(o+B) Living under the ‘Barrel of the Gun’
Fr Kevin Barr
Fiji Sun 21 April 2008

[Fr Barr discusses Fiji’s so-called “coup culture” by analysing the interests of the instigators and their hidden and stated goals, and the role of the military, in the 1987 and 2000 coups. He concludes by comparing these coups with the military takeover in 2006 and the very different stated goals of the Interim Government. In a separate paper Dr Sitiveni Ratuva describes the composition of the political factions in post-2006 Fiji.]

When one thinks of the so-called “coup culture” in Fiji, one immediately thinks of the Royal Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) and casts the blame on them as being primarily responsible for ousting democratically elected governments and holding the country to ransom by the force of their guns and military weapons. We often hear the expression “they came to power through the barrel of a gun”. There can certainly be no doubt that the Fiji Military have played a major role in Fiji’s four coups - either as perpetrators (as in 1987 and 2006) or as bringing about a resolution to a civilian coup in which some rogue elements of the army were involved (2000).
But is it as simple as that? As Joseva Serulagilagi said at the recent debate on the People’s Charter, Father Kevin Barr sheds light on Fiji’s Coup Culture, “Don’t kid yourselves that the RFMF is responsible for the coups. That’s far from the truth. Even passionate defenders of democracy should be scrutinised for their role in Fiji’s coups.”

Overseas Governments
It is well known and well documented that overseas/foreign governments (and one in particular) have been the instigator of so many military coups around the world in the past seventy years. The military (the men with guns) certainly played a key role in the carrying out of the coups but they were not always the real instigators of the coups.

Over the years almost all the former colonial powers (Britain, France and Germany) are on record for encouraging or instigating coups in various parts of the world in which they had political or economic interests. The United States in particular has a well documented history of instigating coups. The books of Blum and Perkins in particular provide amazing detail. John Perkins (2004) explains how a special group of US “economic hit men” were trained to operate in the interests of the big US companies so that they could gain more easy access to resources in other countries which those companies wanted to control. Uncooperative government leaders could be conveniently forced out of power or even dispatched through some “accident” so that the corporatocracy (as he calls the leaders of the big companies) could have its
way.

William Blum (formerly employed in the US State Department) in his book Rogue State (2000) provides 68 case studies showing how, since 1945, the US has intervened in the internal affairs of various nations of the world to have democratically elected governments overthrown and sometimes replaced by military regimes if it was in their interests to do so. Blum specifically mentions US involvement in the 1987 coup in Fiji and there does seem to be a lot of evidence to support his suggestion. At the time Fiji, under the Bavandra government, upheld the policy of a nuclear-free Pacific (which the US was opposed to). It also began to move in a more socialist direction e.g. by suggestion the possible need to nationalise the Vatukoula gold mine. Even some US newspapers (e.g. USA Today) carried the story of US involvement.

Other Suspects
But it is not only foreign governments who interfere in a country’s political life by instigating coups. There are also powerful vested interests within the country which can interfere with democracy. Strong business interests can exert tremendous influence. Their involvement in the 1987 and 2000 coups has been strongly rumoured by never proven because governments have never allowed proper commissions of enquiry to be held. Coups usually need to be financed in one way or another and the million dollar question is who provided the finance? Policies which advocate “economic reforms”, cleaning up corruption, the introduction of new tax policies can all make some business interests very, very nervous.

Then there is the influence of powerful traditional elites who want to maintain or manipulate or gain power - especially if they feel they have been pushed aside by various historical events and subsequent changes that are taking place in society. The conflicts and tensions between chiefly families and confederacies in Fiji can play an important part in power struggles. More on this will be noted in the work of Winston Halapua and Simione Duratalo quoted below.

