Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:13:05 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Teaiwa on Fiji


Thought this might be of interest to the list--it gives an interesting 
twist to where tensions lie in Fiji.  Btw, like Terrie I was in Fiji 
recently (SPACLALS conference last N. Amn summer) and chatting to taxi 
drivers etc. was struck by the lack of racial tension--the coups seemed a 
joke to most (the 1987 ones that is).  In fact one of the highlights of the 
conference was a speaker's confession that he'd slept through the 
coup.  One person described the coups as very much a Suva thing--i.e. to do 
with politics in the capital rather than everyday life.  But of course, 
when the threatened eradication of civil rights for Indo-Fijians gets 
carried out that Suva thing does become an everyday thing.

Michelle Elleray
English Dept
Cornell University


>        Fiji Crisis: An Analysis
>        Editorial Teresia Teaiwa 22/05/00 15:41:00
>
>        Teresia Teaiwa is a Lecturer in Pacific Studies at Victoria
>University of
>        Wellington. She was raised around Fiji and attended High School in
>Suva.
>        Before coming to Victoria she taught for five years in the
>History/Politics
>        Department at the University of the South Pacific, Laucala Campus in
>        Suva, Fiji.
>
>        An analysis of the current political crisis in Fiji.
>
>        By Teresia Teaiwa
>
>        The problem with Fijian nationalism is that there is no Fijian
>nation. There
>        are Fijian provinces, and traditional Fijian confederacies, but 
> the two
>        military coups of 1987 and the current hostage crisis illustrate with
>        disturbing insistence the erosion of indigenous Fijian social order
>and the
>        fragmentation of indigenous Fijian leadership.
>
>        The problem with prevailing analyses of the political situation in
>Fiji is the
>        notion that the conflict is between indigenous Fijians and
>Indo-Fijians.
>        The “race” card is misleading and mischievous, and unfortunately,
>        Mahendra Chaudhry, Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister played
>right into
>        it with his abrasive leadership style. But in the end, Chaudhry is
>not the
>        problem and neither are the Indo-Fijian communities.
>
>        Fiji’s problem is Fijian. Following the fortunes and misfortunes 
> of the
>        country’s three indigenous Prime Ministers - Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara,
>Dr.
>        Timoci Bavadra, and Sitiveni Rabuka - we see the increasingly
>problematic
>        configuration of indigenous leadership in the country.
>
>        Ratu Mara was the country’s first and only Prime Minister for 
> seventeen
>        years since independence in 1970; joined the interim government formed
>        after the military coup of 1987; and later became President of the
>        Republic in 1994. His leadership draws on the mana of his own chiefly
>        title, Tui Nayau; his wife’s mana, (the Roko Tui Dreketi, from the
>        confederacy of Burebasaga, is the highest chiefly title in the
>islands); and
>        his close association with a tight elite cohort of European,
>part-European
>        and Indo-Fijian business interests. Ratu Mara’s leadership, however,
>has
>        alienated rival chiefs, proletarian and nationalist groups within
>his domain
>        of Eastern Fiji, and has generated resentment in the Western 
> provinces.
>
>        The late Dr. Timoci Bavadra, was Prime Minister in the predominantly
>        Indo-Fijian Labour/National Federation Party coalition government 
> which
>        defeated Ratu Mara’s Alliance party in the 1987 elections. Dr. Bavadra
>        was consistently described in the media and literature as a “commoner”
>        even though he came from a noble Fijian background in the chiefly
>village
>        of Viseisei. The problem with Dr. Bavadra’s political genealogy in
>1987 was
>        not so much his Labour ideology nor his “commoner” status, but the 
> fact
>        that significant and powerful sectors of indigenous Fijian society -
>in the
>        East - were not ready for a Fijian Prime Minister from a Western
>province.
>
>        Being both a “commoner” and national leader, however, was not a
>        problem for Sitiveni Rabuka. In fact, a large part of Rabuka’s
>popularity
>        with indigenous Fijians is his “commoner” status. Prime Minister
>from 1992
>        to 1999, Rabuka’s mana comes from the interweaving of his traditional
>        “bati” or warrior genealogy (in the Eastern province of Cakaudrove),
>his
>        career in modern armed forces, his identification with and
>deployment of
>        Christian/Methodist discourse, his staging of the two coups d’etat in
>        1987, and the support he has consistently received from the Great
>        Council of Chiefs. Rabuka has even gained political mileage out of his
>        “human frailties”: sexual and financial indiscretions, as well as
>flip-flopping
>        policy decisions have increased rather than diminished his appeal.
>
>        Many indigenous Fijians identify with Rabuka much more easily than 
> they
>        can with the aristocratic Ratu Mara. Counterposed in this way
>against the
>        elder statesman of Fiji, Rabuka developed his own ethos of
>popularism and
>        “can-do” capitalism - exemplified by the National Bank of Fiji 
> debacle.
>        During his Prime Ministership, a brash nouveau riche elite of
>“indigenous”
>        Fijians developed and thrived. George Speight is a good
>representative of
>        this group, but an even better example is his mentor and 
> benefactor Jim
>        Ah Koy: both illustrate a new opportunism in regards to identity
>politics in
>        Fiji.
>
>        A “general elector” MP in the 1970s, Chinese/Fijian Ah Koy was sent
>into
>        political coventry by Ratu Mara for insubordination. Concentrating his
>        energies in business during the 1980s, Ah Koy’s phenomenal success
