Why Fiji Is An "Autocracy"

WE are glad to publish the conclu sions of an old and respected resi dent of Fiji like Mr. Howard: but we think that Mr. Howard has omitted, in his arguments and summary, to take into consideration certain conditions that are peculiar to this Colony.

Much of Mr. Howard’s criticism, for mstance, is centred on what he calls the “dictatorial powers of the Governor” He himself refers to the fact that the some what limited franchise enjoyed by the Colony was removed by the then Gov ernor, Sir Murchison Fletcher, a few years ago, and an almost completely nominative system substituted. So seri ous a step was not taken without grave reasons—and Mr. Howard does not refer to those reasons.

Despite enemy representations to the contrary, the Great Britain of to-day is acutely conscious of her obligations to all subject races, and, in her Crown colonies, she is careful to take no step which might deprive non-European races of privileges for the apparent benefit of European races, and especially the British.

Fiji is a very good case in point. Here we have three large communities—the governing race (the British), the indigen ous race (the Fijians, who are increas ing in numbers and quickly adapting themselves to European customs and ways of life), and an introduced Asiatic race (who also are rapidly increasing in numbers, and who belong to an ancient civilisation, which gives them a pride and traditions of their own).

There was the particular and peculiar problem with which the Government of Fiji had to deal. The European colonist naturally wanted the usual European privileges, and full freedom for develop ment. But the country had been ceded to Britain by the Fijian chiefs under conditions which placed on them a spe cial obligation to guard the land inter ests of the Fijian people. It is expressly provided in the constitution of this Colony that the native people shall not be deprived of the fee simple of their land. Then there is the Indian com munity—industrious, frugal, intelligent, proud, urgently demanding land for cul tivation and a share in the government of the country.

It is very easy for the Europeans in Fiji to say “the Government of this country is our job.” But how would such an attitude be regarded in Whitehall, where it is the special care of British statesmanship to prove to the leaders of the Indian Empire that the Indian people have equal status with the people of the British Empire?

As everyone acquainted with the his tory of Fiji knows, the position in Fiji became a Colonial Office nightmare, and it was finally resolved by two bold steps.

The franchise, a source of perpetual squabbling between Europeans and Indians, was wiped out altogether, and, under a benevolent autocracy, placed in the hands of the Governor, a nomina tive system of representation was intro duced which apparently has given fair representation to the various communi ties in the public bodies of the Colony.

The new system of land ownership and administration, of which Mr. Howard is so critical, is really a bold and, on the whole, a commendable effort to bring

order out of disorder, and remove the several causes of ceaseless discontent.

Both of these reforms were the work of Sir Murchison Fletcher and his assistants: and the two succeeding Gov ernors, Sir Arthur Richards and Sir Harry Luke, have followed out the policy thereby initiated with clear vision, and a ready conception of the ultimate pur pose of the Colonial Office.

There is a good deal of grumbling in Fiji, especially by those who do not lift their eyes beyond purely local issues.

But, from Britain’s point of view, there is far more in the Government of Fiji than the mere administration of the Colony for the benefit of the European residents there—it must align itself with the higher purposes of Imperial policy.

People who are far enough away from Fiji to see the clear picture are inclined to give more praise than blame to the Government of Fiji in regard to its achievements over the past ten years.