(o+) Fiji, New Zealand, the Media
Crosbie Walsh. Dec. 2008
(An extract from my seasonal letter to friends)

Fiji continues to be a concern. We spent some years there and people we know and respect are on both sides of the political divide. Perhaps the most disturbing feature is the abysmally ignorant and one-sided stance of our politicians and even worse media coverage. The words “military coup” and “return to democracy” are stamped with a respectively bad and good singularity which is far from the actual situation.

The Fiji parliamentary system was far from democratic. One’s vote was worth much more or much less depending on your ethnic group and where you lived. Generally, rural Fijians and General (not Fijian or Indo-Fijian) voters were over-represented, and urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians under-represented. There had been no census for ten years and the electoral rolls were well out of date. Many people were bribed to vote and hundreds of ballot papers went missing.

The Qarase Government that was narrowly elected in 2001 was entirely Fijian and included a number of ethno-nationalist and religious extremists, some of whom were implicated in the 2000 (Speight) coup which overthrew the Indo-Fijian-led but essentially multi-ethnic government of Mahendra Chaudhry. One of Qarase’s ministers referred to Indo-Fijians as “weeds” to be exterminated, and to poor urban squatters as “thieves” because, with nowhere else to go, they were living extra-legally on land in the peri-urban areas. Squatting increased during this time due in part to a government agency, the Native Lands Trust Board, advising many Fijian landowners not to renew leases to Indo-Fijians. Another consequence was a sharp decline in cultivated land and the size of the sugar harvest. The Government promised rural Fijians control of their local coastal reefs and foreshores. In anticipation of this becoming law, one landowner offered $10 fishing licences to Fijians and $100 licences to Indo-Fijians. Other proposed legislation greatly favoured Fijians to the detriment of other races. And a “Tolerance and Reconciliation” Bill sought to absolve all those jailed or involved in the 2000 Speight coup and mutiny, but offered no compensation to the thousands of Indo-Fijians uprooted from their homes, many to leave Fiji for ever.

I won’t go on. This should not be a lecture on Fiji’s politics. But this was a coup with a difference, and more a military takeover than a coup. Coups are sudden. Commodore Bainimarama gave PM Qarase months of warning: act now against the widespread corruption; stop the proposed legislation; treat all citizens, irrespective or race and religion, as equal. Where special assistance is needed for the needy, do not confine it to only one race.

The New Zealand Position and Elections, and the Media

So here we are, two years down the road, with our Government insisting that Fiji returns to a democracy that never was, and taking actions (particularly its indiscriminate travel ban on anyone related to the military or interim government) which is making it extremely difficult to provide effective government or a healthy economy. And, as ever, we have a media intent on the spectacular, fully geared to sell newspapers and maintains viewer ratings. Unfortunately, in-depth analyses and more balanced reporting would do neither. Over the years, superficiality and trivia on TV have trained New Zealanders to limit their attention span to 3-4 minutes whenever any important issue is covered.

There’s little doubt this same sort of media coverage played a part in our November change of government. People were, I think, a little tired of Helen Clarke and Labour, but Labour could still have been returned to office had the media not misrepresented much of its legislation. A Bill seeking to remove legal excuse for parental physical abuse became the “Anti-Smacking” Bill. A proposed environmental tax on farmers became the “Anti-Fart” Bill. A proposed phasing out of inefficient light bulbs was further evidence of a “nanny state”. Most other legislation was invariably labelled as “politically correct” or “social engineering”.

But Labour could only have governed again with the help of Winston Peters’ NZ First Party. Here the media spent months digging up “evidence” of its alleged misuse of election funds - all of which, on enquiry, were legally dismissed. But by then the damage was done. NZ First needed 5% of the vote to win seats in parliament. It won 4.2%. The right-wing ACT party, won one electoral seat and with only 3.6% of the overall vote, it won a further four seats. This is one of the anomalies of our mixed-member-proportional-representative system.

In the end, the election seemed to be mostly about which party would give the middle and upper classes the best tax relief - or that was the message conveyed by the media. I voted Labour for my electorate and Greens for my general ("list") vote. The Greens needed 5% to be represented in parliament. I don’t agree with all of its policies (or for that matter with all the policies of any other party) but I think they can play a worthwhile role in parliament. Besides their concern for the environment, they take what I consider to be intelligent and caring positions of most economic and social issues.