(G-) Fiji Times, Fiji TV Not Included in Media Decree Consultation

Government says the Fiji Times and TV Fiji will not take part in the consultative process on the proposed Media Decree due to come into effect early next year because "they have demonstrated through their perverse publication and broadcast respectively that they do not recognise the contemporary Fijian legal system, the status of the Bainimarama government, are partisan and not Fiji focused".

Consultations will only include "media organisations and other relevant stakeholders which recognise the Bainimarama government and who have an interest in moving Fiji forward." If they want to be invited they must "change their partisan editorial, publication and broadcast positions and policy." 

The decision is understandable but regretted because Government must engage with its opponents if these and other consultation outcomes are to be accepted as credible, not least by Government well-wishers in Fiji and abroard. ANU's Brij Lal sees "parallels with a political dialogue forum on electoral reforms planned for early next year. The government has announced several key political parties will be excluded from the meeting because their views are 'unhelpful'".

Government must find a way around this problem. To exclude leaders of the SDL party is understandable but representatives of the many "moderate" people who voted SDL should be included. A similar approach on the Media Decree would see "moderate" media opponents of Government included in the consultations.

(o+) Letter from Sydney: Just Back from Fiji

"I left Fiji after the 1987 coup and now live in Sydney. I have regularly visited Fiji in the last 20 years with a number of cousins etc still there although every year another one or two leave Fiji.

On principle I could not agree with the 2006 Coup although I am pragmatic enough to move forward at some stage. I have just returned from a holiday in Fiji and can tell you that Fiji is as normal as it ever has been in the last 22 years. You would not know there was any political issues on the streets on Suva or any other town.

There is a strong minority who have lost out a lot after the change of Qarase Govt who are still doing their best to destabilise the country but they are a decreasing minority. Can I please suggest you ignore the anti blogs  as they need ozygen to survive and they are being ignored. Sure, there are a couple of dozen people who write and comment  to these blogs but if you read them, you will see there are a few people involved.

The one thing that hurts in Fiji is that the ordinary people are struggling to make a living as always and the anti govt blogs [don't help.] Australia and NZ govt etc are hurting them directly. This is where you have done a great job in bringing another perspective on the situation.  Regards, Vy"

(o) Are Our Feminists Being Used?

A Reader Comments

"Regarding your commentary on Amnesty International New Zealand's award to Shamima: I thought I'd forward you something from the International Center on Non-Violent Conflict website.  I joined the forum in February; posts come at least once a month, and this is the first 'front page' story they've devoted to Oceania, and Shamima's award leads the posting. [They had received it from the extreme anti-Bainimarama blog Raw Fiji News!]

"The award reminds me of Condoleeza Rice's award to [anti-Bainimarama activist]  Virisila Buadromo a couple of years ago.

"I certainly have problems with Bainimarama's regime, but I also worry when a country's feminists and women activists are clearly being used by outside organizations and agents to undermine constructive civic engagement and conflict resolution at home."

(o) Public Emergency Regulations Extended Another Month

Xinhuanet reports that the  Public Emergency Regulations (PER) have been extended for another month, from 3rd December.  This announcement has not yet been published by Fiji's on-line media.

While one can understand the need for their continuation (the previous post records numerous calls for violence in the anti-Government blogs), this blog urges Governnment to be as flexible as possible in their application.

As indicated in an earlier posting, I would commend greater media freedom (with "yellow warning cards" issued to media that transgress acceptable boundaries) and freedom of assembly.  It is, I think, absolutely essential that reasonable men and women should feel free to openly and collectively discuss the Roadmap and issues relating to electoral  and constitutional reform way before next year's official discussions.

The blanket application of PER will result in Government's opponents rubbing their hands in delight for they know PER  does more than check anti-Government elements; it also alienates Fiji's "middle ground" and  sidelines many who may otherwise support Government's plans for the future. For Fiji's -- and for Government's --  sake the Regulations need to be applied only selectively, and lifted progressively and then totally as soon as possible in the New Year.

(0) ANZ-US: Who's Kidding Whom?

See Comments on this post by clicking "comment" at the end.

Outgoing Acting US Ambassador to NZ Dr Dave Keegan was interviewed by NZTV1's Mark Sainsbury on Sunday. He had this to say about Australian, NZ, the US and the Fiji "situation."

Keegan: The role of the US in the Pacific I think is longstanding, you know out of Hawaii which is our Pacific state, out of American territories, Guam, American Samoa, and others, but we're also not going to step in and try to recreate the kind of expertise that Australia and New Zealand bring to the table. You have a degree of knowledge and a degree of understanding of how to make things work there that we want to take advantage of and be the beneficiary of, and figure out how we can add value.

