They're Using That Word

Independence In Fiji

From a Suva correspondent

Suddenly, no one hesitates to use the word “independence” in Fiji. Everyone is talking openly about it—not necessarily advocat ing it, just debating the pros and cons.

Some, of course, prefer to talk of “self-government”. It’s a far less inflammatory term and un doubtedly a far more appropriate one in relation to Fiji’s fairly im mediate future.

As one Legislative Council member pointed out in April, “independence” is so frequently used these days in the context “war of . . .”, that it hardly applies to the manner in which Fiji is progressing towards nation hood. He said it would be ludicrous to imagine that Britain would hold onto Fiji for longer than she really had to—and if there’s no enemy, where’s the war?

The Legco member, Alipate Sikivou (Alliance, Rewa-Suva) de clared that political agitators in Fiji had given the word “indepen dence” the kind of connotation which in Africa had resulted in civil war.

“Political agitators are trying to persuade the people that the first priority in any developing country is not economics but politics,” he said. “Their war of independence is completely different from the type of independence we are talk ing about.” He said he preferred the term “internal self-govern ment”.

What’s in a word anyway? The fact that more people are talking fairly rationally about a new era for Fiji—whether full indepen dence, limited self-government or full self-government —is healthy.

If political affairs proceed at a relatively sane pace, it seems highly likely that the new con stitutional conference for Fiji will be called in September—two years before the date originally set.

There’s been no official announce ment about September being The Month. It’s just one of those things that everyone seems to be lieve.

While few people are imagining that discussions at the conference will result in full independence for Fiji, there are not many either who cling to the belief that it will remain known for much longer as “the colony that did not want in dependence”. (The latter is a phrase used proudly in an infor mation booklet issued by the Government Public Relations Officer.) Localisation is proceeding at such a pace—is it too headlong? —that there can be no doubt about the intentions of the gov ernment. Locals are tired of seeing expatriates come to Fiji, begin brilliant new projects and leave before they’re even half-way begun. There’s even a desire abroad to “localise the localisation officer”—though that’s not official either.

No one can confidently predict the outcome of the conference.

So much depends on the line taken by the Chief Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, and the degree and manner of opposition from Mr. A. D. Patel and his National Federation Party supporters.

There is one thing about which political observers are fairly sure.

Fiji’s delegation will not agree to any arrangement whereby the indi genous Fijian’s position as master of his own fate might be threatened. However strongly Fijian leaders believe in their plat form of mutual co-operation and goodwill, they are not about to be done out of what is theirs.

But there’s always the danger that through determination to pro tect this right, their policies may become too extreme. This could apply particularly in the field of passports and voting rights. How is citizenship to be defined in the future?

Fiji has come a very long way in its brief history of “Europeani sation”. The discussion that will rage between now and September is on whether it’s come far enough to take the reins entirely.