The Media
Again the influence of the media must be considered whenever a coup takes place. Newspapers, radio and TV play an important role in shaping people’s opinions and attitudes. A serious academic study by David Robie (2000) set out to show that the Fiji Times through its strong opposition to Mahendra Chaudhry (the Prime Minister of the People’s Coalition government) had created the atmosphere and fuelled the fears that led to the 2000 coup. He is not just registering his own opinion but quotes in support of his analysis the research of Nwomye Obini and the opinions of people like Michael Field, Jone Dakavula, Ganesh Chand, Jale Moala, Sitiveni Ratuva and Father Kevin Barr. Speaking of Prime Minister Chaudhry’s bad start with the media especially after a TV interview, Robie writes: “Far more worrying for Chaudhry and the People’s Coalition than Fiji Television was the Murdoch-owned Fiji Times, arguably the country’s most influential news organization.

Over the next few months, the Fiji Times appeared to wage a relentless campaign against the fledgling Government, both through its editorials and ‘slanted’ news columns.” Others, including Nwomye Obini in her 2000 analysis, noted that the Fiji Times continually bombarded Chaudhry’s Coalition with problems (big and small) in both editorials and news reports with the aim of discrediting it and preventing it getting on with the work it had promised to do in its manifesto. By highlighting issues such as nepotism, the tea lady, and other similar things and not giving fair coverage of the governments accomplishments, it diverted attention away from the larger issues of nation building. The Fiji Times was also accused of feeding into (if not helping to create) the rising tide of Fijian ethno-nationalism. Jone Dakavula in an interview with Robie (2000) stated:

“The agenda of the Fiji Times was to delegitimise the elected Government by creating a climate of scandal, loathing and fear so the Fiji Labour party, at least, would not be able to effectively implement its manifesto.” Michael Field is quoted as saying that “the election result was remarkably clear but the media or elements of it, were reluctant to accept it. There was an element in the media which was arrogantly anti-democratic, practising a we-know-best approach to democracy”. He adds: “I left Fiji wondering how much of the coup and its twists and turns was the product of the media itself.”

When Chaudhry spoke up at the Media Council against the unethical behaviour of the media -especially the Fiji Times - many voices in the media supported the Fiji Times against Chaudhry’s strong criticisms. However Ikbal Jannif (then President of the Fiji Chapter of Transparency International) noted: “It seems to me that the media wants accountability - for everyone except itself”.

An interesting thing is that the Editor in Chief of the Fiji Times during this period was Russell Hunter (Deported by the Interim Government for playing a similar role after 206.)

The media may certainly not be the main force behind a coup but its influence can be enormous and those who own and operate the media have a powerful tool at their disposal to push their agenda. They can orchestrate campaigns, magnify problems, promote scandal mongering, and distort important issues. If confronted, they can conveniently hide behind the slogan “freedom of the press”.

People and governments must carefully scrutinize the media and require that the “freedom” it demands for itself is used responsibly. Moreover a more effective and prompt means must be found to make it accountable. The present processes are quite inadequate.

Thesis of Winston Halapua
Writing of the 1987 coups, Winston Halapua (2003) in his book Tradition, Lotu and Militarism in Fiji explores a very interesting thesis. While highlighting the complexity of Fiji’s situation, he maintains that the self-interest of certain groups of traditional and business elites and not a search for the common good has been a persistent thread running through the recent history of Fiji. As he defines it, militarism involves a collusion between privilege and power and has maintained the interests of some over those of the many. He writes:

“Militarism in Fiji is closely identified with and perpetuates the interests of a section of the ethnic Fijian upper and middle classes and their allies within the Fijian chiefly aristocracy and elements of the capitalist class.” He clarifies his understanding of the term “militarism”: “In this book, the meaning of militarism goes beyond its most visible manifestation – military”.

Militarism also embraces the less visible, and sometimes unspoken, collusion between the ruling class and its alliances in the army to directly or indirectly control national decision making and the governing of a nation”. He maintains that in Fiji the complexity of militarism has been compounded by the manipulation of ethnic Fijian culture by the instigators and supporters of coups with slogans of “fighting for indigenous Fijian rights”. The instigators managed to get the military and the police to serve. Halapua (2003:2) writes:

“In 1987, the Royal Fiji Military Forces colluded with the ruling class, made up of senior and powerful Fijian chiefs and elements of the capitalist classes, and a small segment of the middle class, to subvert the democratic institutions and processes under the façade of maintaining law and order. … In justification of its actions, the military embarked on imposing a system of ethnic supremacy - in this case, ethnic Fijian political paramountcy vis-à-vis perceived ethnic Indian domination. It also gave the justification of ‘returning’ Fiji to the folds of the Western system of political alliances.”