Sainsbury: But the US congressman for American Samoa Faleomavaega, now he says that - he has criticized New Zealand and Australia's attitude to the Pacific, and said America should be looking at - in terms of Fiji - that we're too tough on Fiji, America needs to take a sort of softer stance there.

Keegan: I know that Mr Faleomavaega has made that argument, Secretary of State Clinton, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell have made it absolutely clear that in the government's assessment, New Zealand and Australia are taking a strong line with Fiji that is appropriate, and that we want to figure out how to work with your governments as we have been to continue the pressure on Fiji to move back to a real democracy.

To read the whole interview, click here. Our thanks to Pacific Media Centre for this.

Meanwhile, contemplate how our knowledge and understanding of the Pacific have really made things work since the military takeover .

Think of --

1. How the Fiji situation has got progressively worse since December 2006.
2. How we have not modified our approaches as the situation changed.
3. How we have not accepted Bainimarama has far more support than we first realized.
4. How we have failed to understand Qarase and the extreme opposition will not modify their stance unless we stop backing them.
5. How we do not understand it is only Fiji's "middle ground" (not the racist extremists) that can bring about reconciliation.
6. How our policies have further divided Fiji's people, and delayed reconciliation.
7. How we have not acknowledged democracy cannot be achieved by an undemocratic electoral system and injust government.
8. How we have failed to grasp that our stance on Fiji has accelerated Chinese influence to the detriment of our diplomatic influence and trade interests in the Region.
9. How we continue to accept the Pacific Island "yes" at the Forum, and on PACER plus and PICTA, as unreserved approval of our benign leadership.
10. And, most importantly, how our lack of humility -- and deep-down belief in human equality and justice -- has failed to boost our knowledge and enhance our understanding of people and nations whose cultures and histories are different than our own?

This is not to excuse the human rights and other abuses that have occurred since 2006 but, given that our Fiji policies have demonstrably failed, we must ask Dr Keegan: "Who's kidding Whom?" One must hope the incoming ambassador will have more nous.

14 Reactions to the PM's 'Road Map' -- Take Your Pick

9 Newspaper or Radio Accounts, 4 "Inside Sources", 1 Comment

(-) Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement, NGO, Sydney
Waiting until 2012 to debate a new constitution is "a charade to ensure the military regime prolongs its hold on power" said spokesperson Usaia Waqatairewa, who wouldn’t be surprised if the election date was put back further.

(-) Prof. Brij Lal, ANU
"The new roadmap will prolong the suffering of the people unnecessarily ... it is an irony that on the day the Commodore has announced his road map, he has also extended the emergency regulations."

(-) Coupfourpointfive, Auckland
"Bainimarama tried to fool Fiji and the world when he delivered his strategic framework for change national address today ...it is basically to pull wool over people's eyes"[referring back to his failure to hold elections by March 2009, and then in 2010. Delaying work on the new Constitution until September 2012]"confirms that elections are the last thing on the mind's of Bainimarama's, the military council and the coup leader’s closest ally and adviser, interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum."

(-) Australia and New Zealand
Both governments have reacted negatively to the address, and called again for immediate elections.

(+) Fiji Police Commissioner Cde Esala Teleni
"The strategic framework ... is the best way for forward for Fiji. “The government’s priority now is the socio-economic life of people and it is important for me as commissioner of police to provide a conducive environment for that in terms of stability and security." [The police force will be strengthened with upgraded communications, transport and forensic tools.]

(+) Fiji Chamber of Commerce
President Swani Maharaj said the FCC was impressed with the new Fiji vision. "Bainimarama has been very committed especially on non-racial politics....I’ve always thought that the 1997 Constitution no matter what people say was a racist constitution.”

(+) Fiji Retailers Association
President Himmat Lodhia urged the business sector to throw their full support behind Government, now that it has indicated the direction it would take. “This is the first time the message from the government is clear in which direction they are moving, that is the most important thing ...As a business community we will support it,” he reiterated.

(+) Suva Chamber of Commerce
President Nur Bano Ali echoed similar sentiments. “Government has indicated the road they have chosen and all I can say is that these are very positive things so the private sector will have to play its part.”

But Perhaps Much Depends on Who is Asking the Question

A small research exercise I conducted at USP in the late 1990s sought to see whether the ethnicity of the interviewer affected answers . It did, and the results were statistically significant. Those interviewed by a person of the same ethnicity were more forthright in their answers; with people of a different ethnicity they more cautious, often I suspect answering in a way to please the interviewer. Thus, on the question "Should the military be more ethnically balanced", Fijians to Fijians said 'no', and to Indo-Fijians 'yes.' while Indo-Fijian to IF said 'yes' and to Fijians said 'no' or 'perhaps.'

