-cultural discourses of this type.]

Government by Greed: PART 2: Role of the Fiji Military

Government by Greed: PART 2: Role of the Fiji Military

By Guest Writer-Subhash Appana

SUBHASH APPANA, Guest Writer for FIJI PUNDIT blog site, giving you an insight into the historical role and intentions of Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) and how it was intended to ALWAYS support a Fijian and Chiefly-led Alliance Government.

The British system of running the military with a class structure and inbuilt systems of discrimination became accepted practice. That’s partly why Indian demands for equal pay to join the military after 1939 was seen as treachery.

Selective recruitment had already been established as part of the Native Constabulary where loyal eastern Fijians (as opposed to westerners) had privileged access and Indians did not feature at all. Later Indians were barred through elaborate physical requirements of height and weight. This, after Indian troops from the sub-continent had already shed 85,000 lives for the Crown and Churchill had described them as “splendid fighting men”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Role of the Fiji Military

The last Greed article focused on the Fiji Military and how it evolved from the Royal Army of Ratu Seru Cakobau that was used to subjugate renegade tribes in the highlands of Viti Levu, to the Armed Native Constabulary that confronted Indo-Fijian worker strikes, to the Royal Fiji Military Forces that saw Fiji through independence in 1970. Just what was the role of the RFMF in the independent, democratic sovereign state of Fiji was either deliberately or conveniently left unclear at that juncture.

Going back to Fiji military participation in the two world wars on behalf of Bolatagane (or Land of Men) and empire, WW1 (1914-18) was waged for “democracy”. The same happened in WW2 (1939-45) with its focus on thwarting fascism. And during the Malayan Emergency (1948-60), the enemy were communist insurgents who again presented a threat to democracy. Ironically, while these manly international campaigns were being waged for “freedom” and “democracy”, leaders in Fiji were totally unconcerned about the pleas of Fiji’s very own semi-slaves, THE GIRMITIYA.

The forgotten GIRMITIYAS, who Fiji's history as well as the colonial government ignored. While RFMF was waging  ' international campaigns" in honour and name of "freedom" and "democracy", the leaders in Fiji were blind to the plight of these slaves, under  another name for slavery - Indenture or Girmit.

Another, more insidious, military reality of the time involved the establishment of a white officer-class and a 2-tier system of pay and discriminatory recruitment into the military. Ironically Fiji’s most distinguished son, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna, joined the French Foreign Legion because of this very same discriminatory recruitment in the British Army – Ratu Sukuna was refused entry into the British Army.

British Army was an epitome of discrimination. Fiji's proud son and military leader, RATU SIR LALA SUKUNA,  was refused entry in the British Army, so he joined the French Foreign Legion.

At independence in 1970 Fijian troops had thus participated in 3 major British military campaigns on behalf of democracy, but were never really apprised of its mechanics and implications. The British system of running the military with a class structure and inbuilt systems of discrimination became accepted practice. That’s partly why Indian demands for equal pay to join the military after 1939 was seen as treachery.

Moreover, selective recruitment had already been established as part of the Native Constabulary where loyal eastern Fijians (as opposed to westerners) had privileged access and Indians did not feature at all. Later Indians were barred through elaborate physical requirements of height and weight. This, after Indian troops from the sub-continent had already shed 85,000 lives for the Crown and Churchill had described them as “splendid fighting men” (Mason 1976, Perry 1988).

Thus at independence the RFMF was loaded with eastern Fijians or those loyal to their chieftainship, had a predominance of chiefs at its apex, was not sure about its role within the democratic framework, and had ominous confusions about its loyalties vis a vis central government and the carefully nurtured chiefly system, which was always in effect, a shadow government.

It was contended in the last Greed article that the RFMF and the Fiji government were expected to be linked forever through chiefly control of both institutions. This was supposed to ensure military support for government at all times. Thus in the initial post-1970 scheme of governance (and politics), the RFMF was supposed to be a silent partner that could be called on at any time should the need arise. There were a number of problems with the assumptions underlying that model of governance.

Firstly, Fijian unity under the chiefly system was never guaranteed. Fiji was not alone in this regard as many other traditional societies continued to be challenged through the expansion of the paid economy and its links with modern education. The post-independence Fijian government attempted to slow the ravages of this process through an elaborate system of patronage within the civil service, but this lacked capacity and burst at the seams down the line.

RATU SIR KAMISESES MARA never envisaged the Alliance or the Eastern Chiefs to lose power. Advance indication of this was his loss in 1977, and later the loss in 1987 which resulted in Rabuka's coup.

In quick-time the very non-democratic doctrine of Fijian specialness that ensured Fijian unity found itself at loggerheads with the democratic doctrine of multi-racialism. This was the biggest problem Ratu Mara faced in the run-up to the 1977 elections. His main split with Koya came after he declared special access to scholarships for Fijians in 1975. Hard at his heels was also the hound of Fijian nationalism expounded stridently by firebrand Rewan, Sakeasi Butadroka. The April 1977 elections was thus shockingly lost by Mara and the Alliance Party because of a significant (30%) split in Fijian votes.

SIDDIQUE MOIDEAN (S.M.) KOYA should have been Fiji's first Indio-Fijian Prime Minister when Ratu Mara's Alliance Party lost the 1977 election to National Federation Party (NFP). Internal bickering within NFP gave an "excuse" to the Governor General, Ratu Sir George Cakobau to appoint a minority Prime Minister, Ratu Mara. This scenario was to repeat a decade later in 1987, when a similar thing repeated, with Rabuka's coup.

And while the NFP dithered on presenting SM Koya as PM to Governor General Ratu Sir George Cakobau, rumblings were clearly heard in little gatherings of forcing a takeover. In fact, part of the prolonged disagreement within the NFP also featured concern about how the RFMF would react to an Indian PM. The military option however, paled into insignificance as AG Sir John Falvey and others found a constitutional escape to form a minority government.

Ratu Mara was back as PM, the status quo prevailed and all was well again in God’s Fiji as the NFP hemorrhaged and the Alliance swept into power in the subsequent September 1977 elections. A serious concern however, had been verbalized: could the Fiji Army be relied on to remain neutral in the event of a win by a non Fijian Establishment-backed political party. On the other side of the political spectrum, glimpses had been seen of the role that the military could play in correcting the perceived injustices of a foreign system of governance – democracy.

The RFMF was thus seen as the last line of defence for the Fijian traditional system of governance and all that it entailed at that point in time. In fact expectations in this regard began to mount as the next elections loomed. In 1982, as election fever heated up, the nuclear component of the cold war swept the Pacific, and Fiji for the first time saw a foreign dimension in its elections as amid much acrimony and accusations the Alliance returned with a drastically slimmed margin. 

After 1982, it was clear that the Alliance Party was walking a tightrope. There were increasingly visible criticisms of the Mara government among Fijians, the patronage system of the 1970s had outgrown its capacity, and very importantly, the economy was in contraction mode. As government began to take forced unpopular decisions, the masses began to experience shared hardships.

A commonality of concerns and problems across the carefully established ethnic divide was thus developing in Fiji in a belated manner because it was blocked through selective policies earlier. If the 1970s presented a decade of euphoria and complacence, the 1980s demanded a hard look at reality, democracy and the ballot box. It is this that would finally force the military card in Fiji’s politics

[E-Mail: appanas@hotmail.com  / thakurji@xtra.co.nz

Stay tuned Part 3: Power in Perpetuity or Coup

It is no secret that the architects of the 1970 constitution, apart from the Indian delegation, envisaged power in perpetuity for the Fijian Establishment-backed Alliance Party of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara…..

Democracy in Fiji was thus meant to ensure power in perpetuity to the Alliance Party and no one could really expect any different for the country. The role of the military as a protector of this shakily established façade of democracy was therefore, always open to revolutionary introspection – Rabuka’s coup should not have been such a big surprise.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[About the Author: Subhash Appana is an Indo-Fijian academic with Fijian family links. He was brought up in the chiefly village of Vuna in Taveuni and is particularly fond of the Fijian language and culture. Subhash has written extensively on the link between the politics of the vanua, Indo-Fijian aspirations and the continued search for a functioning democracy in Fiji. This series attempts to be both informative and provocative keeping in mind the delicate, distractive and often destructive sensitivities involved in cross-cultural discourses of this type.]

