In the relatively moderate anti-government blog FijiToday a Pita Massam writes to publisher Peter Firkin raising interesting questions on race, racism, legislation and the 2014 elections.
Pita writes about an IndoFijjian business friend who says he can think of no one who would be acceptable to both i'taukei and IndoFijians as prime minister. "Both Qarase and Chaudry are way too polarised to be allowed to stand and the PM has promised to exclude them anyway."
Further, his friend doubts any "village Fijian would vote for a “Mongoose” and that is 30% of the total vote. No Settlement Indian would vote for a “Tu” and that is 18% of the population."
"He proposes a question to ask to gauge the level of racism bred into the current population. Would you be happy if your daughter married a Fijian or Indian? He believes that an almost 100% of parents would say “no way.” This will not change in the six years as proposed by the current Government. So if we do get to have an election in 2014 it is impossible that it will be non racial and even the most non political Indians see themselves worse off than before 2006."
The friend thinks "that the current administration has the right policies about non-racial schooling and the next generation is the first opportunity for advances towards a non-racial society [but] irrespective of what dreams the current administration has, racism is way too alive and well in Fiji and the majority Fijian vote will own the next parliament."
Many people probably share these views. At first glance, they seem so obvious but a closer examination is needed. First, it is important not to confuse race with racism. There's no way any legislation anywhere will be able to change people's race, so to this extent the 2014 elections will not be non-racial. But society can put structures in place to reduce hostility and suspicion between races and take actions against institutional racism. Individuals and groups, of course, may still be racist but the opportunities to treat other races unfairly or unjustly will be very limited by removing institutional racist structures. It is important not to confuse individual or group racism with institutional racism.
Of course, parents may still prefer their children to marry within their own race, or religion or social class. This is entirely natural, but it is only racism when the parents seek to prevent marriage to an otherwise suitable son- or daughter-in-law because of their hatred towards or unreasonable suspicion of the "other" race. And voting for an MP is nowhere near as intimate or permanent as choosing a marriage partner!
Pita's friend correctly says racism is alive and well in Fiji and cannot be "killed by legislation." But institutional racism can be killed and race relations improved.
The next four years, with ongoing institutional and infrastructural reforms, the new Constitution and Electoral reforms, should see Fiji go a long way to ensuring that race is pushed to the sidelines of politics, and that when the election is held parties will be formed around policies and issues, not race.
Most MPs, the PM and the President after 2014 will probably be i'taukei simple because most people in Fiji are i'taukei. This should not be an issue, but if it is, the Deputy PM and Vice-President could represent other races. The bigger parties at least will be multi-ethnic, and structures will be in place to prevent a return to the race-based and often racist politics and legislation of Fiji before the 2006 Coup. Among most educated people, the race of the country's leaders will be far less important than the quality of their leadership. And given more time, most people will think the same. "By their deeds [and not their faces] ye shall know them."
There is, of course, always some doubt about future outcomes. None of us can predict the future. But if Peter, Pita and his IndoFijian friend want the kind of Fiji I think they want, I'm sure their best option is to keep the Bainimarama regime — for all its many warts and imperfections — honest to the principles of the People's Charter and on track to elections in 2014. The alternative, the so-called "return to democracy," proclaimed by the racists in the extreme anti-government blogs is too frightening to think about.
8 comments:
So croz
The EU, US, UK, Australia, NZ and the rest of the free wrld that want the dictatorship in Fiji removed and a return to democracy are all racist are they? If you believe that you are delusional.
As for the letter you speak about - one point was spot on. Indo Fijians are now much worse of than they were before Dec 5 2006. It will take them 50 years to get back what they have lost and again be trusted - all thrown away for nothing.
The biggest barrier to better race-relations in Fiji has been a partisan media delving too much on the first world principles of conflict, race-tagging and seditious reporting on racial issues. With the current media decree and removal of race-obsessed "gatekeepers” from our newsrooms, things are hoped to increase. New breed of journalists promoting coexistence in a multiracial setting, with Development and Peace Journalism may set the tone for a better racially-tolerant Fiji ahead.
@ Very confused ... Look in the mirror. You ignore the main points being made in the article; confuse foreign governments' policies with Fiji's internal situation; claim, with no evidence, that IndoFijians are worse off than before 2006, and warn them it will take 50 years to get back what you suppose them to have had.
Please address the main points in the article and ask yourself what sort of Fiji you want after 2014?
Actions speak louder than works. After all the hype about freeing Fiji from race based divisions, this regime has done absolutely nothing in four years to balance race participation in Fiji's most important and certainly most powerful institution, the military. What comfort can the Indian community take from a regime that is quite obviously not willing to even contemplate a step towards sharing power? To me it is really laughable to hear the never ending verbose about reforms, true democracy, bringing about progress if the real power in Fiji is held by iTaukei and nobody else.
