Why it is Unpleasant but Necessary to Attack Ratu Tevita

The least pleasant part of writing this blog is having,  as in the Ratu Tevita case, to attack the man.  I would far rather attack an argument, but several readers have said  I’ve ”gone over the top” and revealed my “true bias” by attacking Ratu Tevita and the role of Australia and New Zealand in helping him to spread his message.  I have no idea how representative their views are but if there are others, with open minds, who share these views, it is necessary to answer the accusation.  

There is nothing secret about my bias. It is clearly stated in the blog description in the tab Aims/Principles.  As for going over the top, that’s Ratu Tevita. I’m only calling his bluff. 

I have attacked Ratu Tevita for three reasons.  


First, because there are too many obvious lies in his statements to accept his Damascus experience without question.  He said he was lost when fishing; he took secret documents fishing; he was picked up outside Fiji territorial waters near Ono-i-Lau (a long way from Kadavu where several people saw him). He says Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and Nazhat Shameem were frequent visitors to Bainimarama’s house in 2006. They were not. He says Bainimarama attacked three women in 2006 when the women said it was him and Pita Driti, and Bainimarama wasn’t even there.   He broke parole.  He left his colleague Driti  and his family to ‘face the music’  and now says he is worried about them.  There are credible stories of sexual misconduct and another family in Nausori, and there are unsubstantiated stories of financial improprieties. It is unclear how much of this is true   but there are just too many missing pieces in his story.  The missing pieces, and his obvious lies, leaves me doubting the purity of his motives.  That would not be a sufficient reason to attack the man were it not for the second reason.

Secondly, I attack him  because he is clearly trying to rally support to depose the Bainimarama Government, almost certainly with the assistance of others. He talks about peaceful protest in the same breath as saying he is in touch with, and has the support of, some army officers. If this is the case, which I doubt,  the outcome could be far from peaceful.   

But even more importantly, he is not speaking of  —or to— all Fijians.  He is addressing ethnic Fijians to the exclusion of the 43% of the population that is not.  He is clearly playing on the racial fears that have produced all of Fiji’s four coups. His idea of democracy is  shown in his wish to entrust the Great Council of Chiefs (a non-elected body that in recent years has been decidedly political) to steer Fiji in the interim before elections.  

I have no doubt he wants to return Fiji to the SDL-type politics, elitism, nepotism and privilege that were major causes of the Bainimarama Coup in 2006.  If Ratu Tevita has his way, Fiji will be returned to how it was.  None of its entrenched multi-racial problems will be resolved, the nation will be as divided as ever, and nothing will have been learnt from the past. The many steps taken in the past 4½ years to address racism, inefficiency, corruption and the needs of the urban and rural poor will have been for nothing.
 
Thirdly, I have attacked him  because the overseas mainstream media have failed to do their job in questioning his motivation and credibility.  This, quite probably,  has led to Australia and New Zealand maintaining their  current policies (just as there were signs they may be changing). They probably think, that with Bainimarama out and Ratu Tevita installed in Fiji,  business will return to usual, just as it was prior to December 2006.  I doubt what I say will make any difference but I think they are backing the wrong horse. 

Anti-government people and the usual blogs are making a lot of noise about Ratu Tevita's defection and ‘revelations’ (and it is certainly a slap in the face for Bainimarama) but there are no signs within Fiji that Ratu Tevita enjoys any popular support.  Indeed, he seems to be nothing more than an embarrassment. His overseas support is certainly vocal and well organized but, if his Canberra FDFM meeting is any indication, it mainly comprises SDL supporters and is limited to very small numbers.

The media rarely publishes contrary views, and both governments seem unwilling to question their initial assumptions, and now seem to be looking to Ratu Tevita to shortcut the Bainimarama policies that, if successful, will result in a far fairer Fiji in 2014.There is a danger both governments will not look closely enough at Ratu Tevita's credentials and the level of his supposed support. If they accept his prescription, without thought of its short and long-term consequences, they will truly have learnt nothing from Fiji's coup history.


This is why Ratu Tevita has to be challenged. It is nothing personal. But in this case I cannot attack the argument without also attacking the man.