Government by Greed: PART 1: The Fiji Military - Origins

Government by Greed: PART 1: The Fiji Military - Origins

Guest Writer- Subhash Appana

In Fiji Military, it was always assumed that Chiefs would be at forefront of power in Fiji. And that would have assumed Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) would support the Government.  

The misplaced assumption was  that: 1) Fijians would always remain united under the chiefly system, 2) political opposition would only come from the Indo-Fijian, 3) the RFMF would always be led by a chiefly or chief-supported commander, 4) the RFMF would always support the Fijian establishment and  5) that Fijian chiefly rule would continue unbroken.

Each of these was to fall with time and propel the country into coup-coup land. Continue reading, and hope for more from our Guest Writer, Subhash Appana

The Fiji Military - Origins

This series has contended throughout that the 2000 coup and subsequent developments involving PM Qarase and his Gang were fuelled by greed – hence the name Government by Greed. Qarase’s cabal (gang)  had its roots in the Fiji civil service which since 1987 had been called on to play a more prominent role in Fiji’s politics. It was members of this cadre of civil servants, a number of disgruntled ambitious chiefs and members of the Methodist hierarchy who formed the platform on which Qarase and his Gang plied their plunder under the all-encompassing umbrella of “Fijian assistance”.

LAISENIA QARASE,  a clean-banker who was appointed as the Interim Prime-Minister of Fiji by Bainimarama, and later removed by him in 2006. After tasting power, he also developed greed, and suddenly transformed into an ethno-nationalist Prime Minster of I-Taukei only, and ignored the other races. This greed was his downfall, and that of democracy in Fiji.

The obvious question that arises then is: so where did the Fiji Military fall within this scheme? This article develops a brief historical outline of the evolution of the Fiji military and the changing roles that it has played in Fiji’s political landscape. The bulk of the focus (in ensuing articles) must, of necessity, fall on the role of the military in the 1987 and 2000 coups before any meaningful discussion can follow on the 2006 coup and Fiji’s present military-supported government.

Fiji's self-made "King" RATU SERU CAKOBAU

In 1874 when Governor Arthur Gordon arrived, Fiji’s self-made “king”, Ratu Seru Cakobau already had a Royal Army organized with the assistance of white settlers who had preceded colonization by Britain. In fact, Fiji’s very first coup took place in Levuka just prior to cession as Cakobau tried to organize a government that could levy taxes and control the whole country from a central administrative office.

At that time Bau’s hold on Fiji was precarious even though its designs were clear. Of particular concern was the non-acceptance of Bau rule by westerners and the “savages” from Colo and Navosa highlands. This was the first target of Gordon’s army and the bloody skirmishes that followed in the highlands is a thing of legend. That’s where the derogatory term “kai colo” comes from. Loosely translated it means junglee or uncivilized.

Sir Arthur Gordon's Little War against Kai Colos, using Fijians against Fijians

Following these campaigns Gordon amalgamated the Royal Army with the Fiji Constabulary (police) to form the Armed Native Constabulary as there was continuing need to subjugate the warrior-like tendencies that prevailed in pockets among the Fijian people. Furthermore, at the turn of the 19^th century a third element began to become a national irritant – increasing demands for fairness and political representation by the undefined, un-understood and un-inducted girmitiya or Indian labourers.

The First Governor of Fiji, SIR ARTHUR GORDON, who was instrumental in carving out early history of Fiji, including formation of Great Council of Chiefs and indenture of Indians from India, which changed the demographic landscape of Fiji forever.

It was not long before the Armed Native Constabulary was turned onto this disturbance. A January 1920 strike by Indo-Fijian workers of the Public Works Department that spread into a bigger confrontation was suppressed by force using 200 Fijians from Lau and a number of others co-opted from Rewa and Navua – one Indian died in that attack (Gillion, 1977). One year later, the 1921 cane strike was suppressed by 250 Fijian constables from Bau commissioned through their chiefs.

Ongoing problems with atrocious working conditions within the sugar industry meant that rebellion was a constant threat. The forced suppression of 1921, where desperate workers were beaten up and bundled into submission simply hardened resolve and a second cane strike in 1943 saw soldiers being prominently posted around the western cane belt as part of an intimidation tactic during the strike. Little is made of the resentment towards this overt threat that led to failed negotiations between Ratu Sukuna on behalf of government and cane leaders. 

