(o) Government and Church: What Do They Mean by "Politics?"

Methodist Church President Revs Ame Tagaue and Secretary Tuikilakila Waqairaru (photo) met with PM Bainimarama on Wednesday but were not successful in persuading him to lift the ban on the church's Annual Confererence and AGM planned for August. “Basically," Bainimarama told Fiji Live, "the conference will [only] happen once they remove politics not only from their agenda, but from the church too.” [Not an easy ask. See previous posting.]

So where does this leave Fiji, its major religious institution, and its search for a resolution to its present - political - problems? What do the Government and the Church mean by politics? Are they talking about the same thing?

The Government means any anti-Government action, ranging from the relatively mild and healthy criticism of groups such as the Citizen's Constitutional Forum, to the obstructionism of the Fiji Law Society, to the media's alleged one-sided account of events, to the crusading posturing of people like Rev. Manasa Lasaro that could lead to serious public unrest, to plans for actual physical action against Government. Government's apparent inability to distinguish between honest criticism and these different grades of opposition has been its major tactical weakness that, uncorrected, could well lead to its ultimate downfall.

If Government is to have any chance of implementing the much needed reforms it advocates, it must win the "political middle ground," and to do this it has to take some calculated risks. It must, of course, apprehend what Col. Pita Driti called "some factions of the Taukei movement" who are stirring up unrest. It must see that the Taukei faction within the Methodist Church does not have unrestricted access to the thousands meeting at the proposed annual conference. But it must also distinguish between low and high risk. The total clampdown of the past month allows its opponents to claim the moral high ground.

What the Church means by politics is harder to define. Conferences have always discussed politics, in its broader meaning, as it affects the church and the Fijian population. I would consider this a legitimate involvement. But the Church has also engaged in party politics, supporting extreme Fijian nationalists; its Taukei leaders actively supported the 1987 and 2000 Coups; and there can be little doubt that these same ulta-nationalist leaders, notably Rev. Manase Lasaro and Rev. Tomasi Kanailagi, will use every oppportunity to derail and oust the Interim Government. This type of political involvement would not be supported by the mainstream of Christian opinion, in Fiji or overseas.

Coupfourpointfive reports that Bainimarama speaking last week from Brussels told the church leadership to bar these clergymen from future church activities. This it cannot do. They are elected officials who can only be dismissed at the annual AGM. And therein, as "Anonymous" commented to my previous post, lies the irony. The Church cannot hold the conference with these clergy and they can only be dismissed at the conference.

There seem to be two other possibilities. Just as the Govenment needs to recognize degrees of dissent, so also the Church needs to distinguish between core and peripheral principles. How adamant is it in its opposition to Government? Is there really no common ground? How important is the Conference? Is it possible to disallow political discussion that could lead to civic unrest? Can Lasaro and Kanailagi be persuaded not to attend the conference (or attend but not to speak on political issues) for the greater good of the Church? This is one possibility.

The other possibility was raised by "Altergo" as a comment to my previous post. He writes:

"This is one area where the Bainimarama regime cuts off it's nose to spite it's face. Allow Lasaro a public platform in a free media and several things will happen: 1. He'll spend more time promoting his views and less time conspiring; 2. His views will attract reasoned and vigorous opposition, giving people the opportunity to hear more than one voice. (As it is, the only opposition comes from the regime mouthpieces who have little credibility when it comes to well-reasoned debate); 3. The likes of Lasaro will be less able to don the shroud of the 'righteous oppressed' if they're given a public hearing.

"As much as I detest the current regime, we cannot allow the Methodist Church in its current incarnation to claim any sort of precedence in any efforts to replace the current government with one that has a properly proven popular mandate. So let them bray, publicly. It will quickly become obvious that they are merely noisy, empty vessels. Rather than God-anointed saviours who have an viable vision for Fiji.

"I do not think the Methodist flock of Fiji is as stupid and gullible as many make them out to be."

I think "Alterego" has a point. It's a little risky but it could work, and if it did, Government would gain in support, and the Conference could go ahead. It's even possible but, in my opinion, unlikely that the moderates at the Conference would vote out the Taukei malignancy that has plagued the Church for too long. Well, this is at least a more pleasant prospect than the nightmare of extending the Emergency to August, as has been hinted.

Government's statement that there will be no more meetings with the Church is, I'm sad to say, characteristically unhelpful.

Photo: Fiji Live. Reports also in the Fiji Times, Fiji Village