@ Anon 10:42am
I agree. If the regime really is following some sort of plan, which I truly doubt, they haven't really got very far and seem to be using any excuse to avoid any tangible progress - they blame their own civil servants, blame foreign governments and seem to believe that one-sided dialogue is a reasonable method of engaging the people in their own future.
@ Croz
The development of democracy, in all nations throughout history is a "development". It is not something that they all got instantly - OZ, NZ, UK and the US all have a history of violence, racism and struggle in one form or another. The struggles have all produced systems that are not perfect, but are functional and produce a relatively happy form of government.
I don't suggest that the idea of a similar violent 'struggle' is a great way forward for Fiji, but to suggest that there is some form of simple solution to social issues, that can only be solved by a dictat, is galling to say the least. Democracy and freedom is hard won, there is no solution.
I also tire of other commentators that suggest that we Fijians have no 'brains' for the job of deciding whom should lead a country, and that we are somehow incapable of engaging in a dialogue with our governments to create a fairer system of government and election.
I agree with you, I want to see some sort of constitutional reform but this government seems unwilling to even prepare to attempt it - they refuse to engage in dialogue with any political parties, foreign nations or public forums.
No-one really knows what is going on. I doubt that even the military knows.
So we are ALL left in the dark as to what, if any, their plans are and how they intend to implement them.
This is very stupid because if they DID have a plan, it would make sense to reveal it so that the people have some comfort that Fiji will go somewhere, and we won't be stuck in limbo for the next 20 years while we wait for the dictator to die. The result of all this is the simmering discontent and the jumping at rumours we see in Fiji at the moment.
Croz,
Thanks for sharing the views of Pita Massam on racism and the acceptance or non-acceptance of a PM based on her/his ethnicity. On the issue of leadership of the country unfortunately we are fixated by the likes of Qarase and Chaudhary, we need to look forward to the promised non-racial electoral system and constituencies as well as clearer regulation of political parties and their funding. These are likely to produce leaders who represent a greater degree of national interest over more narrow ethnic concerns.
With respect to racism and the question of whether one’s daughter will be allowed to marry across the ethnic lines, the fact is that as in apartheid South Africa and ‘Jim Crow’ states of USA pre-1960s, there were inter-racial sexual liaisons, cohabitation and marriages dating back to the 1940s. Professor Adrian C Mayer pointed out in his ‘Indians in Fiji’ (OUP, 1973) that back in the 1950s (with racial segregation etc) there were around 150 children of ethnic-Fijian and Indo-Fijian descent.
Since then, the social distance between people of all ethnicities in Fiji has diminished and the number of inter-ethnic cohabitation and marriages have increased. There have been a few well publicized cases of such marriages between professional couples. These days, more parents will ask the question of what is the occupation of their potential son in law and his ability to look after their daughter’s well being rather than what race he belongs to .
I second Liu Muri's assertion that first world 'principles' on conflict and race-tagging often fly in the face of a truly progressive society.
It is also indisputable that removing institutional opportunities for racism is key - in Fiji we know the communal voting system, in particular, is in need of reform. Playing the race card has been and remains the easiest method for political parties across the globe to come into power - so much so that it is frequently deployed by politicians known privately to be non-discriminatory. Blame ultimately lies not with the voters or political parties themselves, but with the system for rewarding base tactics so handsomely.
However - and this is key - let us not go as far as institutionalising the 'multicultural' apparatus so often deployed in the quick fix interventions of Europe and the US. One only has to look at modern day Bosnia to see the legacy of 'multiculturalism' - presidencies (including that even of the football federation) that rotate between its three constituent ethnic groups have left Bosnian politics at a standstill for 15 years, and only serve to reinforce ethnic divisions, as an everyday reminder of the three categories of ‘Bosnic’, ‘Croat’ and ‘Serb’.
‘Multiculturalism’, in such examples, is based on the underlying assumption that ethnic groups are essentially different and should be treated as such. Systems established in its name do not trust citizens to recognise each other equally and therefore attempt to legally enforce race-based power sharing - irrelevant of whether the individuals that end up in power are the best placed to be there. In doing so, they institutionalise discrimination (both negative and so-called ‘positive’) in search of ‘tolerance’. It is as if the best a plural society can hope for is for its people to ‘tolerate’ each other. In Fiji we must aim for much more.
Sooner or later, the people of Fiji will have to make their choice. We cannot attempt to legally enforce non-discriminatory voting, but what we can do is to ensure that the electoral and parliamentary systems in place in 2014 no longer reward race-based tactics in politics. Dialogue on these reforms should start right away. For the rest, we have to trust in the people (all of the people) of Fiji.
@ Multiculturalism
Very well put. I wish I knew an answer to the "base politicking" we see so often around the world.
Post a Comment