What is taking place in Fiji should alert Guyanese to pay greater attention to the natural structure of their political context. In Fiji, the political chaos that has resulted from its ethnic divide has allowed the military to exploit insecurities, suppress political expression across the board and promote itself as the dominant universalizing factor.
Guyana has been plagued with ethnic political participation, and the general Western support for the present political process in Fiji and the claim by Rear Admiral (Ret) Frank Bainimarama and his Fiji First party that they have eliminated ethnic voting in a country such as theirs must, even if only momentarily, catch our attention.
After the 2006 military coup in Fiji, attempts were made, particularly by its larger neighbours, to isolate the country. However, eight years of diplomatic, military and travel sanctions hardly shifted the military dictatorship from its course.
Fiji has the second largest population and economy among the independent Pacific island states. Its more than 300 islands are located in a part of the South Pacific which contains important shipping lanes and huge maritime and mineral resources. Fiji thinks itself a regional leader and a voice of the island states in the international system.
Not only has the country not been isolated, but it has raised its global profile by organizing alternative means of island discourse and forging stronger ties with new partners, in particular China, which is very active in the region. Indeed, Fiji’s economy is forecast to grow faster than ever (3.8 %) in 2014.
Both Australia and New Zealand, the region’s economic and diplomatic leaders, could not effectively achieve their regional national security goals without the cooperation of Fiji, and have been eager for its return to the regular diplomatic fold (“Fiji’s election and Australia: the terms of re-engagement”, 12/092014. http://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications). Even the US, particularly in view of its “pivot to the East”, is eager to see the situation in Fiji regularized. The result is that the West has decided to constructively engage with the military regime.
Speaking in the United States Congress in 1997, Senator Daniel Moynihan claimed that “Constructive engagement is a euphemism for doing business with thugs!” This is obviously one of those exaggerations to which politicians are prone, but it is apt in the case of Fiji.
All countries seek to protect their wellbeing and expand their influence in the international system. And while, generally, western countries are committed to the expansion of liberal democracy, other immediate national interests also need to be protected. It is in this context that we must view their present constructive engagement with Fiji, the recent elections being viewed as a first stage in the process of democratization.
Fiji’s experience is important to us for it demonstrates another transmogrification of the bi-communal condition.
The ethnic allegiances in Fiji are far more complicated than they are in Guyana, but essentially, the historical political quarrel has been between ethnic Fijians and Indo-Fijians who originally went to the country as immigrants. The former have insisted upon certain traditional rights, e.g. the right to all land ownership and citizenship, which have disadvantaged the latter. Where political power is concerned, ethnic Fijians would also like to institutionalize mechanisms that will provide them with effective national political leverage if not control.
Indeed, after independence, the first coup was against an ethnic Fijian who was at the head of an Indian-dominated political party and government. At the time, Indo Fijians were in the majority but the various coups and general insecurity have resulted in heavy Indian emigration and ethnic Fijians now comprise 60% of the electorate.
To this kind of ethnic volatility must be added eight years of military dictatorship, a brief glimpse of which I provided last week. Bainimarama claims to be political and non-ethnic, and by various means has been able to destroy the traditional leadership. For example, he dissolved the Great Council of Chiefs, the traditional high decision-making body of the indigenous people, and the popular Indian leader of the Labour Party, Mahendra Chaudhry, was found guilty of tax evasion and disqualified from participating in the elections.
Not surprisingly then, according to Professor Brij Lal, Fiji First won the support of many Indians because its proclaimed commitment to a non-racial vision appealed to a population that has long been at the receiving end of Fijian nationalist politics. Bainimarama, also uses the public purse sensibly. Nearly half the population of Fiji lives below the poverty line and many residents of Fiji’s mushrooming squatter settlements are Indo-Fijians. Many Indians also see Bainimarama as the bulwark between them and a Fijian nationalist backlash. “Without him at the helm, many genuinely fear they might be done for.” (“Fiji election: the long road to democracy”, www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-16/)
But ethnic Fijians constitute some 60% of the voting population and if they had been able to mobilize on their usual historical scale, Fiji First should not have been able to gain nearly 60% of the votes cast. But quite apart from again cleverly using the public purse to gain support in ethnic areas, Professor Jon Fraenkel made what appears to me a seminal point: “Many ethnic Fijians see Rear Admiral (Ret) Bainimarama as an indigenous leader, who has succeeded in dominating the national stage where others failed” (“Reflecting on the 2014 General Election”, 22/09/2014).
Against this backdrop, it only takes a moment’s thought to recognise that the claim that by winning September 2014 national election, Fiji First has broken the back of ethnic voting, is pure hyperbole.
Firstly, such a claim cannot be sensibly made after a single election, and secondly, if many ethnic Fijians voted for Bainimarama because he is an ethnic Fijian, the ethnic problem remains unresolved. Not only will any Indian or Indian party that raises its political head likely return the country to square one but we also have a sizable portion of ethnic Fijians disaffected from the political process.
What we have also in Fiji today is the exploitation of Indian fears without any prospect of their mitigation and of a humane end story. Indeed, for some time to come, the maintenance of Fiji First in government will be dependent upon the existence of those fears. This will most likely result in their possible entrenchment and alienation of Indians from the political process.
Political dominance, whatever form it takes, is not the answer for countries such as these. Professor Brij Lal is correct, in Figi and Guyana: “There can be no peace if a very large section of the community feels disaffected and alienated from the body politic.”
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
