Familiar race card played in Fiji crisis<\/p>\n
By Dewi Anggraeni<\/p>\n
MELBOURNE (JP): We live in an era where information technology
\nbombards us with so much news that it is becoming harder to
\nprocess even one tiny fraction of it. In our effort to grab as
\nmuch as possible, we tend to reduce our learning of events to
\nlittle more than headline skimming.<\/p>\n
So most people, the media included, like to simplify events
\ninto the certainty of black and white.<\/p>\n
The crisis in Fiji, for example, has continuously been
\ndescribed as an indigenous Fijian versus Indo-Fijian conflict.
\nThis reductionist approach is convenient because it
\nsimultaneously lulls us into believing that we now understand the
\nsituation, as well as quarantining problems from our own affairs.<\/p>\n
But it is a great deal more universal than that. It is a story
\nof how at times opportunism can push to the surface, tribalism
\nand social jealousy and tear open the veneer over existing lack
\nof national cohesiveness.<\/p>\n
It is also a story of a leader who has a vision and is good at
\nplanning, but alas, forgets to put his feelers out, or neglects
\nto be regularly sensitive to them.<\/p>\n
Teresia Teaiwa, lecturer in Pacific Studies at Victoria
\nUniversity, in Wellington, New Zealand, in her analysis of the
\ncrisis, wrote on May 22, \"The problem with Fijian nationalism is
\nthat there is no Fijian nation. There are Fijian provinces and
\ntraditional Fijian confederacies, but the two military coups of
\n1987 and the current hostage crisis illustrate with disturbing
\ninsistence the erosion of indigenous Fijian social order and the
\nfragmentation of indigenous Fijian leadership.\"<\/p>\n
Some questions come to mind, one being, was there ever a
\nuniform indigenous Fijian social order?<\/p>\n
According to Victor Lal, a leading international authority on
\nrace and politics of Fiji at Oxford University in England, and
\nauthor of a 1990 book, Fiji: Coups in Paradise -- Race, Politics
\nand Military Intervention, precolonial Fijian society consisted
\nof a series of tribes and tribal confederacies that were
\nfrequently in conflict with each other.<\/p>\n
Tribes in eastern Fiji, heavily influenced by Polynesians from
\nTonga, are very hierarchical in their social structure, with
\ngreat power in the hands of hereditary chiefs.<\/p>\n
In the western regions, the social structure of the tribes was
\nmore egalitarian, as in the Melanesian custom.<\/p>\n
Onto this landscape was transplanted an equally disparate
\nIndian-descent population, which hailed from as far back as 1879
\nwhen the British colonial government brought in indentured labor
\nfrom its other colony, India, to work in sugarcane plantations.<\/p>\n
This also brought social division with the Indian-descent
\nFijians (now known as Indo-Fijians) on one side and the
\nindigenous Fijians on the other, which continued into independent
\nFiji.<\/p>\n
The other ethnic groups, such as the Chinese and Europeans who
\ncame at various times to Fiji, are too small to make a
\nsignificant stir.<\/p>\n
Since independence in 1970, over 83 percent of land in the
\ncountry is owned tribally by indigenous Fijians (similar to the
\nhak ulayat in Indonesia), represented by their chiefs. Fijians
\nalso dominate the Fijian army, and the Great Council of Chiefs
\nare represented by their own nominees in the Senate.<\/p>\n
These nominees have a veto over any bill affecting Fijian
\nland, custom or tradition.<\/p>\n
In the meantime, the Indo-Fijians occupy areas traditionally
\nleft \"vacant\" by the indigenous Fijians: business, trade, farming
\nand a fair slice of the civil service. As traditional chief Ratu
\nSukuna once said to the Great Council of Chiefs in 1936, the
\nIndo-Fijians had become producers on the soil owned by the
\nchiefs.<\/p>\n
While the chiefs may have differences among themselves about
\nboundaries of their lands, ownership of certain titles, and other
\nchiefly affairs, the Indo-Fijians have not always been in
\nagreement with each other either.<\/p>\n
Business, especially, often involves fierce competition. No
\ndoubt, race plays an important role here. It is a ready trump
\ncard that can be drawn any time to stir primordial sentiment.
\nOnce it is drawn, it quickly overwhelms other issues.<\/p>\n
In 1999, the first Indo-Fijian prime minister, a former trade
\nunion leader, Mahendra Chaudhry, came to power, when his Labour
\nParty won in the parliamentary election.<\/p>\n
This was made possible after a constitutional review in 1997,
\nacknowledging the multiracial nature of Fiji.<\/p>\n
Inspired and encouraged by the victory, Chaudhry began to
\nimplement a lot of reforms, obviously taking for granted that he
\nhad the mandate to do so and would receive support from the
\nmajority of the population.<\/p>\n
At first glance, what his government has done, and was in the
\nprocess of doing, looks good, at least to those who had been
\nliving in poverty.<\/p>\n
It abolished value added tax from cooking oil, flour, powdered
\nmilk and tea, forced major industries to rehire workers and made
\nthem drop plans to use contract services.<\/p>\n
Seventeen other items were already on the government's list
\nfor price control, and funds were set aside for the provision of
\nwater and electricity in rural areas.<\/p>\n
While Chaudhry was congratulating himself for making the poor
\nhappy, his support among Indo-Fijians, who were running small and
\nmedium enterprises, was eroding fast.<\/p>\n
Then he turned to realizing his dream of making Fiji a
\nburgeoning, agricultural producing country.<\/p>\n
\"Idle\" lands should be developed and put to use, which in the
\nindigenous land owner's understanding was leasing out their land
\nto Indo-Fijian farmers, who were going to receive subsidies from
\nthe government. The tribal chiefs were outraged. Many indigenous
\nFijians were worried.<\/p>\n
Chaudhry did not take any notice of public demonstrations, not
\neven his own ministers' warnings, and went ahead with his plans.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately for him, a Fijian of mixed European parentage,
\nsaw his chance and played the race trump card. With some of his
\ngunmen, he stormed parliament on May 19 and took Chaudhry and his
\nministers hostage. He demanded that the government be sacked and
\nappointed himself as interim prime minister.<\/p>\n
To the local media, he repeatedly referred to the Chaudhry
\ngovernment as \"this Indian government\".<\/p>\n
It was unlawful. It was undemocratic. Countries outside Fiji
\nexpressed their anger. But inside Fiji, George Speight, the rebel
\nleader, is gaining support among indigenous Fijians at an
\nalarming speed. And the Indo-Fijians have been relatively silent.<\/p>\n
For now, Chaudhry, it seems, would have problems rallying
\nsupport for himself.<\/p>\n
Two of the trump cards that opportunists know never fail are
\nrace or ethnicity and religion. Fiji has both. Yet Speight only
\nneeded to use one.<\/p>\n
The writer is a Melbourne-based journalist and novelist.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/familiar-race-card-played-in-fiji-crisis-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }