(-+) The Coup Was Not Necessary: Expert

One of the especially sad things about the Fiji situation is that family, friends and colleagues often find themselves on opposite sides. It never was, as the media mostly present it, a case of baddies versus goodies. I find myself in this situation with regards to a letter published in The Australian by former colleague Robbie Roberston. Robbie, now of Adelaide's La Trobe University, has written three books on the 1987 and 2000 coups, one co-authored with his wife, Akosita Tamanisau, and he wrote most of the political section in my Fiji: an Encyclopaedic Atlas (see advertisement, in left column). He's an expert on the earlier coups (supposedly carried out to defend ethnic Fijian rights) but I think he's misread the 2006 Coup (the first where Indo-Fijians were not the scapegoats).
Here are the points he made (RR) and my responses (CW).

RR: “Fiji emerged from those political storms [the 1987 coup] stronger than ever, with a hugely sophisticated and active civil society, a dynamic free media and a strong legal system... and ethno-nationalism had retreated.”

CW: A rather rosy picture of Fiji not altogether borne out by more recent reactions of some NGOs, the media and the Fiji Law Society, but not altogether wrong either. But on ethno-nationalism, unfortunately, absolutely wrong. The racist reasons forthe Speight Coup were identical to those of 1987. Further witness to ongoing ethno-nationalism of the worst kind includes: the votes won by the extremist CAMV party in 1991 and its absorption into Qarase's SDL for the 2006 election; the overt racism of some of his Government ministers; the sporadic desecration of Hindu temples; the continuing use of the race card, and the blatant racism in numerous anti-Government blogs.

RR: “A new constitution in 1997 that it could rightly be proud of.”

CW: Appearances in 1997 were not borne out by realities, especially from 2000 onwards. The Constitution, eagerly adopted by the Great Council of Chiefs and an exhausted Indo-Fijian population thinking anything was better than the totally racist 1991 Constitution, has proved defective in (a) its electoral system; (b) its Government power-sharing provisions; (c) the power given to the Great Council of Chiefs, and their representation in Senate; and (d) the absence of the President's “reserve” powers, or similar.

RR: “The 1997 Constitution was helping to break down the racial divide through eventual power-sharing … Bainimarama chose to overthrow the recently elected parliament in which power was being shared for the first time among the representatives of 80 percent of the population.”

CW: Qarase refused to admit the Fiji Labour Party to power-sharing, and at the time of the 2006 Coup, the “Opposition” was Mike Beddoes, representing the UPP, a very small party. Power-sharing deprived Parliament, and Fiji, of an effective opposition.

RR: “There was no need for the coup. Change was already in the air because the purported threat Indo-Fijians posed to Fijian dominance has dissipated....may fall to under 25 percent by 2020”

CW: I can't see what has this to do with the Coup? Does Robbie propose a correlation between increasing “Fijian democracy” and a decline in Indo-Fijian numbers, presumably because Fijian politicians would no longer need to play the race card? The 2006 coup had several causes: Qarase's betrayal of Bainimarama's trust by entering politics and his inclusion of 2000 plotters and activists in his government; the high level of corruption; proposed legislation that would have excused the plotters; the divisive Qoliqoli Bill, and other bills promoting ethnic Fijians (more accurately their elite and chiefs) to the detriment of other races. It had nothing to do with current or future demographic shifts.

RR: “This [the smaller Indo-Fijian population] will mean electoral change will have to take place ….”

CW: The only change required from a smaller Indo-Fijian population would be a decrease in the number of their Communal seats. Robbie seems to assume (despite opinions to the contrary in his own writings) that race is the sole driver of Fiji politics and Fiji society. This view has some merit if we substitute “race card” for “race” but only if we also ignore significant divisions within both Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities.

RR:...and such change was already being publicly debated before Bainimarama chose to overthrow the recently elected parliament. “

CW: The Reeves Commission that resulted in the 1997 Constitution recommended the gradual reduction of Communal electorates and an increase in Open electorates, a change that Qarase's SDL would have blocked. The “public debate” was mainly about the scrapping of the Alternative Vote and its replacement by proportional representation. This would be an improvement, but as long as the Fijian Communal seats remained, the value of Fijian votes in some (mainly rural) provinces would continue to be worth between two and four times the value of Fijian votes in other (mainly urbanized) provinces; General Voters (other races) would be over-represented, and Fijians living in towns and cities would continue to be under-represented. In other words, it would continue to be grossly unfair and undemocratic. And as the saying goes: There's many a slip between the lip(debate) and the cup(genuine electoral reform). Robbie wrote of 20-30 years. Bainimarama decided not to wait that long!

But all this begs the question, the People's Charter is now central stage, and of this electoral reform is only a part. In a message to Café Pacific Robbie said: “I fear that even if he [Bainimarama] delivers, the result may not be what we wish for. [adding] Bainimarama should be judged by what he does, not what he says.” How true, on both counts. Bainimarama may not get the full People's Charter--it is still to be discussed-- but if he gets the major part of it, an optimistic view could be that the Coup and all it has brought may yet be judged worthwhile.

RR: Robbie expresses a far less optimistic view:“The danger Bainimarama poses lies not in what he says he will do but what he does. Here is a man who claims he and the military forces he represents have the right to interfere in the political process whenever they, and they alone, choose. This is the Rabuka legacy, and if Bainimarama succeeds in recreating Fiji's democracy in five years' time, he will have confirmed for all time the role of the military as Fiji's political kingmaker.”

CW: Yes, this is a distinct possibility and a very real concern that will be addressed during the People's Charter process. But one could also argue that without the Coup, Fiji would have become even more racist. We can no more read past futures than present ones.