Fighting back

Two indigenous Fijians, both successful in their own rights, share vastly differing views on the plight of their people

By Mala Jagmohan

ON May 14, 1987, a military coup overthrew the ethnic Indian-dominated government of Fiji and abrogated the country’s constitution in the name of indigenous rights. The coup was to have been in response to a cry from the indigenous Fijians, comprising approximately half of the country’s population, for control of the govern ment and in answer to their aspirations.

It was to have prevented the Fijians from becoming disadvantaged powerless and landless in their own country.

Almost six years later, debate on the

plight of the indigenous Fijians continues

were they disadvantaged, what are

these aspirations and are they being met as a result of the coup and the subsequent pro-indigenous constitution?

Fiji’s coup leader, Major-General Siti veni Rabuka, now the democratically elected prime minister, believes so. While there is a lot still to be done for the

indigenous population, the “playing

field" is now more even,he says.

Part of the process of levelling the “playing field” included a new consti tution which enshrines indigenous su premacy in government in terms of numbers (the House of Representatives has 37 indigenous seats compared to 33 seats for all others), “positive discrimi nation" in legislation which ensures, for instance, that at least 50 per cent of civil service jobs and a greater allocation of

scholarships go to the Fijians, and economic policies aimed at improving the standard of living for the indigenous people have been introduced.

“Now we are at the levelling out process”, says Rabuka. He believes the

positive discriminatory policies were a

necessary part of the process and sees a day in the future where all the peoples of Fiji can exist on a more-or-less equal

footing.

The policies were necessary, he says, because the Fijians were definitely disad vantaged before 1987 under the previous constitution which tended to treat all races equally without addressing the special needs of the indigenous

population.

He further agrees that land rights and political leadership are two issues which Fijians hold dear, and a threat to either has potential to spark outrage.

“They were, however, not disadvan taged in ownership of their land.” (Eighty-three per cent of all land has

been classified native land and protective clauses in the 1970 constitution made it virtually impossible to change its status.

Native land has been administered by the Native Lands Trust Board, which acts as an inter-mediary between the native owner and the tenant.) “But the usage of the land and the acquisition of the means to turn it around to profitable productivity has been a problem,” says Rabuka. “If he wants to borrow, he needs to de-reserve it so that he can use the title to borrow against on a personal basis. Then he has to use the land productively so that he can repay the loan. If he does not, the bank takes over and an enterprising Indian takes on the lease.”

“But it must also be remembered the NLTB’s objective is to make land available for development it is there for the development of the nation, rather than the Fijian.”

Another area where Fijians have been disadvantaged is in education. Because most Fijians tend to live in rural areas, away from centres where governments have concentrated their funds for educa tion, the quality of education and educational resources available for Fijian children have been lacking.

Rabuka explains that because rural schools have fewer resources and facilities good teachers are reluctant to be posted to them. And as a result, these children are inextricably caught in the web.

There is no way, therefore, that they can compete on equal terms with other children for scholarships to tertiary institutions. Hence, the separate scholar ship criteria for Fijian students.

Rabuka’s government’s answer to this problem is also to improve facilities in rural schools “we say rural schools, as opposed to Fijian schools, knowing that 80 to 90 per cent of them are Fijian schools”.

But he believes without political lead ership none of these policies would have been possible. “With political leadership you can manoeuvre the other forces (including economic) to manipulate the changes in favour of the Fijian people.

“Fijians must have control if they are not to be annihilated. Economic power is important, but political power you can work with it.”

However, Rabuka is the first to admit changes in the economic well-being of the Fijians cannot be brought about over night. “It is a long-term project and the problem we are facing is that Fijians expect short-term results.”

He urged the Fijian people to exercise mental discipline as individuals in pursu ing economic advancement for them selves and their families. In particular, Rabuka referred to traditional obli gations requiring members of extended families and clans to contribute to major

Talat Mehmood

War dance: part of Fijian traditions still kept alive

occasions such as weddings, funerals.

These obligations are based on the premise that all members of a clan, for instance, are responsible for the welfare of others.

Because he is required to be continu ously responsible for the needs of his whole clan, a Fijian finds it extremely difficult to budget according to his resources. Social pressures are so great as to force an individual to forego the needs of his immediate family to look after his greater family. As a result the Fijian, especially the urban Fijian, found himself

mostly living beyond his means.

Rabuka’s view is that while there is a place for tradition, this must be weighed against the needs of his family first. The priority must be one’s immediate family, and the individual must learn to say “no”.

