Assault on democracy

Pim Opinion

The military action to overthrow a democratically-elected government in Fiji has been condemned worldwide for the outrage that it is. In its wake, Fiji can never be seen again in quite the same light, and in that fact there are consequences for the entire region. As this issue goes to press, the outcome of the military action remains unclear; the perpetrators and backers of the coup may be surprised by the strength of the people’s respect for constitutionality and traditional values. Two facts stand out, however.

First, the threat to law and order alleged by the military certainly did not spring from any action of the elected government or its supporters. As the misguided Colonel Rabuka acknowledged, any such threat came from those who felt they had lost the election, and that loss was the sole reason for their attitude.

Second, it became all too clear very quickly that leading members of the Alliance, including members of the previous government, were prepared to give legitimacy, if not active support, to this assault on democracy. Whether they actually initiated it is not clear, but ugly rumours to that effect circulated weeks before the armed invasion of the Parliament and the kidnapping of the government.

The concerns of some ethnic Fijians at the change of government is understandable, and was appreciated by the new government as much as by anyone else. Prime Minister Bavadra had gone out of his way to move cautiously and to offer reassurance. There can be little doubt now, however, that others exploited and amplified those fears for their own ends.

Given the unfortunate communal nature of Fijian politics, the change of government had, in fact, proceeded rather more smoothly than might have been expected. That was a justifiable

source of pride for the undoubted majority who support democratic process not only within Fiji, but in the region and beyond.

There certainly can be no claim to democracy when one side of the political process refuses to acknowledge the possibility of losing an election. It is sadly true that the sharp political division along communal lines in Fiji has tended to propagate such a view a decidedly minority view, but nonetheless dangerous, as has been demonstrated.

Colonel Rabuka and his fellow conspirators have dealt their country a blow of immense proportions. Fiji’s leading role in the region, and its standing in the world, has rested as much on political as economic success. With all the difficulties of communal "balance” and the perceived need to entrench special rights for citizens of an ethnic Fijian background, free and open government had, by and large, been seen to work well.

The coup has shattered the image of maturity and stability nurtured over more than 17 years since independence. It represents the grossest misconception of the genuine, long term interests of a nation such as Fiji. Indeed, it is bizarre that, in the name of security, the military should turn, not on those they see as potential insurrectionists, but on the constitution, the elected government and a Parliament functioning quite normally.

Governments installed at gunpoint have no part in the affairs of this region. Rabuka and the plotters who supported and motivated him clearly have no appreciation of the fundamental values of the community of nations in the South Pacific. It is necessary that the leaders of those nations make this clear through the South Pacific Forum.