I suspect something of this sort has influenced the 'business' responses cited above. One of my "inside sources", normally a government supporter, wrote:

Source 1. (-) "I was at the speech yesterday, it was very strange indeed in all honesty it lacked substance and was a waste of money. All [the business and other people] I have spoken to have very similar feelings, they have lost support for the government and feel the situation is now hopeless...They have all but walked away from the government, again citing the same reasons, nothing will be done, the wrong people are running the country, etc."

Source 2, who also attended the meeting.
(+) "The thing that amazed me was that the ... Centre was packed - absolutely packed with no seats left. ... I was surprised that it was rather short but, on reflection, I guess he just wanted to paint the big broad strokes for the future. All the comments I heard (mainly from the business people) were positive. There was a feeling that he was addressing the big issues that have not been addressed in the past. If anything the speech gave people a lost of assurance of a certain time frame. Some businessmen said the speech could well encourage investment because the processes were defined."

Source 3, who was not at the meeting but who earlier had some support for Bainimarama:
(-) "I am afraid I am very cynical about FB's promises and claims after what has transpired this far [restrictions on the media, the Emergency Regulations, alleged favouritism and nepotism in the senior public service, arbitrary imposition of the 55 year retirement age. As for...]"democracy will be given to the people in 2014 on a silver platter....Only naive people would believe this nonsense. Participatory democracy cannot emerge out of 8 years of military and 'coercive' rule ... I don't see any reason for the on-going imposition of PER."

"We should and can move more quickly to constitution-making and to the general election - the electoral provisions should be in the form of a separate law outside the constitution. Unfortunately ...FB and his cronies have their own personal agenda."

Source 4, who always opposed the coup but who originally thought Bainimama well intended:
(o-) "It all depends on the good faith and commitment of the regime. Neither is much in evidence ... electoral reform and a new Constitution are low on its priorities ....it is not apparent that the regime is ready to engage as yet." (June 18)

"The situation here continues to drift ... The road map announced today by the Commander is a beginning. Dialogue and engagement need to be commenced as soon as possible as the regime rules by decree. If one has elections by September 2014, and that is not a given, it will have governed for nearly eight years. Meanwhile institutions such as the courts, the public service, police, health services and the like are being weakened as arbitrariness and whim replace process and autonomy. The country will survive but at what cost?" (July 3)

My own comment

This mix of responses is a clear demonstration of the adverse effect of restricting media freedom, and freedom of association. Too few people are saying what they really think. Indeed some, publicly, seem to be saying the opposite. There is no opportunity to debate, consider alternatives, or dispute rumours and false allegations. The so-called Pacific "talanoa" way of decision-making and resolving disputes is inoperable.

Such a state of affairs constitutes a very serious threat to Government.

• It is denied good advice. It is only able to appoint non-critical people to its offices and boards.
  
• It is in danger of irretrievably "losing the middle ground" as more of its former supporters (and those willing to give it the benefit of the doubt) become disillusioned.
  
• With the "wrong people" running the country, the economy could falter, and all the Government's intended infrastructural and social reforms need money.

If Bainimarama has an eye on tomorrow's history books, he should know that unless his reforms succeed -- and are made permanent -- his grandchildren will be reading of his "failed coup" (and the backlash his opponents will exact). Good intentions are not enough. He must engage the middle ground. And the first, and most important step along this path is the full (or at least partial and progressive) relaxation of media controls.

(+) A Hard Question: Aust. and NZ, Friends or Bullies?

Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend. -- Albert Camus (1913-1960).

One of the great attractions of patriotism - it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous. -- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963).

Statue: The Thinker by Auguste Rodin (1840-1917). Source: Wikipedia.

It is now two and one-half years since Australia and New Zealand started to apply pressure on Fiji to hold elections that they saw as synonymous to democracy. The pressure started with travel advisories, later relaxed but with enduring TV images, and travel bans on anyone even remotely associated with the Fiji Interim Government. This was quickly followed by severe aid cuts, even to projects not administered by the Fiji Government. Appeals to the Commonwealth and the European Union to stop economic aid to the already seriously sick sugar industry followed. The industry is Fiji's second largest money-earner and employer. Then the UN was asked to dismiss its Fiji peacekeeping soldiers, despite the repatriated income it earns for hundreds of ordinary Fijian families. And then pressure was applied to at least some Pacific Islands Forum members to vote to suspend Fiji from Forum membership.

