Seen In Fiji's

Seeds Of Trouble

New Constitution

The “elements of conflict” between Fijians, Indians and Europeans in the settlement arrived at at last year's London conference on a new constitu tion for Fiji could contribute to serious difficulties in that colony, ac cording to Professor J. W. Davidson, of Canberra.

PROF. Davidson, who is Professor of Pacific History at the Austra lian National University, says this in an article on “Constitutional Changes in Fiji” in the recently published first issue of the Journal of Pacific History.

He describes official attitudes towards Fiji as unimaginative, out of date and benignly paternalistic, and says that the London constitutional conference was a failure as far as fundamental political problems are concerned.

Living In The Past

Professor Davidson says: “Fiji lives in the past, constitutionally, both because of the complexities of its social structure and of the opera tion of factors of a more directly political and administrative kind.

“In Britain, ministers and per manent officials of the Colonial Office have been preoccupied with the problems of more importunate colonial peoples; and, although they have regarded it as necessary that Fiji should eventually become self govering, they have shown only an intermittent and unimaginative con cern with the process by which this change should be brought about.

“In the colony itself, senior officers of government have largely retained an attitude of benign, but out-dated, paternalism. To these men, there has seemed little need for change.

“When London has required them to discuss constitutional development with representatives of the local people, they have done so without any deep sense of commitment to self-government, and, partly as a con sequence, without much political sensitivity or skill.

“The leaders of the Fijian and European communities have been wary of change lest, in particular, it should enhance the political influence of the Indians.

“The old technique of ‘divide and rule’ has thus been maintained, not primarily for the reasons that anti colonialists are wont to assume . . .”

Professor Davidson says that the constitutional conference last year was only a success “in terms of short-term political management, not in relation to the resolution of fundamental political problems”. But even within these limits, its achieve ments were small.

“There is reason for believing,” he says, “that the Fijians could have been persuaded to abandon their demand for greater representation in the legislature than that of the Indians and to accept a simple common-roll procedure for the elec tion of the nine members to be returned by voters of all com munities.

“The initiative in proposing such concessions would have had to come, however, from the British Govern ment.

“The Indians, for their part, seem to have assumed too readily that Labour Ministers would support proposals based on normal democratic practice. Instead, the Secretary of State and his Parliamentary Under secretary had been largely content to accept the timorous and con servative thinking of their own per manent officials.

No Easy Solution

“The recent history of countries such as Malaysia, Cyprus and British Guiana shows that there is no easy solution to the problem of constitu tion-making in a plural society; but in Fiji the task of seriously seeking a solution is one that still has to be faced.

“The colony’s long-term political prospects will largely depend upon the course of events during the next few years. A ministerial system under which Ministers are collectively re sponsible for executive decisions, but individually dependent upon the sup port of groups of members represent ing communal electorates, will not be an easy one to work, “Men such as Ratu Mara and J. N.

Falvey hope that the difficulties can be minimised by the formation of a party consisting, like the Malaysia Alliance, of a federation of separate, communally-defined associations. But, more basically, the political future will be determined by factors of a non-political kind.

“If Fiji should enjoy a period of prosperity, tensions may be relaxed.

On the other hand, if per capita income and the level of employment should fall, the elements of conflict that are endemic in the constitutional settlement—and in the Indian clamour for land—may produce a crisis that it will be impossible to resolve by normal political means.”