“The real question is whether Fiji could handle a genuine democracy with a free press, or if the country needs an ultra-authoritarian strongman like Bainimarama to keep control. … …Calls for an end to the “coup culture” that has bedeviled the country have perhaps been answered with a militarisation which has seen an elected government laced with army officers. Combined with restrictive decrees which amount to almost as much government control as during martial law, the result is perhaps a permanent state of coup which will indeed preclude future coups” (Marc Edge: “A permanent solution to the coup culture in Fiji?” 27/09/2014. http://discombobulatedbubu.blogspot.com/).
Given some positive messages we have been receiving lately about the course of political developments in Fiji – one even suggesting that we should use it as a model (“The Bainimarama model should be given some thought for Guyana” SN, 11/10/2014) – the above assessment appears overly pessimistic. Thus, it is in our interest to understand what is happening in Fiji.
As suggested in Edge’s opening sentence, like Guyana, Fiji is characterized as a bi-communal society in which it is difficult to establish democracy. Indeed, two ways of maintaining order are common to this condition: the creation of political dominance by some group, or the sharing of political authority. As the Guyanese experience easily demonstrates, the former is usually unstable and in the longer term unsustainable.
Amidst, widespread condemnation of human rights violations before and claims of massive fraud during the 17th of September 2014 election, Rear Admiral (Ret.) Frank Bainimarama and his Fiji First Party, not unexpectedly, won the first “democratic” election since the military coup of 2006. However, it appears to me that Edge’s contention is closer to the truth.
In “Big questions over Fiji’s new constitution” Nicole George (2013: School of Political Science and International Studies, University of Queensland. http://www.lowyinterpreter.org), reminded Australians that the political freedoms they take for granted are not shared by everyone in the region.
Six years after it came to office the military government established a constitutional commission to draft a new constitution to lay the legal basis for democratic elections.
Many persons believed that, packed as it was with perceived government sympathizers, the commission could not produce an acceptable document.
Furthermore, as the commission was conducting nation-wide consultations, in December 2012, Human Rights Watch and the International Trade Union Confederation felt it necessary to call upon the government of Fiji to end human rights abuses that threatened to undermine the legitimacy of that process. The organizations demanded that the government stop curtailing the rights to freedom of speech, the press, peaceful assembly and association.
“The bottom line,” they claimed, “is that so long as the government targets activists and muzzles the media, a truly rights-respecting and democratic transition won’t be possible” (“Fiji: Abuses Jeopardize Constitution Process”; Joint letter to Commodore Bainimarama regarding ongoing rights abuses in Fiji:” December 4, 2012).
However, the population was eager to participate and the commission received submissions from over 7,000 groups. The commissioners eventually produced a document that had broad acceptance as it recognized the cultural and land rights of the indigenous people and also gave protection to other ethnic minority groups, women and gays and lesbians.
The military was not, however, impressed by the fact that the document severely reduced the power of the armed forces, and insisted that the military leaders should be accountable for any human rights abuses that may have taken place since the 2006 coup.
“The armed forces responded in characteristically authoritarian style, seizing document proofs from the government printers and burning the copies already produced” (George, op. cit.). The regime then drafted its own constitution, which contrasts profoundly with the commission’s document.
So much so that Amnesty International demanded that the authorities review the document, for as it stood it did not did not make provision for properly protecting key human rights; failed to guarantee the independence of the judiciary and allowed immunity for perpetrators of human rights violations.
“The current draft constitution” Amnesty claimed, “does not contain any provisions for the protection of indigenous peoples, … and their human rights to traditional lands, culture and livelihood as affirmed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989” (“Fiji’s draft constitution falls short on human rights standards”; Amnesty International Public Statement, AI index: ASA 18/001/2013, 25/04/2013). The military later made some limited concessions on this latter issue.
Ms. Jenny Hayward-Jones, of The Lowy Institute for International Policy, arguably Australia’s preeminent independent think tank, predicted that the poll itself would be judged free but that the election process would be far from fair.
Many election decrees restricted political participation. The once free media in Fiji is no longer so, for laws impose heavy penalties on journalists for criticising the government. Fiji’s once-capable and independent judiciary became a shadow of itself when the president set aside the constitution, revoked all judicial appointments and filled the posts with those considered friendly to the regime.
Intimidation has diminished the mediating capacity of civil society. For example, the Citizens Constitutional Forum, was accused of breaching an electoral decree by publishing a research paper on international benchmarks for free and fair elections.
She warned that: “It may be tempting for Fiji’s partners, including Australia, to recognise the elections as the restoration of democracy in order to quickly return relations with Fiji to a more positive footing. But if Australia were to signal its willingness to accept such a low bar for the restoration of democracy, it would set a dangerous precedent for the maintenance of democratic norms in the region. Australia will need to find a way to do both: to rebuild its relations with Fiji in the interests of its regional influence while also pushing Fiji towards a full restoration of democracy” (“Fiji’s election and Australia: the terms of re-engagement”; 12/092014. http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications).
It appears to me that, like the PPP/C in Guyana, the military in Fiji has gone for political dominance: not democracy. Marc Edge appears more correct: they may have produced a “permanent state of coup which will indeed preclude future coups.”
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