[A cynic might add that Australia and NZ have not applied trade sanctions, despite urgings from some vocal overseas-domiciled anti-Government groups. But then trade favours NZ (and probably Australia) six to one, and sanctions could hurt our exporters, and open the door to rival exporters from other countries.]

It should be obvious to any independent, intelligent observer that these policies have not worked. Elections are no closer. Indeed, the whole situation is far worse than it was, and Australian and NZ policies could have contributed to the deterioration.

A hard look at Fiji points to several possible undesirable outcomes:

(1) The Interim Government will continue in its dictatorial path (when a more relaxed atmosphere could have produced genuine dialogue, reconciliation and a pathway to a truly more democratic Fiji) ;

(2) There could be a major confrontation between anti-government Fijian ethno-religious "forces" (spurred on by assumed Australian and NZ support) and the military;

(3) There could be a revolt within the military. This could result either:

(a) in the removal of Bainimarama and the Military Council (in which case we will have a failed coup, six torn-out pages in Fiji's history, and, in all likelihood, Fiji will return to the unresolved issues that prompted all its coups), or

(b) in the revolt being crushed, and hopes of reconciliation and dialogue being pushed even further down the road.

Fiji is in a deadlock (not yet a stalemate) that can only be broken by moderate people, most especially ethnic Fijians, who can influence the Interim Government.

The emergence and influence of such a group would be greatly helped by realistic Australian and NZ policies (or even backdoor diplomacy) that allowed the Interim Government to step away from its siege mentality.

Now Read On

Despite the obvious failure of their exclusionist policies towards Fiji -- and the growing body of informed opinion in both countries that has called for flexibility -- the Pacific giants continue to press on regardless.

• Fiji was excluded from the PACER (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations) two-day meeting in Apia, Samoa, this week. Negotiations will begin in earnest after the next Pacific Island Forum meeting in Cairns in August. Fiji will again be excluded. Meanwhile, a new Chief Trade Advisor's office will be temporarily housed at the Forum headquarters in Suva -- until it is moved to Vanuatu. Auckland Law Professor Jane Kelsey, however, states that Pacific countries cannot legally reach agreement on trade issues without input from Fiji. “PACER," she says, "is a separate legal instrument from the Pacific Islands Forum. Suspending Fiji from the Forum does not legitimise excluding them from any discussions on PACER. Therefore any decision made by the parties to PACER, in the absence of Fiji, doesn’t have a lawful foundation.” Prof. Kelsey says Fiji had previously been one of the most rigorous island nations in demanding caution over PACER, so its absence could allow New Zealand and Australia to fast-track the deal.

• Some 32 civil society groups (including churches and trade unions) have also urged caution about PACER, but Australia and NZ seem bent on pushing forward as quickly as possible. The groups want national consultations and research before formal negotiations are even considered. Maureen Penjueli of PANG (Pacific Network on Globalisation) said Pacific governments had outlined the need for such an approach in a draft road map for negotiations, but Australia and New Zealand had rejected this approach and were instead demanding negotiations be fast-tracked.

• Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, speaking after meeting with his NZ counterpart Murray McCully in Wellington yesterday, said Australia and NZ will continue to demand that the UN stop using Fijian peacemakers until Fiji holds elections. Fiji has up to 2,000 troops on peacekeeping duties with UN security forces around the world, including in Iraq, Lebanon, East Timor and Africa. The UN has agreed not to engage new recruits but McCully said NZ is not happy with the UN’s “unhelpful” reaction to the situation in Fiji.

• PM Bainimarama said he is aware of a number of approaches which Australia and New Zealand have made to “cripple Fiji’s economy", including approaches by Australia to the Chinese government to reconsider its aid and funding assistance to Fiji. It is truly ironic to ask China to support human rights in Fiji on the 20th anniversary this month of the massacre in Tainanmen Square.

For further reading on PACER click on PIF FAQ; and for a contrary view click on Jane Kelsey.

(oB) More Kava in the Blood: Lessons from the 1987 Coups

Peter Thomson is a sixth generation Fiji Islander, born in Suva, schooled in Lautoka, fluent in Fijian, with a passing knowledge of Fiji Hindi, who now lives in Sydney. Last week he presented a paper to the joint conference of the NZ-Fiji Business Council and the Fiji-NZ Business Council in Auckland. He was the key mover in establishing both councils and their counterparts in Australia some years ago.