Thesis of Simione Duratalo
To a large extent the suggestions of Winston Halapua are confirmed by the earlier thesis of Simione Duratalo (1986) who wrote just one year before the 1987 coup predicting that it would actually take place. The title of his booklet sums up its thesis - The Paramountcy of Fijian Interests and the Politicisation of Ethnicity. In simple language he maintains that the rich, powerful and privileged elite of Fijian society have deflected the criticism of the lower classes (farmers and workers) away from themselves (the upper class) to the myth of “Indian domination of the economy” and so used ethnicity to cover up what is basically a class issue. Because many Fijians have fallen for this strategy of their leaders, they have developed a strong nationalistic consciousness (based on ethnicity) rather than a class consciousness (based on economic inequality). The elite realizes that if the masses of people become united on a class basis which cuts across ethnic lines, their wealth and privileged position will be seriously questioned in the political arena. In fact this began to happen with the emergence of the Labour Party in 1985. Labour’s dominance in the elections of 1987 and 1999 could not be tolerated and so we had coups in 1987 (as Duratalo predicted cf pp. 42-43) and an attempted coup in 2000. Both coups were said to be executed for ethnic reasons - the protection of indigenous Fijian rights against fears of an Indian take-over. Thus, in Fiji, ruling class political domination has used ethnic divisions to prevent the masses from understanding the true dynamics of capitalist society and so gaining their rightful place in the economic and social development of the nation.

What emerges is that it is really class issues not ethnic issues which explain the problems currently facing Fiji. However it is in the interests of the rich and powerful elites in Fiji to perpetuate ethnicity as the explanatory factor and so deflect attention from themselves and the growing poverty and inequality emerging in the country.

“Communalism” (the division of the masses along ethnic lines) has been used as an “ideological device” to prop up and support class interests. As Duratalo (1986:3) writes: “Communalism in Fiji seeks to deflect the economic and socio-political grievances of the indigenous Fijian masses from its objectively anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist content into an ideological support for the indigenous Fijian ruling class and its local European and international allies.” Ethnicity becomes a smokescreen for class privilege. The masses are confused and manipulated into seeing their problems in ethnic terms - not as class concerns. Consequently the masses are prevented from acting as an integrated and unified political force. And so communalism emerges
as “the particular political form in which the economic exploitation of the oppressed is obscured” (p.9).

“The ruling class enjoy its position at the top of the pile in the social stratification order due to its unequal access to material and non-material rewards. These include the best food, best housing, best jobs, an unequal access to educational opportunities, health services and particular participation. They therefore are strong supporters of the status quo, in which they benefit the most, and will oppose any individual or group who aims to bring about any significant social change. One technique used by the ruling class is ‘divide and rule’. They seize upon and use to the fullest extent possible any ideological rationale that will aid in dividing the exploited population into mutually distrustful groups … and weakening opposition to a ruling class.

Historically, perhaps the most important such lines of cleavage has been the division of society into different racial groups.” (p.7) It is not untypical of right-wing political regimes to wage what amounts to a desperate ideological battle to defend the status quo by minimizing and labeling to their advantage the ever-increasing complexities that occur in a class society. They can create fears among the masses and then turn these fears to their advantage. (p.52) There is a need for most ruling classes to create a “devil” or a scapegoat. In Fiji the devil is “Indian economic dominance” (p.6-7).

According to Duratalo, the primary purpose of bodies like the Fijian Association and the Alliance Party was to protect and promote the interests of indigenous Fijians (read the chiefs) and their local European and transnational allies.

