Chiefs dig in

Fiji

By Iva Tora

A LETTER that would have caught many readers’ eyes in The Fiji Times on June 29 was a two-paragraph Citizen’s Declaration: “I have no intention of abiding by the racist laws of a racist constitution.” Signed by Sudesh Prasad, of Lami, just outside the capital Suva, the letter referred to the new constitution of Fiji approved a week earlier by the Great Council of Chiefs, the ultimate decision-making body of the

indigenous Fijians.

Prasad’s letter underscored continuing Indian opposition to the constitution which gives the indigenous race numeric

al superiority in parliament plus some

customary guarantees. The constitution’s approval by the Great Council of Chiefs was expected and had the support of the army which overthrew an Indian dominated government in 1987 and de clared Fiji a republic.

While the Fijians may have reason to celebrate the approval of a new constitu tion weighted in their favour, there were warning bells that the new sense of pow er could, if abused, lead to some frag mentation. Speaking at the Great Council of Chiefs meeting, The President, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, whose chiefly title of Tui Cakau is the one of the most power ful symbols of Fijian politics, hit out at the emergence of several Taukei (indige nous) movements after the military coup.

These movements, Ganilau said, had multiplied tenfold overnight and and had degraded the meaning of the word taukei and distorted the essence of the Fijian identity. One chief, from the pro vince of Naitasiri, said the speech “im mediately diffused the situation and eased whatever tension we may have brought with us”. In an effort to main tain unity the chiefs from throughout Fiji formed a new “Fijian political party”.

In a three-page communique, the chiefs issued a brief summary outline of the new party whose primary objective was the safeguarding of Fijian interests.

The party, the statement said, would “guarantee, promote and strengthen the

indigenous rights, political aspirations

and political future of the Fijian people; facilitate, promote and stimulate the accelerated participation of the Fijian in business, commerce and industry in the country. It would “facilitate, promote and stimulate the economic and social development of the Fijian people in their villages, districts and provinces and pro tect, strengthen and promote the unity of the Fijian people and the consolida tion of their tradition and culture.

There may not have been anything novel in the preamble to differentiate it from the usual ultra-rightist Taukei plat forms. But what did raise a few suspect ing eye-brows were the provisions that the party would “accommodate associa tion with other political/ethnic groups/

parties” while “fully understanding that

Fiji is a multi-racial country”.

The mention of multi-racialism sent sirens ringing. For many it was a remin der of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara’s Alliance Government which ruled Fiji for 17 years from independence until being un seated in the general elections of 1987.

Mara’s acceptance of the post-coup lead ership and a self-appointed Cabinet mostly from within his old Alliance lineup had torpedoed hope by his party to mend its fences and revive the multi

racial image it successfully pushed for

most of its existence. The new party, however, reminds critics of the Alliance

and, especially, its organisational wing

the Fijian Association. Some warned the new party was giving the Alliance and the Fijian Association, presumed to have waned into antiquity after the coup, a chance of a new life and re-birth.

Reaction to the announcement poured in thick and fast. Said one former Alliance Cabinet Minister turned anti- Mara campaigner, Sakeasi Butadroka (now leader of the Fijian Christian Nationalist Party): “If this proposal did not have Mara’s blessing, it would never have been initiated.” Another former Alliance, Isireli Vuibau, said: “It is a re surrection of the Fijian Association under a new mask, new guise. Vuibau, now the leader of the Conservative Party of Fiji, added: “I don’t believe the old chiefs are involved it is most probably and highly likely just one or two groups from the Ministry of Fijian Affairs.” The Fiji Labour Party, a partner in the de posed Coalition government, was also worried. Its vice-president, Simione Durutalo, a lecturer in sociology at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, said: “This is the last hurrah of the chiefs. It is an attempt to stem the tide and salvage their hold and support of the Fijian people. There has been a gra dual erosion of their political influence, accelerated particularly in the urban areas and this is a last ditch attempt to contain that.”

If the changes made to the distribution of Fijian seats was anything to go by, there may well have been some truth to the claim. The draft document, after three days of deliberations, reduced the number of urban seats for Fijian from

eight to five and increased the number of rural seats in three of the 14 pro vinces from two to three. Mara’s pro vince Lau, Ganilau’s area Cakaud rove, and Tailevu, each received an extra seat. But the logic behind the increase in rural seats escaped some observers.

“There are 42,000 people from the Lau province but only 12,000 live there and yet they have been given three seats.

In the urban areas where you have one

third of the Fijian population living

there, there’s only five seats,” lamented a former Junior Vice-president of the Fi jian Association, Ratu Timoci Vesikula, another former Alliance Cabinet Minis ter. “Does that sound like a fair distribu tion? I think it is absolutely unfair.

Urban people are in many ways the foundation, the ones responsible for run ning the country. Most of the educated Fijians live in the urban areas and those who can best represent Fiji live in the urban areas.”

But for others, such as Durutalo, the re-distribution of seats showed all the classic signs of those resorting to heavy gerimandering to achieve their ends in the real politik numbers game. “It’s all about numbers and (the chiefs) will try to get as much support as they can hence the heavy gerimandering and weight given to the rural areas,” he said.

Responding to the attacks, Fiji’s Minis ter for Fijian Affairs, Lieutenant-Colonel Vatiliai Navunisaravi, lashed out at the critics as opponents who “were still wrap ped up in past dominion thinking; “We’re now in the republic era those critics ought to just come out from their shells and realise this is a different era.

So what if this party is a revival of the Fijian Association? Isn’t this party deal ing with Fijian solidarity, with Fijian poli

tical aspirations?”

Strongly refuting claims that the prop osal was initiated by a core group of indi viduals, the Minister said only that “the chiefs had initiated the proposal”, and did not elaborate. □