The paper is entitled "The Lessons of '87" -- lessons he sees as very relevant to the 2006 coups, despite their different origins. He was a secretary to two prime ministers, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and Dr Timoci Bavadra, and permanent secretary to the Governor-General Ratu Sir Peni Ganilau following the 1987 Coup.* His book Kava in the Blood is a personal account of those years. He is a man who, as they say, "has been around;" he knows something about coups and he knows a lot about Fiji.

Where does he stand on the 2006 coup? "I know in my bones", he said, "there are better ways than military intervention to change governments and troublesome policies [but] neither am I in the camp of those whom one witty blogger describes as 'We Love Fiji So Much We Want to Destroy It from Overseas Front.'"

He sees Australia's and New Zealand's policies as unhelpful and damaging -- "They hurt the country when good friends would have been expected to lend a hand ... It should be glaringly obvious to [both governments] that continuing measures to isolate Fiji and choke off its income will come home to roost not just on Fiji's damaged economy, but on all of us in the South Pacific Region."

His advice to the Interim Government-- "Work with the media, not against it ... The solutions to Fiji's recalcitrant problems lie in an ongoing process of national dialogue towards reconciliation and reform". To those who think the Military Council will not budge, he says "If the carrot is enticing enough and if an accord is one that everyone can work with, the military will be on board. There is no shortage of intelligent people in the Fiji officer corps, and they know there are imperatives ahead that make a reconciliatory accord a better prospect than the current course."

He has this advice for the people of Fiji: "They must embrace acceptance of a common destiny ... reject hard-line political leaders who polarize their respective communities ... a new generation of moderate leaders [is needed]"

He looks to Fiji's many "bridgebuilders ... who are prepared to sit around the kava bowl ...[and] help the hardliners come to the middle of the meeting ground. [They are to be found]... in the churches... political parties ... the business sector ... the Great Council of Chiefs ...and in the Military Council."

To read the full paper,click here. You will be taken to the web storage programme Mediafire from where you'll be able quickly to download the paper. It's well worth the trip to cyberspace.

* Peter Thomson has also been Permanent Secretary for Information, Fiji Consul-General in Sydney, First Secretary in Fiji Embassy, Tokyo, Senior Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Fijian Affairs, and district officer in Taveuni, Macuata and Navua.

(o) Emergency Extended: Poor Call

PER (the Public Emergency Regulations), introduced on April 10th, extended in May, have been extended again for another 30 days until July 10th due, says Government spokesman LtCol Neumi Leweni, to the security situation in the country, but he did not say what the security concerns were.

Could the "concerns" include expected backlashes from the Methodist Conference, now cancelled by Government, despite the Church saying that politics will not be discussed? Or the Fiji Institute of Accountants' Congress due to start on Friday, but with keynote speakers anti-Government Brij Lal, Graham Leung and Richard Naidu now removed from the billing at Government insistence? (The reasons the Institute invited them are pretty transparent but I doubt the trio's oratory would rouse the masses.)

Or a once again hostile print media only temporarily held in check by the Regulations? Or revived negativity from the ousted political parties, at present totally silent in Fiji for the same reasons? Could there be a split, or tussle for power, within the military as was rumoured, and denied, last month? Should the overseas-inspired plot to "remove" Bainimarama as advocated by one anti-Government blog, and repeated anothers, be taken seriously? Or is it the threat of a nationwide stop-work protest, or the politically-tinged prayers? Or is PER reimposed merely to prove -- if proof is necessary -- that Government is still in charge, and nothing, no nothing, will stop it "completing the work it initially set out to do”? If so, it will need a lot of help and PER may not be the best way to get it.

In something of an understatement, Leweni accepted that "the initial period of the re-building process would naturally be difficult for some members of the public to understand [but he asked for] public understanding and active support." He did not explain why someone should support something they did not understand, or why Government does not explain more fully so they can understand. And what, it might be asked, is Government hoping to re-build? The judiciary is almost back in place; umpteen decrees have closed holes left by the abrogated Constitution. But politically, for the past two months it has merely reacted to perceived political threats, when it also needed to be pro-active, picking up on the People's Charter process, and clearly showing the way forward.

Leweni, incredulously, went on to say that "Fiji as a whole benefited from the emergency regulations...The absence of politics from the national agenda, for instance, is contributing positively to the peace and stability of the nation. People are now more focused on their lives, families and work without being distracted by the divisive and fragmentary views that were prominent in the period before the emergency regulations were implemented."

What Fiji needs if it is ever to achieve the peaceful, harmonious society, free from discrimination and corruption, that he talks about is more, not less, politics. Politics is the lifeblood of all democratic societies. The People's Charter is politics. Dialogue is politics, and politics dialogue. Both proceed from the assumption that there is more than one way of looking at every situation, that reasoned disagreement is healthy and leads to better conclusions. I think, and hope, he means the often one-sided reporting of politics, and not politics per se.