RATU SIR LALA SUKUNA

Later the December 1959 Oil and Allied Workers strike led by Apisai Tora and James Anthony invoked further threats of violent suppression by government (Lal, 1992, pp. 165-169). Again little was made of the multi-racial composition of that worker revolt as the army gradually became an unarticulated instrument to ensure that the Indo-Fijian population stayed in its undefined “place” and “behaved”. 

This has to be coupled with the fact that government in Fiji was predicated on the back of a traditional system that was shaped, fossilized and maintained by the colonial administration. The chiefly system thus formed the back of the liberal-democratic system that presented the “face” of government in Fiji after independence in 1970. It was therefore very important that the hierarchy seen at the back (ie. the chiefly structure) reflected that seen at the front (ie. the government).

An elaborate link between government and the military was maintained through a system of recruitment and promotion that ensured that those with traditional status (ie. the chiefs) progressed through the ranks faster and held positions of power within the military. A run through the list of commanders shows Brigadier D.J. Aitken, Colonel Paul Manueli (1974-79), Colonel Ian Thorpe (1979-82), Brigadier-General Ratu Epeli Nailatikau (1982-87), Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka (1987- 92), Brigadier-General Ratu Epeli Ganilau (1992-99), Rear Admiral Frank Bainimarama (1999 - 2014) and Brigadier-General Mosese Tikoitoga (2014 -).

Former Commanders of Royal Fiji Military Forces ( RFMF), from left Brigadier - General RATU EPELI NAILATIKAU ( 1982-87), Colonel PAUL MANUELI ((1974-79), Brigadier General RATU EPELI GANILAU (1992-99)  and Rear Admiral FRANK BAINIMARAMA (1999-2014)

A closer scrutiny shows that Paul Manueli became commander during the era of multi-racialism and at a time when there were virtually no other local candidates. Rabuka on the other hand, simply wrested the position through his coup. Bainimarama appeared at a time when there were no chiefly successors and commoner senior officers had begun to agitate for the position. The other 2 long-serving commanders of the RFMF were chiefs of very high rank.

Former RFMF Commander and original Coup - maker, SITIVENI RABUKA

Thus in the initial post-1970 scheme of governance (and politics) in Fiji, the hierarchy of the Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) was supposed to reflect that of national government. And both were predicated on the chiefly system - chiefs were expected to be at the forefront of power in Fiji. This was the intricate link that guaranteed RFMF support for government.

The assumptions within this framework were that: Fijians would always remain united under the chiefly system, political opposition would only come from the Indo-Fijian, the RFMF would always be led by a chiefly or chief-supported commander, the RFMF would always support the Fijian establishment and that Fijian chiefly rule would continue unbroken. Each of these was to fall with time and propel the country into coup-coup land. 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stay Tuned: Part 2 : Government by Greed- Role of the Military. 

Read................

"Ironically, while these manly international campaigns were being waged for “freedom” and “democracy”, leaders in Fiji were totally unconcerned about the pleas of Fiji’s very own semi-slaves, the Girmitiya......"

"The British system of running the military with a class structure and inbuilt systems of discrimination became accepted practice. That’s partly why Indian demands for equal pay to join the military after 1939 was seen as treachery...."

[Read in Part 2...coming soon...]

 E-Mail: appanas@hotmail.com  / thakurji@xtra.co.nz

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[About the Author: Subhash Appana is an Indo-Fijian academic with Fijian family links. He has researched and presented papers at international conferences throughout the world. This has inevitably resulted in publications in respected international journals.

Subhash was brought up in the chiefly village of Vuna in Taveuni and is particularly fond of the Fijian language and culture. His paper on the Fijian chiefly system (2005) was the first of its kind after the landmark book on the same by Rusiate Nayacalou in 1975.

Subhash has written extensively on the link between the politics of the vanua, Indo-Fijian aspirations and the continued search for a functioning democracy in Fiji. This series attempts to be both informative and provocative keeping in mind the delicate, distractive and often destructive sensitivities involved in cross-cultural discourses of this type.]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx