I have the feeling, having listened to Bainimarama on Maori TV and from several of his recent remarks, that he is now profoundly distrustful of the media and has a very jaundiced view of the whole democratic process. Almost in the same breath when he talks of the need for reforms and unity, he also talks of the need for authoritarian power to effect change. "People," he says, "should follow or get out." And, having said the media is free, he goes on to say free "when they say the right things and do not print rubbish."
I'm in sympathy with his frustration. Almost everything he wants for Fiji has been doubted, ridiculed and opposed by detractors at home and overseas.
- He knows no government elected under the old political system would ever have effected the wide reforms he seeks.
- He knows that many of those opposing him in Fiji have their own personal agendas that have nothing to do with a "return to democracy."
- He knows that many old politicians, key figures in the Great Council of Chiefs and leading Methodists, with the moral support of overseas groups, use many dirty tricks to undermine his support.
- He long ago gave up hope for an unbiased media.
He knows also that the international community, taking its lead from Australia and New Zealand that are at least as intent on stability and a democratic veneer as justice and democratic change, continue to undermine his plans for Fiji. And, more than once, because he is a military man untrained in diplomacy, he's stumbled into errors that make him appear the ignorant tyrant he is not.
I sympathise and understand. Like many, I am in basic agreement with his roadmap.
But I cannot agree with his ordering of priorities and his apparent assumption that reforms imposed on Fiji will be permanent.
He says infrastructural changes must come before elections. Yes, but the proposed social infrastructual reforms, about which we've heard little lately, are no less important than physical infrastructure, and deferring elections until 2014 should not mean deferring dialogue until 2012.
A better society presumes better shared values, but values cannot be imposed. They may be taught but they will not be accepted unless they spring from people's understanding, experience and agreement. This truly is a battle for hearts and minds because the people must come to see the need for change -- even if they cannot accept it all -- if the reforms are to succeed.
But people will not be able to see the need for change -- not even electoral change -- unless they can talk about it in an open and informed manner.
And it is the educated people, those who read and write to newspapers, the public speakers, the chairpersons of organizations, in short, those who help others to form opinions, who must first be able to talk to each other because they are the ones who will trigger wider informed discussion.
Croz Walsh.
5 comments:
All your conclusions are essentially correct. This IS a battle for hearts and minds. But it is an enterprise in which Australia and New Zealand have absented themselves and so the battle is now having to be conducted on two fronts. Is this just? The undertaking is huge in scale. Who will be prepared to say to these 'fairweather' neighbours that they have completely underestimated the immensity of such a task in which they have played, undoubtedly, a role which has been seen as obstructionist and unhelpful. Terrorism and hostage-taking have shaped our situation: rigged elections and blatant/rampant racism has tainted the political climate for two decades. And our near neighbours saw fit to immerse themselves in such a brew and think it seemly? Acceptable even for those who live and work in increasingly difficult conditions: exacerbated by policies directed towards Fiji from smug, self-satisfied people who deem they 'know best'. This is a recipe for impending disaster in current global economic climate. Any smart predatory power would jump at the opportunity it presents.
'Democratic veneer'....ahead of Justice? There we part company. I have just heard Afghanis say to a BBC world service reporter that they would not relish a Second Round of voting. They want stability and security FIRST. Of course they do. That is quite understandable. In Fiji....ditto.
One of the issues often not debated with this subject is the role of the military. Sure, we have a failed political climate; and we have difficulties at the social level, too. But what affect on Fiji will instituting a military government for the next x-number of years?
Democracy is never pretty, even when it ostensibly works. Let's say Fiji's next multi-ethnic Parliament gets into a tiff about taxes or development or casinos. The fight separates people not by ethnicity but by political affiliation. Yes, perhaps this will show the military government's plan had worked. But what if that fight boils over and becomes potentially destabilizing, at least in the eye of the next military commander? What will he do? Well, history says...
In my view, Bainimarama has lost his way - if indeed he ever had a path mapped out. He is showing all the signs of a poor manager. He changes his mind about key strategies - are we having elections in 2010, or 2009 or 2014? He appears to wax and wane when confronted with challenges. I don't think he is a manager pure and simple. He's a military man, used to getting his way and his reaction, when backed into a corner, is to stand and fight it out rather than to negotiate.
Is it really corruption that he wants to wipe out? Are his high principles to be obtained by the gun and by intimidation? Would he really welcome back the NZ High Commissioner - and if he's serious then why not initiate a discussion on this with NZ.
You can't force democracy on people. You can't change cultural practices overnight (look at the small steps the likes of Tonga are taking to move from a feudal monarchy to a monarchic democracy). Nor can you turn corrupt businessmen and politicians and military personnel into doves over night.
But you have to start somewhere and you have to start sometime.
The true test of Bainimarama's integrity will be how long it starts for him to make tangible and consistent progress. And if, as he indicated on the Maori TV interview, democracry is anathema to him, I predict that he will never really take steps to address the things which he rails against because he and his cronies don't know how to - and possibly don't really want to.
On the contrary, Bainimarama has remained remarkably consisitent. No elections without reforms, no return of the old racial politics, and dialogue and engagement with the overseas countries. Interesting that "Anonymous" thinks dialogue between Fiji and the Kiwis should start with the recalling to Fiji of the the former High Commissioner! He seems to have overstepped his political mark by dabbling in politics and attacking Fiji in his speeches. Would this be acceptable diplomatic conduct anywhere in the world? I doubt it. He must surely be history now and irrelevant to any relationship between the countries. Dialogue must be unconditional to succeed if the end product is dialogue itself. No country will respond well to ultimatums. The issuing of them to Fiji was a singular and ill advised step taken by the diplomatically inept Kiwis.
Post a Comment