More Recent Events
While Duratalo and Halapua strive to help us understand the forces behind the 1987 coups (and perhaps the 2000 coup as well) their analysis is almost certainly not adequate to explain the December 2006 Military takeover. Some would think that the 2006 coup had very different motivation:

It was not to support “indigenous Fijian rights” and extreme nationalism but rather to promote multiculturalism, reconciliation and greater racial harmony; rather than promoting the interests of traditional and business elites, it sought to address corruption and mismanagement of the nation’s resources and wanted to see a better distribution of the country’s wealth so that growing poverty and inequality would be addressed.

The gradual build up of tension between PM Qarase and the Military Commander and the clear naming of the issues of strong disagreement between them would suggest that there was far more clarity about this coup than in the previous ones. The motivation for the 2006 coup seemed to be in direct opposition to the motivation for the previous coups. Despite talk of it being a “Muslim coup” or a “Catholic coup” or an “Indian coup” there was not the same degree of rumour involving “suspicious and shadowy figures” as their had been in the 1987 and 2000 coups. The Military saw it as its role to address racism, to clean up corruption and mismanagement and set new standards for good governance, transparency and accountability.

Nevertheless it was a Military coup and an illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government (however faulty the electoral process may have been). Many question the army’s perception that it was their role to step in and set the country on a new course. And so we are left with the question as to what the acceptable role of the army should be in Fiji today?

Christian Fundamentalism and Extreme Ethno-Nationalism
One of the extremely dangerous issues behind the 1987 and 2000 coups was the explosive mix €of fundamentalist Christianity and extreme nationalism. It remains a very serious threat to democracy and real reconciliation in Fiji in the future.

For many years now Christianity has been used to justify ethno-nationalism by extreme Fijian Nationalists (cf Barr 1998). The demand for Fiji to become a Christian State is just one manifestation of this trend. As Rev Paula Niukula pointed out, the demand for a Christian State has almost nothing to do with Christianity but everything to do with Fijian paramountcy because if all Fijians are Christians and most Indo-Fijians are not, then making Fiji a Christian State is a way of declaring the dominance of Fijians over Indo-Fijians.

The recent influx of many new Fiji-led fundamentalist churches from the US has helped to reinforce and justify for Fijians the ethno-nationalism (or racism) previously found in some certainly not all) sections of the Methodist Church. This explosive mix of fundamentalist Christianity and extreme Fijian nationalism has become a very serious threat to democracy especially since 2000 when the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji (ACCF) was formed in opposition to the Fiji Council of Churches (FCC). The ACCF was formed around the same time as the SDL political party and both have worked in close collusion until the military takeover of 2006. The Churches belonging to the ACCF sought to have a strong influence on the political scene in Fiji - including the elections. Two of their stated aims are to have Fiji declared a Christian State and to have only “good” Christians in positions of political leadership.

Until this use of Christianity to justify extreme Fijian nationalism is seriously addressed (hopefully by the Church leaders themselves), Fiji can expect to face more very serious problems.

Conclusion
These few pages have tried to widen the discussion about Fiji’s so called “coup culture” and the role the military should play in the life of Fiji.
I have tried to point out that we should not place the blame for military coups entirely on the army as though they were the sole agent at work. History shows that the instigators of coups elsewhere (and maybe also in Fiji) have been foreign governments, business interests, traditional elites and a complex mixture of all of the above.

Ethnic issues and racial tensions and misunderstandings have also been manipulated by the instigators of coups to muddy the waters and obscure the real motivation behind a coup. Some of the Churches in Fiji have also often been in collusion with the instigators of coups or have supported the coup after the event.

Speaking at the recent People’s Charter Debate, Kamlesh Arya suggested that the military should not be blamed for today’s problems for they were manipulated by those with vested interests - “The military were the henchmen used to do someone else’s dirty job”. So there can be many stakeholders behind a coup whether we call them the “suspicious and shadowy figures” lurking in the background or whether we can identify them and call them by name.

The army may be the executor of a coup but the instigators may be quite a different set of actors. The “men in suits” (or more contextually the “men in sulus”) may, in reality, be far more culpable than “the men with guns”.