The sorts of change envisaged by Leweni has the public playing only a passive role. Just keep your heads down while we, the Government and military, fix Fiji for you. Surely this is not what Government wants. The particularly sad thing about PER is that there has been no public political discussion. The baby has been thrown out with the bath water! PER has paralyzed civil society turning its more intelligent members into "monkeys" who are allowed to hear, speak and see nothing. This is PER's biggest casualty. Surely the Government has sufficient support, and a sufficient number of erudite people to put its case to the public, expose the arguments of the opposition, and protest publicly about one-sided, biased journalism. Government needs to argue its case to win back the "middle" ground. And it needs the media to do that.

Peace, of a fashion, and stability can be imposed on a country, but not harmony. The future society Government envisages requires that the public play an active role in its formulation. If the People's Charter is to be adopted, the public has to adopt it, and for this, meetings, discussion, debate and press releases are needed. Major discrimination and corruption will only end when the public expose and condemn them. People of all races need to condemn the racist bigots among them, and all religions should condemn their religious fanatics. The Government, by legislative measures and institutional changes, can assist the process but only the people can bring about lasting change.

There may be good reason to extend PER at this point in time, but the public needs to be informed why. PER must be progressively relaxed, starting with the more responsible media and non-government organizations. There is a risk, of course, in relaxing the Regulations too early, but there is a far greater risk in relaxing them too late. The Government's top-down, heavy-handed approach can only work for a while. If it does not soon show more faith in the basic good sense of "middle Fiji" and behave more in line with its stated good intentions, it will fail, and all that has been achieved since 2006 -- and all that it wants to achieve -- will fail with it.

It is a strange and ironic twist, but Government's decision to extend PER will leave many of its supporters hugely disappointed (because it will further alienate "middle Fiji") while those opposing the Government will be delighted (because Government has played into their hands).

(o) Methodist Church Should Consider Dialogue as the Way Forward for Fiji: CCF

At last a breath of fresh air!
A call for the way so many disputes are settled in the Pacific. A call from Fiji's "middle ground" (those unhappy with some of Bainimarama's methods who nethertheless see merit in his stated aims for a non-racist Fiji). A call from Fiji's most reputable governance NGO. A press release by the Citizen's Constitutional Forum. Photo: Rev. Akuila Yabaki.

The Citizens’ Constitutional Forum (CCF) describes the call by Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, for the removal of two senior ministers from the Methodist Church, as tough and unfortunate.

CCF however feels that given the history of the support by senior Methodist Church ministers for ethno-nationalism and the coups of 1987 and 2000, the church should now consider engaging in dialogue with the military and government, to find a way forward for Fiji.

Bainimarama’s call, as well as the ban on the Methodist Church Conference due to be held in August, are against fundamental rights of Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion and Belief,” CCF Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rev Akuila Yabaki said.

On reflection, these two senior Methodist ministers have been at the forefront of the ethno-nationalist stance taken by the Methodist Church in recent years to the extent that it was proclaimed as if it was a divine right,” Rev Yabaki said. “This may be the right time for the Church to ensure that its exercise of Freedom of Religion does not impinge on the rights of others to be free from racial discrimination.”

CCF calls for dialogue, not only between the Military and the Methodist Church, but also for wider participation in dialogue processes from stakeholders throughout Fiji, including different religious and civil society groups to find way forward,” Rev Yabaki said.

“It’s time for the Methodist Church hierarchy to make a fresh start and to take the risk of moving into more inclusive leadership. It’s time for the younger and newly elected church leaders to exercise their gifts for the moderate responsible leadership required for dialogue,” Rev Yabaki said.

For further information, contact CCF on ph: 3308379 or fax: 33083

(signed) Rev Akuila Yabaki, Chief Executive Officer

(oB) Multiple Battle Lines
Dr Steven Ratuva
Fiji Times. October 07, 2008

[This is a "must" read because it identifies the many factions which make up the pro, anti, and neutral camps. ACW]

What we are witnessing now is not the normal ethnically bipolar political contestation between indigenous Fijians and Indians, a scenario we are used to and bored to death with, but a multi-dimensional political vortex with intersecting fault lines, never seen in Fiji's history. This has the potential either to lead to more fractures in an already volatile situation, or create a situation of calm as the competing forces reconfigure to create new alliances.

So where on earth are we heading, or rather, appear to be heading?

