Three Temporarily Unwise Men

Fiji Report #5

Part II, Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi

By Crosbie Walsh

No introduction is needed for Fiji readers. Ratu Joni is almost as well known as the Fiji flag. But for some others, Ratu Joni is the Roko Tui Bau, second only in rank to the Tui ni Vunivalu of the Kubuna confederacy that embraces most of the eastern half of Viti Levu and the Lomaiviti island group,¹ He is a direct descendant of Ratu Seru Cakobau who ceded Fiji to the British Crown and Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna who some consider the father of modern Fiji.

He has law degrees from Adelaide and McGill. He resigned as a High Court judge in protest at the Speight Coup and was appointed Vice-President in 2004 to replace his disgraced kinsman Ratu Jope Seniloli, jailed for his part in the Speight Coup. Ratu Joni was dismissed as Vice-President in 2006 by Bainimarama.

In 2008 he accepted an appointment on the Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commission and in 2011 he was made a law lord by the late king of Tonga. He is widely respected across all races for his longstanding advocacy of racial equality, better inter-racial understanding and political and cultural moderation. He  played no active part in recent Fiji politics until he was thrust into the limelight by his appearance in the Bau delegation to the Constitution Commission (that wanted Fiji to be declared a Christian state) and his earlier appointment as a short term consultant to the Commission. Then, as the saying goes, all hell broke loose.

     --oOo--

Ratu Joni had travelled over 30 kilometres from Bau to meet me at the Holiday Inn in Suva on a Saturday —and all I would offer him was a fruit drink. We spoke for over an hour, much in general conversation because we had met before, just weeks before the 2006 coup, when he launched my book on Fiji,² and because we had a mutual friend in Terry Donnelly whose book on the history and geography of Fiji is still used in schools, and we had Tongan stories to exchange. The interview was relaxed, relaxing and, I think, enjoyed by both of us.

We opened, as might be expected, with the Constitution and the rumour he'd been dismissed on Bainimarama's insistence that his part in Bauan delegation and a consultant made for a conflict of interest. He spoke first of Professor Yaah Ghai's credibility and integrity and agreed with me it would have been hard to find a more suitable person to chair the Commission. He thought the rumour "a clear prospect ... the Commander remains wary of me." When approached to help the Commission, he'd agreed because he "thought it an opportunity to contribute not withstanding my overall concerns." On the work of the Commission he thought the process was not perfect but was confident it would "come up with a reasonable document. At the end of the day, he said, what ultimately matters is what is good for the country. Sometimes we get lost in the detail and personal issues. He agreed with my description of Fiji as a Russian doll where lifting the head of the largest one revealed a succession of smaller ones inside.

On his position on the Christian state he said my posting the previous day had "got is exactly right." He did not agree with this part of the Bauan submission but said, "These are my people. I am one of their leaders. I could have ... got them to accept my views but that would not have been honest..." He expressed disappointment with the Fiji Sun for publishing his photo alongside their report. "There would have been an immediate association... but I was there only in a supportive role ... I was sitting in the back."

We talked briefly of the re-emergence of the old political leaders, Chaudhry and Qarase. He hinted at the cultural insensitivity of the former, doubting that he had ever had any information to help him understand Taukei, and on both he questioned why they was coming back into politics.

"Between him and Qarase, I have to tell you, I really am taken aback that for the two of them, after their record ...when between them they contributed to what happened in 2006 with their bloody mindedness and stubbornness."

I noted their submissions to the Commission essentially wanted a return to how it was before 2006. He agreed, adding that "the people of the country deserve better."

Asked about what happens between now and the elections he thought it unlikely government would lift any decrees and, although hopeful, thought the Constituent Assembly may not be as representative as it could be  because of government "insecurity... they wanted to control it." He thought it would be more palatable if, for example, women's groups and the old political parties were represented but agreed that they might be better represented by people other than Chaudhry and Qarase.

