The
last article argued that the 1970 constitution compartmentalized both
government policy and voter choices on racial lines through its
electoral provisions. Anyone wanting to gain Fijian support had to
rebuke Indians and have handouts ready for the Fijian electorate. On
the other hand, anyone looking at Indian support had to be prepared
to oppose, thwart and ridicule the Alliance government at every turn
– the louder, the better.
The
two 1977 elections had made it very clear that any attempt to
accommodate both communities in a single political platform would
lead to political suicide especially for the Alliance Party. It also
showed that the Fijian electorate in particular viewed government
allocations within a zero-sum framework. Any allocations or
concessions to the Indians meant betrayal and less for the Fijians.
That
mentality was developed over an extended colonial era when attempts
were made to keep the Fijian “protected” from the ravages of a
monetizing and rapidly developing world. Interface with the money
economy, paid labour, earning, saving, etc. were not part of the
extended Fijian experience as he was kept largely secluded in his
village with the government acting as his guardian and caretaker.
This stunted his growth and ill-prepared him for “real” life
later.
By
1970, some fraying of the Fijian traditional system had happened on
the fringes. Those who had acquired an education were agitating for
bigger opportunities and the government duly absorbed them either
into the services or into politics. There had earlier been organized
attempts at forcing opportunities fast; one such group was the Viti
Cauravou in
the 1920s. At independence, the Fijian expected his special status to
be guaranteed in perpetuity.
There
was however, an additional element in the relationship between the
Fijian and government – that was the chief. The traditional Fijian
social system, a colonially-endowed construct, was meant to provide
the framework of governance for the Fijian half of Fiji’s
population in the 1970 constitution. At the centre of that structure
stood the Fijian chief who was historically supposed to be the Fijian
leader, representative and voice.
Any
weakening of the traditional Fijian system, therefore, would have had
dire consequences for Fijians in the new constitutional framework of
governance – that was the belief then, and there was some
justification for it. More importantly, this reliance on the chief
meant that the traditional system had to be kept intact to ensure
that chiefs prevailed within it so that they could then represent and
protect the Fijians in national politics.
This
was the main constant that informed the constitution making process
leading to the 1970 constitution. The problem was that it was seen as
a constant and not as a variable because the traditional Fijian
social system continued to undergo change despite a series of
legislative attempts to freeze it in order to keep it intact. That
process could be stalled, but it was never going to be stopped.
The
advent of education, need for paid employment, urbanization, etc.
were big threats that the traditional Fijian system faced.
Government’s increasing difficulties in fulfilling expected Fijian
needs led to resentments that were conveniently directed towards an
insistent Indian community who were busy demanding their legitimate
rights. Mara’s attempts to please both groups as per his political
philosophy of multi-culturalism led to his loss at the April 1977
elections. Democracy was indeed a foreign flower to the Fijian at the
time!
I
recall an indicative incident after the NFP had won in 1977 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.
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!
Democracy obviously meant power in perpetuity to the Fijian.
After
Ratu Mara was returned to power at the September 1977 elections, the
Alliance changed its political outlook. They were suddenly wary of
not centralizing and loudly championing Fijian issues and concerns
while a few in the party started publicly vilifying and castigating
the Indian community without fear of rebuke from Mara. Butadroka’s
popularity suddenly nosedived and Mara was once again in control of
the Fijian polity.
The
NFP, on the other hand, was bedeviled by its own fractures that
brought Reddy to the fore. A prolonged process of healing led to
patch-ups that still had remnants of past internal battles waiting to
exact revenge. That is what characterized the NFP for much of its
history even though Jai Ram Reddy was able to revamp it on the way to
the 1982 elections where the political platform adopted by each party
would finally play a significant role in its popularity.
Both
Mara and Reddy knew that they had to make inroads into the opposite
electorate to ensure victory in 1982. To this end, Reddy wooed the
Western United Front’s Ratu Osea Gavidi into a coalition. Mara on
the other hand, had to contend with Butadroka while hoping that the
fractures within the NFP, especially of its Muslim support base,
would resurface.
There
were a number of indicators in the lead-up to the 1982 elections that
showed wariness (for the first time) on the part of the Alliance. For
the first time Mara was publicly making negative comments about the
Indian community. He also brought in an international dimension that
will be discussed in the next piece as we look at the 1982 elections
and its aftermath. Keep tuned.
Subhash
Appana is an academic and political commentator. The opinions
contained in this article are entirely his and not necessarily shared
by any organizations he may be associated with both in Fiji and
abroad. Email appanas@hotmail.com
Sent:
28/8/12
No comments:
Post a Comment