The indigenous Fijian anti-coup axis
No doubt the most visible fault line is between the anti-and pro-interim government power blocs. Beyond this simple dichotomy, the situation becomes murkier and outright confusing.

The anti-coup alliance consists of an array of diverse groups, some of which are even sworn enemies of each other. Perhaps the largest and most powerful group in the anti-interim Government alliance is what we may call the indigenous power bloc, consisting of the Great Council of Chiefs (the former, not the new version), Provincial Councils, Methodist Church, SDL Party and an array of indigenous Fijian groups.

Paradoxically, many in these groups supported the 1987 and 2000 ethno-nationalist coups on ethno-political grounds. However, they were opposed to the anti ethno-nationalist 2006 coup on the grounds that it purportedly undermined indigenous interests.

But things are more complicated here. Not all indigenous Fijians support the political ideology of the mainstream indigenous bloc. There are intra-communal differences in terms of interpretation of national politics as well as diversity of political interests and loyalties.

Some indigenous Fijians who do not support the mainstream indigenous power bloc are not necessarily supporters of the coup, but nevertheless are attracted by the coup's claim for non-ethnic and progressive reforms.

However, some of these people, disillusioned by the aggressiveness of ethno-nationalism and the extra-legal excesses of the military, have turned inwards and now see themselves as guardians of "impartiality" and middle of the road politics. Often this group is caught up in a complex dilemma because they are perceived as both pro-and anti-coup at the same time by both sides of the divide.

Some "moderate" indigenous Fijians have openly embraced the coup for a number of reasons such as their disdain for ethno-nationalism, potential to extract benefits from the new order, attraction of the promises of the coup reforms and the perception that the coup is irreversible anyway and "it's time to move on".

Interestingly some moderates have also joined forces with the anti-coup bloc on the grounds that the 2006 coup had entrenched the dreaded coup cycle which they vehemently detested. They were opposed to the 1987 coups, 2000 coup as well as the 2006 coup. The cycle of coups has destroyed their professional ambitions and optimism for a stable country.

Many members of the emerging and expanding indigenous Fijian middle class, many of whom were products of educational affirmative action of the 70s, 80s and 90s, see themselves as victims of the anti-affirmative action stance of the regime and have shown opposition to it.

For many indigenous Fijians, the perception that the coup was anti-Fijian has had a deeply entrenched impact and has shaped their negative attitudes towards the coup. Interestingly the Methodist Church, which is one of the most powerful institutions within the indigenous Fijian community, has cleverly indulged in political semantics, publicly branding the coup "illegal" rather than "anti-Fijian," although the latter seems closer to their hearts. This has provided the Methodist Church with the ideological and moral firepower to get back at the military, while at the same time mobilise local and international support.

Within the Fijian power bloc there are age-and newly created political fault lines which have been sharpened and given a new sense of resurgence after the 2006 coup, and more so by the Charter process. Some traditional high chiefs are supportive of the coup and some are against it.
Many of these are related by blood. The fault lines are shaped by an interesting interplay between traditional power struggle, kinship rivalry and modern power politics. Fijian politics has never been monolithic. It has always been characterised by diversity and often a mixture of power contestation and strategic compromises, from the pre-colonial era to the present.

Non-indigenous anti-coup blocs
There are other powerful anti-coup blocs outside the indigenous Fijian alliance. While it is generally assumed that the 2006 coup was "Indian-supported," the reality is much more complex. Some of the most vehement critics of the coup are from the Indian community. Amongst these are the Indian dominated National Federation Party which, although has not been successful at recent polls, still maintains its claim to represent "genuine" Indian interest; a claim which, for plausible electoral reasons, is seriously contested by the Fiji Labour Party.

Then there is an ensemble of Indian coup critics ranging from lawyers, civil society organisation activists, businessmen, academics, politicians and others. Their oppositions to the coup are based on different reasons. For some lawyers, it's simply a question of legality. Their entire professional disposition depends on being seen to be supportive of the rule of law, although some may harbour political and ideological sympathy for the coup in private.

For some Indians, the coup is a politically evilish activity which has ruined this country since 1987 and coups have to be resisted by all means and at all cost. For many Indian businessmen, coups undermine investor confidence and disturbs the business climate in a way that militates against their commercial interests. Many in this group would support any political party which promotes their commercial interests.

By and large, the legality question is an outwardly pervasive one and provides the common ground on which the ensemble of anti-coup critics stand, at least in terms of their public utterances, although their private political motives could be somewhat different. It's a morally strong ground to stand on, but the problem is that politically it does not allow for middle of the road engagement and compromise especially in this time of crisis when mutual dialogue and compromise is most needed. This is one of the reasons why we are still swirling around in a political vortex.