He said in the past, the extent of what one could contribute towards these traditional needs was based on the season’s crop. The head of the village would allocate how much would be set aside to meet these needs after providing for all within the village. This concept must be adapted to the family situation and Fijians must learn to live by it.

But, he said, as long as he was prime minister there would be no erosion of the

special advantages enjoyed by the Fijians

under the new constitution. The advan tages were meant to bring Fijians on the same level as the other races in their own land and once this was satisfactorily achieved, changes could be made for a more equitable system. □ Dr Tupeni Baba, an indigenous Fijian and an academic at the University of the South Pacific, was one of the ministers overthrown in the 1987 military coup. His percep

tion of indigenous rights and aspir

ations are quite different to that

adopted by the authorities.

“Let us look at the United Nations covenant on the indigenous peoples. This covenant is consistent with the UN Human Rights charter in that it recog nises indigenous rights within the context of human rights, but focuses on the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples of the land.

“The UN covenant does not say it should be done at the expense of other people. It does not say the indigenous people have more rights than others.

“What I fear is that people who do not understand this think it places indigen ous people in a pre-eminent or dominant position. A lot of people in Fiji are using

it to mean the indigenous should be given pre-eminence in Fiji in the consti tution and so on.”

He said the UN covenant must not be used as an excuse to deny the rights of other people or to maintain certain indigenous traditions which oppress or deny the rights of indigenous people, in

particular women.

What are Fijian aspirations?

"I’d say the basic aspirations of an ordinary Fijian are a good standard of living which includes for an urban Fijian employment and a reasonable wage, education, reasonable house, access to medical facilities and the freedom of

expression and religious worship.

“But then these are no different to the aspirations of an Indian or any other race

Fiji is a country where the indigenous people decided to take the initiative to take a stand and to fight for what they believed, whether rightly or wrongly, was their entitlement. But how does their interpret ation of indigenous rights compare with the United Nations charter.

in Fiji. These are the aspirations of the ordinary citizen of Fiji, regardless of his

ethnic background.”

In addition, he said, all races in Fiji also aspired to owning land, but where they differed was the in the concept of this ownership. The non-Fijian needed it for survival; for the Fijian it was much more than that “it is the whole cosmos”.

“Fijians are very sensitive about land.

He has a communal system, headed by chiefs, to which he is tied. Land is tied up with a Fijian’s whole identity.

“This is where he is different from other races he is sensitive about anything that appears to undermine it.

“And the coup-makers appealed to this sensitivity to arouse the strong sentiments expressed in 1987.”

Baba points out there was never an intention to take away the Fijian land.“ln any case, the protective clauses

of the 1970 constitution ensured there was no way anything could be changed on land rights without their consent.”

Looking back at the five-and-half years since the coup and at the policies of the pro-indigenous governments, Baba says the basic aspirations of the Fijians have not been satisfied.

“Their policies have, in effect, left the indigenous population worse off than they were before 1987. For example, the imposition of Value Added Tax; the continued high rents on housing estates; the deteriorating conditions in our hos pitals; and the method of distributing educational awards.

“Of the proportion of people living below the poverty line in Fiji now, Fijians account for about one-quarter. There is a higher level of poverty in Fijian villages today than in settlements occupied by other races.

"It is obviously clear, that those Fijians in positions of power are geting richer, have greater opportunities for wealth and business than the ordinary Fijian. As a result, they also have better access to medical facilities overseas, better standards of education for their children and so on.”

He cited the case of Fijian Holdings Ltd, a company established to advance the economic participation of Fijians in commerce and business, whose directors had become its major shareholders “while denying the ordinary Fijian people there was not even an attempt to advertise the sale of shares”.

“Is this indigenous rights? Are these the indigenous aspirations the coup was intended to promote?

“It is clear there is an increasing gap between the rich Fijian and the poor Fijian and this has been made possible by the “positive discrimination” policies of the governments.

Baba looks at the whole concept of indigenous rights in Fiji as a system which is pushing the Fijians backward.

"It is an attempt to cocoon the Fijian in a colonial system where they become unable to face the realities of modern life.”

He quoted the indigenous Fijian

anthroplogist, R.R. Nayacakalou, from

his book Leadership in Fiji “It seems to me that one of the greatest obstacles facing the Fijians today is the failure to recognize that there is a contradiction; they must now make the momentous choice between preserving and changing their ‘way of life’. The belief that they can do both simultaneously is a mon strous nonsense with which they have been straddled for so many years now that its eradication may be very difficult to achieve.”