A Coup (maybe)
All signs show that Fiji is preparing for another coup. Under the direction of Commodore Frank Bainimarama, Fiji’s military has seized all of the police force’s weapons and blockaded the capital city of Suva. If Bainimarama does follow through on his threats, this will be Fiji’s fourth coup in less than 20 years. This coup, however, is very different from the other three. While the previous coups played on fears of a takeover from the country’s Indian (or, more accurately, Indo-Fijian) population, this coup is in defense of the Indo-Fijian minority. Make no mistake, a coup would be devastating to Fiji’s economy and overall democratic future – I merely want to clarify the context of this coup.
The two coups in 1987 were also orchestrated by the military, but for different reasons than Bainimarama is giving now. Then, the military found the government to be too friendly to the country’s Indo-Fijian minority, (allegedly) threatening the interests of the country’s indigenous Fijian population. At least that was the card that military leader Sitiveni Rabuka played to drum up mass support for his seizures of power.
Rabuka ruled through 90s, but, under pressure from the international community, oversaw the drafting of a democratic constitution and the return of elections. In May 1999, elections were held, and to the surprise of many, the Indian-dominated Fiji Labour Party won. Mahendra Chaudhry became Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister. In less than a year, Chaudhry ushered in several necessary reforms that moved the country forward (but earned the ire of some elites and radical indigenous Fijian nationalists). On his one-year anniversary he was the victim of a coup led by failed businessman and indigenous Fijian nationalist George Speight.
Two elections have followed since the 2000 coup, both pitting Chaudhry against the current prime minister Laisenia Qarase. In the most recent election (this last May), Qarase used race-baiting to defeat Chaudhry, charging that the country was not ready for an Indian prime minister. He added that if Chaudhry were elected, another coup would surely ensue. Furthermore, Qarase touted a “national reconciliation” bill, which would grant amnesty to the perpetrators of the 2000 coup, and promoted legislation that would allow land leases for Indian farmers (some of who’s families had lived on the farms for several generations) to expire and be seized by indigenous Fijian landowners.
The current head of the military, Bainimarama, publicly denounced Qarase’s statements and vowed that a coup against an Indian leader would not happen under his watch. In addition, he warned Qarase that the military would not stand idly by if he followed through on discriminatory legislation.
Qarase was (barely) elected and his administration looked promising. He invited the opposition party to join his cabinet and many Fiji Labour officials accepted. Trouble was looming, however, as Qarase prepared to introduce the controversial legislation he promised in the campaign. Bainimarama became outraged that Qarase would challenge him and promote the discriminatory legislation. After several heated public exchanges and failed negotiations, Fiji finds itself on the brink of another coup.
Although I have sympathies with Bainimarama’s position (given the history of discrimination against Fiji’s Indians), a military coup is not a path to progress. The discriminatory legislation could and should be defeated through democratic mechanisms. For good reason, democracies are country’s of laws, not of men. Even if Bainimarama has the right motives, who’s to say that the next military leader will? Furthermore, after a coup, Fiji will surely lose funding and resources from countries like Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. It’s main industry, tourism, will at least be temporarily crushed.
Ideally, a last minute agreement would be worked out where Bainimarama relented and Qarase withdrew his discriminatory legislation. Let’s hope that it’s not too late.
The two coups in 1987 were also orchestrated by the military, but for different reasons than Bainimarama is giving now. Then, the military found the government to be too friendly to the country’s Indo-Fijian minority, (allegedly) threatening the interests of the country’s indigenous Fijian population. At least that was the card that military leader Sitiveni Rabuka played to drum up mass support for his seizures of power.
Rabuka ruled through 90s, but, under pressure from the international community, oversaw the drafting of a democratic constitution and the return of elections. In May 1999, elections were held, and to the surprise of many, the Indian-dominated Fiji Labour Party won. Mahendra Chaudhry became Fiji’s first Indo-Fijian prime minister. In less than a year, Chaudhry ushered in several necessary reforms that moved the country forward (but earned the ire of some elites and radical indigenous Fijian nationalists). On his one-year anniversary he was the victim of a coup led by failed businessman and indigenous Fijian nationalist George Speight.
Two elections have followed since the 2000 coup, both pitting Chaudhry against the current prime minister Laisenia Qarase. In the most recent election (this last May), Qarase used race-baiting to defeat Chaudhry, charging that the country was not ready for an Indian prime minister. He added that if Chaudhry were elected, another coup would surely ensue. Furthermore, Qarase touted a “national reconciliation” bill, which would grant amnesty to the perpetrators of the 2000 coup, and promoted legislation that would allow land leases for Indian farmers (some of who’s families had lived on the farms for several generations) to expire and be seized by indigenous Fijian landowners.
The current head of the military, Bainimarama, publicly denounced Qarase’s statements and vowed that a coup against an Indian leader would not happen under his watch. In addition, he warned Qarase that the military would not stand idly by if he followed through on discriminatory legislation.
Qarase was (barely) elected and his administration looked promising. He invited the opposition party to join his cabinet and many Fiji Labour officials accepted. Trouble was looming, however, as Qarase prepared to introduce the controversial legislation he promised in the campaign. Bainimarama became outraged that Qarase would challenge him and promote the discriminatory legislation. After several heated public exchanges and failed negotiations, Fiji finds itself on the brink of another coup.
Although I have sympathies with Bainimarama’s position (given the history of discrimination against Fiji’s Indians), a military coup is not a path to progress. The discriminatory legislation could and should be defeated through democratic mechanisms. For good reason, democracies are country’s of laws, not of men. Even if Bainimarama has the right motives, who’s to say that the next military leader will? Furthermore, after a coup, Fiji will surely lose funding and resources from countries like Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. It’s main industry, tourism, will at least be temporarily crushed.
Ideally, a last minute agreement would be worked out where Bainimarama relented and Qarase withdrew his discriminatory legislation. Let’s hope that it’s not too late.
posted by Jason at 9:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home