The pro-coup axis
The pro-coup axis could be represented as a series of concentric circles. The inner circle represents the Commodore and the military, the immediate outer circle is the interim Government, the circle outside that are the members of the NCBBF (many of these are independent with the aim of national unification) and outside that are the members of various civil groups and the general public who, for different reasons, are supportive of the coup.

As mentioned earlier, ethnic support is divided. The indigenous Fijian supporters of the coup are diverse in their justification. Some "moderate" Fijians see the coup as a vehicle to de-ethnicise the political discourse in the country as well as "cleanse" the country of what they perceive as undesirable leaders. Some, disgruntled with the developmental record of the previous indigenous governments, see the interim administration as a chance to fast track the development process by any means, legal or extra-legal.

The Indian supporters of the coup do so for a number of personal reasons but by and large are united by the promise of political salvation and liberation from perceived indigenous Fijian threat of political exclusion and domination. To many Indians (like other indigenous Fijians who suffered during the 1987 and 2000 coups), the 2006 coup was a reverse of 1987 and 2000 trend and provided just the perfect "sweet revenge."

Again, there is no single reason which makes people support the coup. Some are attracted by its initial promise of "clean up" and reform, some are lured by its anti-nationalist stance and some critics of the SDL Party see it as a good political omen. Some extreme indigenous nationalists even supported the coup because they were not happy with how the SDL maneuvered to destroy the nationalist Matanitu Vanua Party during the pre-2006 election merger.

Some have resigned themselves into believing that they must support anyone in power, as long as the services continue and as long as order prevails. Some even think that opposition to the coup could lead to instability thus the best thing to do is to support the regime and hopefully, as in past coups, things will sort themselves out.

The Chaudhry factor and de-ethnicisation
The Chaudhry factor has complicated the situation and has blurred the fault lines even more. Chaudhry's departure from the regime has reconfigured the fault lines in a significant way.

Firstly he has taken with him his Indian supporters who provided one of the initial justifications for the coup. Secondly, he has considerably weakened Bainimarama's political fortress and at the same time strengthened the resolve of the anti-coup opponents, many of whom have never liked Chaudhry anyway.

History has shown (as the Tupeni Babas, Kenneth Zincks, Atu Bains and Krishna Dutts have learnt) that whoever steps on Chaudhry's toes would eventually lose his or her own toes through Chaudhry's sharp, vengeful and Machiavellian politicking. He's an unrivalled master tactician in strategic maneuvers. Bainimarama has stepped on Chaudhry's toes, perhaps unsuspectingly, and now the Commodore needs to guard his own toes from now on.

At the time of Chaudhry's exit I predicted through the media that he was going to get back at the Commodore and even possibly link up with the anti-coup bloc. Although there is no formal alliance yet and there does not need to be one, the similarity in the political tunes of the two sworn political enemies, Chaudhry and Qarase, is slowly taking shape and an informal linkage of views is in the process of formation. The fact that these old adversaries now have a "common enemy" in the form of the Commodore is a significant twist in the quickly unfolding political episode. Ironically, this has de-ethnicised the political scene in a significant way.

The ethnic fault line which we have struggled over the years to eradicate is somewhat withering away as a result of an unintended political twist. This has reconfigured the cold war dynamics with Bainimarama on one side and Qarase and Chaudhry together on the other. But Bainimarama's job will probably be made easier by the brigade of anti-Chaudhry troops in the form of the NFP and even Labour Party members revolting against their leader.

For the first time in this country, since independence, the political fault lines no longer take an explicitly ethnic character. Have we now achieved what we have failed to achieve all this time?

The future hope?

Now that the ethnic fault line seems to be disappearing, half the job is already done.
We can then take this as point of departure to converge into a new political consensus.
As newfound accidental political twins, now Qarase and Chaudhry have a real chance to engage in their own dialogue to sort out their differences. The NFP can now be roped in to complete the multi-ethnic political equation of peace. They can then approach the interim Government for further dialogue and as a multi-ethnic group, they will no doubt appeal to Bainimarama's sense of multi-culturalism.

This process can take place informally at first and then transferred to the proposed political forum later for further engagement. Other stakeholders can then join in at this point and the process will then take its own course and dynamics, hopefully towards an achievable peaceful solution. So nobody wins and nobody loses, in fact everyone wins.

It's possible to turn a situation of conflict into peace, of disagreement into consensus, of division into accommodation, of vengeance into humility. Let's, as they say, turn swords into ploughshares.

Dr Steven Ratuva is a political sociologist at USP and these views are his own and do not represent those of the institution.