The tragedy of Fiji

Pim Opinion

The weeks since the overthrow of the elected government of Fiji have shown all concerned how deeply the coup has wounded them, and how shallowly the perpetrators judged their ground. When the military marches into a functioning parliament and usurps its role at gunpoint it is unlikely that the country concerned will ever forgive them. That is the point that military usurpers so often forget when they destroy elected governments.

Colonel Rabuka has taken his country hostage and done it irreparable damage in the process. Nominally, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, has regained legal control of Fiji and is running the country under the constitution devised after such long and earnest negotiation 17 years ago. The world knows, however, that that is a fiction.

The Governor-General, to his credit, recognised quickly that the motives and rationale of Rabuka and his colleagues were shallow and simplistic likely to inflame further trouble and certainly no adequate response to the perceived problem (military unwillingness to deal with indigenous Fijians threaten ing resort to violence against a government put into office in part by a substantial bloc of votes cast by indigenous Fijians). But now he finds himself in a terrible bind.

Judging by his own assessment and a great deal of supporting anecdotal evidence, the people of Fiji want no departure from constitutional government and the rule of law, and a continued direct link through the office of Governor- General to the Crown. They do not want military dictatorship.

They do want, desperately, a return to normal operations in business, especially in the sugar and tourist industries. If only it were so easy.

Several measures reflect the extent of Fiji’s wounds. The tourist industry will not recover significantly in the short term; why should it? The armed forces have shown a marked

propensity to resort to thuggery in their treatment of the same foreign media that will be used to attract business. Do the Rabukas really believe that television coverage of this can be cancelled by paid television advertising of their climate?

The artifices suggested so far to get around the overthrow of a government and a constitution are ludicrous. They are no more than attempts to legitimise the rule of the gun. Fiji lost the battle to have its military coup regarded by its neighbors as a purely domestic tiff of no regional consequence. The South Pacific Forum meeting in Apia recognised in the end that if it had not discussed the Fiji coup fully it would have looked ridiculous.

Fiji has not only lost its economic underpinnings at the potential cost of great hardship for many ethnic Fijians as well as Indo-Fijians it has lost its moral and ethical role in regional politics. Perhaps Rabuka and his officers and some of the chiefs who have been dragged into this quicksand believe that to be an affordable price. What percentage for our viewpoint, they might argue, did that role provide?

The “Pacific Way” means many things but not that. The tragedy of Fiji is very clear to the people outside the country who sympathise with all points of view in the country but still regard constitutionality as the best guarantee for all.

It is a travesty to suggest that the constitution written In 1970 can be perverted to the extent that it can be replaced at gunpoint, yet with the trappings of ballot papers and rules. The Governor-General knows that the military will not accept a result unfavorable to their ethnic and possibly party political view.

He knows that in that event there is little he can do in power terms. His weapon is the constitution.

With the British election over and the lines of advice restored, the Governor-General might ponder his own credibility. The option he has yet to discuss is the dismissal of coup leaders.