The crisis in Fiji

IN 1996 I travelled to Fiji to conduct research on the ethnic and political crisis facing that country. Fiji is a fascinating country in which to study political and ethnic conflicts. While I was there, I managed to speak to a number of political leaders, commentators, business people and academics. There are two main ethnic groups in the country, Indians and Fijians and, fortunately for me, I managed to interact with both groups. The experience was priceless. In light of new crisis facing the country I now find myself going back to articles that I and others had published, in both local and British journals, on the ethnic and political problems in Fiji.

At the time I visited Fiji, the country was under the leadership of Colonel Sutiveni Rabuka who came to power by two military coups in 1987. He later consolidated his hold on the country by winning the 1992 general elections. Rabuka had managed to hold on to power by abolishing the constitution in 1987 and declaring Fiji a republic. However, as a result of the coup, Fiji's membership in the Commonwealth was suspended.

In 1990 a new constitution was promulgated, which in effect guaranteed indigenous Fijians political control over the country. In 1999 general elections were held under a new constitution which came into existence with the assistance of a distinguished New Zealand Maori jurist in 1997. It was under this new constitution that Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry came to power.

Now, one year after coming into office, Fiji finds itself dealing with yet another coup. This is their third coup since independence and, we should also note that, their future is even more uncertain than years following the Rabuka presidency. Why should a country with so much promise and talent be facing this bleak situation? The answer is not easy, as Fiji is a very complex society to understand. It has a rich, diverse culture and a civilisation which scholars are still trying to piece together. For us to fully understand the situation there, it is necessary to say a bit about the socio-political situation first.

Melanesian people settled in the group of islands, later known as Fiji, about 3,500 years ago. In the 18th century, the Europeans "discovered" these islands and, in order to exploit their commercial value, they began to settle there in the 19th century. Late in that century, the Europeans,mainly British, imported Indian labourers to work on the plantations. When indentureship ended in 1920, the Indian labourers settled in Fiji and by the 1940s, the Indian population outnumbered the ethnic Fijian population.

At present Indians constitute about 44% of the population, while ethnic Fijians make up about 51%. Many Indians fled to New Zealand and Australia in the 1980s, after Rabuka deposed an Indian dominated government in 1987. Over 80% of the land is owned by Fijians, while Indians dominate the commercial sector, although many still remain in agriculture.

Conflict

Fiji has had a long history of racial conflict. In the 1860s there were conflicts between Fijians and Europeans. During the 1920s, differences emerged between Europeans and Indians and, throughout the 1900s, there have been conflicts between Indians and Fijians. Over the years there has been very little interaction between Indians and Fijians beyond the workplace. Intermarriage between the two groups is frowned upon, especially by Indians. While the official language is English, Fijians speak Fijian and Indians speak Hindustani in the home. There is very little sharing of language between the two groups. Most Indians are Hindus or Muslims, while Fijians are Christians.

Interestingly, when I was in Fiji, Indians born in Fiji were referred to as Indians, not Fijians. According to some Fijians, the word "Fijian" refers to an ethnic group, therefore an Indian cannot be a Fijian. Some intellectuals use the word Indo-Fijian to describe Indians born in Fiji. This term is, however, not universally accepted in Fiji.

Since independence in 1970, Fijian politics has been characterised by the attempt by ethnic Fijian groups to retain control over the political life of the country. The most vehement defender of indigenous political control of Fiji is the Tuakei movement. Taukei is a Fijian word which means "owner of the land." The Taukei movement supported the 1990 constitution which virtually made it impossible for Indians to hold the position of Prime Minister, or become leaders of the army and public service.

The amendments to the constitution in 1997, which allowed non-ethnic Fijians to have a greater say in the government, resulted in the election of Mahendra Chaudhry, who is an Indian. From all accounts Chaudhry got support from both Indians and Fijians during the 1999 elections. However, the vocal and powerful Taukei movement has always opposed Chaudhry. And although coup leader, businessman George Speight is said to have deposed the Prime Minister for personal economic reasons rather than to defend indigenous interests, the Taukei movement has supported him. However, the army and majority of the country do not seem to be in support of the coup, although Speight is likely to have the sympathy of some indigenous Fijians, those who silently resent Indian domination of the economy.

Without the support of the Army or major Fijian political figures such as former Prime Minister Rabuka and President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, it is unlikely that the coup will succeed. On the other hand, even if Speight fails in his bid to take over the country, the ethnic tensions, coupled with the rhetoric of the Taukei movement, are likely to plunge the country further into crisis. As evidence of this potential conflict Ratu Tevita Bolobolo, leader of the Taukei movement, recently delivered a statement which was endorsed by the main opposition party, the Soqosoqo Ni Vakavulewa Ni Taikei (SVT):

"We do not and we will never accept the reinstatement of the Chaudhry government," Bolobolo said. "We hereby state that we fully support the abolition of the 1997 constitution and warn (Fijian President) Ratu Mara that any intervention by force will lead to all-out civil war. We the Taukei are ready to make the ultimate sacrifice so as to return this country to the Taukei."

I hope that we in Jamaica and the Caribbean can draw useful lessons from the Fijian crisis. Peace!

Ian Boxill is a sociologist who lectures at the UWI, Mona. E-mail: ianboxill@uwimona.edu.jm