>        became worthy of a Horatio Alger story. In the first post-coup
>election of
>        1992, however, Ah Koy re-emerged as a political candidate, this 
> time on
>        the indigenous Fijian electoral roll. Although his eligibility to
>stand as a
>        Fijian was challenged by other indigenous Fijians, Ah Koy won his
>case in
>        court, and has represented his maternal constituency of Kadavu in
>        parliament ever since.
>
>        Like Ah Koy, George Speight’s father, a “part-European” and former
>        general elector named Sam Speight, became a “born again Fijian” in the
>        post-coup era. Sam Speight legally changed his name to Savenaca
>        Tokainavo, winning an indigenous Fijian electoral seat in parliament
>in the
>        1992 and subsequent elections.
>
>        In Fiji’s disconcertingly racialized electoral system (comprising 
> three
>        electoral rolls - Fijian, Indian, and General) general voters have
>historically
>        aligned themselves with indigenous Fijian chiefly interests. The
>category
>        of general voters covers Fiji’s multitude of ethnic minority
>communities:
>        Banabans, Chinese, Europeans, Gilbertese, “part-Europeans”, Samoans,
>        Solomon Islanders, Tongans, and Tuvaluans.
>
>        “Part-Europeans” form the largest and most influential group of 
> general
>        voters and in the post-coup era have shifted away from their 
> historical
>        identification with colonial European privilege towards a
>reclamation of
>        their “part-Fijian” or vasu-i-taukei roots. This shift in
>“part-European”
>        identification reflects a recognition of the contemporary realities of
>        political power in Fiji: indigenous Fijians rule.
>
>        George Speight claims to represent indigenous Fijian interests.
>Sporting
>        his European name, speaking exclusively in English, drawing on his
>        Australian and American degrees in business for mana, and wearing his
>        designer clothes, Speight does indeed represent indigenous Fijian
>        interests. But Speight’s indigenous Fijian interests are clearly
>neither the
>        indigenous Fijian interests of Ratu Mara nor those of the late Dr.
>Bavadra.
>
>        Speight’s version of indigenous Fijian interests probably coincides
>in many
>        areas with Rabuka’s version of indigenous Fijian interests. But 
> the men
>        Speight has surrounded himself with also represent a changing of the
>        guard from Rabuka’s Queen Victoria School Old Boys network to an
>        unlikely coalition of relatively young “old boys” from Marist
>Brothers High
>        School (Ratu Mara’s alma mater) and Suva Grammar School.
>
>        And what of Speight et al’s relationship with the marching/looting
>masses
>        who were so inspired by the illegal actions in the House of
>Parliament on
>        Friday 19 May 2000? It is a relationship of convenience: Speight has
>        about as much respect for the 1997 constitution he once congratulated
>        Professor Brij Lal on, as he does for the indigenous marama in 
> sulu and
>        jaba helping herself to bales of cloth through the shattered window
>of a
>        Waimanu Road store.
>
>        The march was organized by church and Taukei Movement leaders, and
>        though the looting may not have been planned they certainly 
> enabled it.
>        Looting has become an ominous feature of recent indigenous Fijian
>        responses to crisis: during the floods of 1998, at the tragic crash
>site of
>        flight PC 121 in 1999, and now in the streets of Suva - “the 
> millennium
>        city”. The image of a humble, God-fearing, dignified and hospitable
>people
>        marketed by the Fiji Visitors Bureau is chillingly contraverted. The
>chiefs
>        and church ministers stir their people but the simple truth is they
>do not
>        control them: a group of alert and ambitious businessmen has used this
>        feature of Fijian leadership to its advantage. Indigenous Fijians
>rule, but
>        indigenous Fijians are not united.
>
>        This puts the past 12 months of the Mahendra Chaudhry Labour Coalition
>        government’s rule in perspective. The government has survived this 
> long
>        because of the backing of Ratu Mara. The government is in crisis right
>        now because other indigenous Fijian groups are challenging Ratu Mara’s
>        authority. Rabuka has recently acknowledged this: the real struggle is
>        amongst indigenous Fijians, and it is continually masked by the
>rhetoric of
>        a racial conflict between indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians.
>
>        The impoverishment and disaffection of indigenous Fijians is not a
>result
>        of 12 months of leadership by an Indo-Fijian. It is the result of
>thirty
>        fraught years of modern indigenous Fijian leadership that have
>sacrificed
>        the economic and cultural well-being of a people for the 
> advancement of
>        a few.
>
>        Speight’s ignominious entry into the national and international
>limelight is
>        but a symptom of the complex contradictions and competing interests
>        facing indigenous Fijian society today. George Speight has not only
>        kidnapped a democratically elected Prime Minister and his cabinet;
>he has
>        taken hostage much of the hope and potential Fiji had at the turn of
>the
>        century to become a nation united. Already, Western provinces have
>        announced that if Speight succeeds, they would prefer to secede and
>        create an independent nation of their own. So when the present
>crisis at
>        Fiji’s House of Parliament in Nasese passes, as it inevitably 
> will, the
>        question will remain: what is Fijian nationalism when there is not a
>single
>        unified indigenous Fijian nation?
>
>        For further information contact Teresia Teaiwa, ph: 463-5110.
>
>        © Teresia Teaiwa 2000



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---