He was sure there would be no interim government. The PM had said that just was  not going to happen. He had no idea of how the elections would go. The youth factor is unknown. Taukei grassroots attitudes could have changed. Bainimarama clearly thinks they have but while Taukei respect strong leadership they also often tell their leaders what they think they want to hear.  And he thought any government that had been in power for eight yeas inevitably was not as popular as it might think. "That's the nature of politics."

He referred to the old Methodist church leaders as "old war horses" and hoped the new leadership would bring more of its moderate people into  prominence. He agreed with Bainimarama's vision for a unified Fiji but said it was "hard to know whether the majority of people agree with him." Only the secret ballot box would tell.

On Bainimarama and the elections, he thought the PM had not make his mind up on whether to stand but thought "he'll do what he can to remain in control" in some way. Asked about the role of the military, he said it was "very loyal" to the PM and that it was his only power base. I advanced the possibility of an "Indonesian model" of government with some military involvement. He did not comment.

Asked whether Bainimarama was genuine, he said that "people very close to him thought so" and he had no reason to think otherwise but he agreed with me that Bainimara's idea of democracy could be different from that of others.

I asked about the independence of the judiciary. He expressed concern at the number of Sri Lankan judges and magistrates because in Sri Lanka they "only hold office at the President's pleasure." This, he thought, would make them more amenable to interference than lawyers recruited elsewhere, but he did not say interference had occurred or been successful. After 2014, he thought the present judges should resign and apply for reappointment, and be assessed case by case.

He thought the use of Fijian as a name for all citizens was mainly a generational thing. "Younger people are more relaxed, Older people are more attached and feel they are giving something up. It is more than a name. It is an emotional attachment, and people are easily moved by symbols."

We briefly talked about the possible future role of the military after 2014. He thought the Commission might recommend some sort of enlarged civilian and disaster role but his main concern was broadening  its ethnic composition. He did not accept the military view that other races were not interested, and thought they should more actively recruit  other races with scholarships and by making conditions more palatable. Similarly, he thought three Indo-Fijians in cabinet was "not good enough." The military and government needs "more gender, ethnic and regional balance."

Asked what I could usefully raise with the PM and the Attorney-General, he said they really did need to be more inclusive and "they need to believe in the process, the mechanisms they have set up, and the people they have appointed. They owe it to the people of Fiji. They really do. They cannot control the process."

We finished with the "helpful" criticisms often appearing in my blog. "Criticism is good," he said. "That is one of the more valuable lessons I've learnt by exposure overseas and here [but for] Pacific people your opinions and you are really almost inseparable whereas  in the West you and your opinions are separate. It is the way we are ... that is how the Commander is, which is understandable...."

A wise man and an honest one, I thought,  who, while differing on some of Bainimarama's methods, agrees with much of his vision. His inclusion in events over the next two years would add much to the credibility of the dialogue process and the acceptance of the Constituent Assembly. Unfortunately, this is unlikely while Bainimarama focuses on differences to the exclusion of shared ideals.

Ratu Joni believes  Bainimarama is genuine.  He agrees with his vision for a united Fiji. He agrees with the non-negotiable principles. He condemns Chaudhry and Qarase for what they did during 2006 and thinks Fiji deserves better, and he looked forward to a more moderate leadership in the Methodist Church. If I were asked: "Halt! Who goes there?" I would have answered "Friend." On a scale of one to ten I'd place him at seven. Unfortunately, it would seem  this is not enough.

Ratu Joni was probably unwise or a little naive if he thought his work for the Commission would not rile Government but I suspect the Ghai-Bainimarama clash would have taken place anyway. Their ideas on the role of the Commission were just too far apart.

Part III will be on my interview with the PM.

1. The other confederacies are Burebasaga (Rewa, central and much of the West) and Tovata (Vanua Levu and the Lau Group.

2. Fiji: an Encyclopaedic Atlas, USP, 2006. (Purchasable at USP and in New Zealand from the author for about $25.)