Introduction
The use
of the term “Fijian” as a label for national identification remains a
significant ideological frame in the
run up for elections to be held on September 17, 2014.
By
ideological frame, I refer to the fact that phrase “We are all Fijians” is
represented by an array of inter-related set of stories, symbols, images, as
well as rhetoric in an attempt to define
and provide reasons as to why the public should or should not vote for a
political party. This ideology is represented as the highest maxim of social
equality. It is used to justify, maintain, and increase popular support for the
Fiji First Party.
This is
visible in the media, where political candidates are often asked to take a
position on this issue. The premise is that if we know the candidate’s position
on this, we will know their core political values and vision for Fiji. Those
who are hesitant to support ‘Fijian’ as a common-term or ‘national identity’ are
explicitly and implicitly cued to be proponents of disunity and inequality.
Fiji or Viti
It is said
that when the Europeans had asked the Tongans for the name of islands we now
know as Fiji, they provided them with the term Viti. It follows that the terms ‘Fiji’ and ‘Fijian’ arose out of a
mispronunciation of the word Viti. Colonialism
inaugurated the emergence of a collective ‘Fijian race’ or the Taukei Kei Viti or Kai Viti, which loosely translates into ‘the owners of Fiji land’
and ‘persons from Fiji’ respectively. Prior
to this, identification was primarily based on one’s birth and kinship
connections in a vanua or mataqali among distinct communities/confederacies
and not as a collective ‘Fijian race’.
There
were diverse pronunciations and spellings of Fiji such as “Beetee, Fegee, Fejee,
Fidjee, Fidje, Fidgee, Fidschi, Fiji, Feigee, Vihi, Viji, and Viti” (Williams
& Calvert, 1859, p. 1). However, Fiji
and Fijian became commonly used in the colonial state to refer to the land
and the ‘natives’.
Coups and Fiji for Fijians
These labels “Fiji/Fijian” are not in themselves the problem
or the solution to ethnic-relations in Fiji. The problem is the actions of elitist
alliances and the practice of racial ethno-nationalism which have instilled divisive
values and practices to these classifications. Colonial policy and the coup
makers through their use of these categories have established the social
boundaries between the two ‘races’. To
the Fijians, the Indians were to be known as the vulagi (foreigner). To the Indians, the Fijians were to be known as
the jungalis (jungle people). This is
not to say that there are no cultural differences between the two but that the
state plays a crucial role in how these differences are viewed, expressed, and
lived.
Support for the 1987 and 2000 coup was summoned precisely on
a form of oppositional categorization from the colonial period. It featured
arguments to ‘protect’ the taukei
(owners of the land), lotu (Christian
religious beliefs), and the vanua
(land and groupings), which were supposedly endangered. The mobilizing theme was
the protection of Fijian interests with “Fiji for Fijians” as a rallying motto.
We Are All Fijians
Unlike
the previous coups in 1987 and 2000 which were executed under the ideological banner
of “Fiji for Fijians”, Bainimarama has been able to popularize the idea that
his governance represents true democracy with the motto “We are all Fijians” and “Fiji
for all Fijians”. Bainimarama, who was
the commander of the Fijian army at the time, accused the Quarse government of
election fraud and took control of government in 2006.
The
issue of a common-name is linked to the efforts of the National Federation Party (NFP) which was the first party to
advocate for a common-roll and a common name for citizens prior to Fiji’s
independence. However, at the time, Fijian politicians and intellectuals argued
that such actions would be disastrous for Fijian identity and culture.
Therefore, such proposals were never approved.
Bainimarama
has been able to re-articulate this ideology at a time when no other message
would have worked in his favor. He could not rely on the ideology of Fijian
paramountcy (‘Fiji for Fijians’) because this was what the Quarse government
was employing. Quarse was implementing policies which were designed to
establish the dominance of Fijians in areas such as the economy, education, and
the public service. Bainimarama employed the ideology of ‘ending racism’ and of
‘moving Fiji forward’ to gain local and international support for his dismissal
of Quarse, whom he had originally appointed after the 2000 coup.
Through
this re-articulated ideology, Bainimarama has sought to downplay the fact that
he came to power illegally, that he has violated the constitution, and that he
has been unaccountable over the years (e.g. why will the Auditor General Reports
be issued until after the elections?). He has been able to do this because he commanded
the military and because he is phenotypically Fijian. The ideology of “We are
all Fijians” is the emotional and symbolic glue which holds the Bainimarama
regime together. It has resounded with approval among some segments of populace
including key public figures as it represents the idea of civic equality and
nationality unity.
In
March of this year, Bainimarama announced the formation of his political party
called the “Fiji First Party”, a name
which was designed to promote this
ideological theme.
His initial 2006 promise to have returned to the barracks after establishing mechanisms
for a stable democracy has now been pushed aside. He now aims to gain official support for his governance in
the run up for elections. He has exercised several key social reforms and media
campaigns to this end: free education policy; reform of scholarship scheme to
be based on merit; rural development projects; creation of a new constitution,
and appears to have de-facto control of Fiji’s mainstream media.
We Are All Fijians, But Who Are You
The
counter ideological frames of the other parties contesting election are based
on human rights and liberal democratic discourses. They argue that the Bainimarama
regime has proven to be unaccountable, unjust, and undemocratic.
Another
major party contesting the elections is the National
Federation Party (NFP). And while it is likely that the NFP remains
committed to idea that ‘Fijian’ is the best common name for civic unity, given
the political situation, they have chosen to inform the public that this should
be done through democratic process and not by a military regime. They argue
that the regime had no legal democratic authority to employ this term for the
citizenry. They prefer to take the matter up for public consultation which
demonstrates its respect for law in a democracy and their empathy to dialogue
with the indigenous peoples. This underscores NFP ideological frame of liberal
democracy, equality and respect to all the citizens and in so doing encourage
voters to support them and not Fiji First
which has been a dictatorship.
The NFP
in my opinion is the best of the political parties. Their track record shows
that they have always argued for equal representation, respect and compromise
with the indigenous community, and would properly lead Fiji towards democratic stability
and sound economic growth.
However,
there is a need for the NFP to insert themselves more radically in the “We are Fijians”
ideology. “We are Fijians” must be dis-articulated and re-articulated in ways
which demonstrate their commitment to equality, national unity, and gain
popular support. They should emphasize the fact that by and large the populace
continues to use the terms like Indians and Fijians in the everyday life, and
that it is okay to use Fijian as a marker of national collectivity as well as a
marker to refer to the indigenous people. They should also devise strategies
which can build on the desire for national unity in more creative ways. For
example, they may pledge to have a day of national inter-cultural festivities,
which will exhibit shared and unique cultural practices from all of Fiji
cultures not just Indian and Fijian cultures. They should organize a group of
singers or actors from diverse ethnic backgrounds to create songs and dramas
for their campaign. They may also consider a proposition to modify the
constitution to insert a clause which declares Fiji a multi-religious state
versus a secular state. In order words, they must present themselves with a
more impressive strategy and symbols of national unity than the Bainimarama’s
“We are Fijians” campaign.
Conclusion
It
would appear that Bainimarama has been successful in the public sphere as far
as this ideological device of “We are all Fijians” is concerned. Journalists and the media in general have consistently
disapproved of any politician who disagrees with the use of Fijian as a common
label. Those who disagree with Bainimarama’s “We are all Fijians” are casted as
promoters of racial division and ‘returning Fiji to the politics of old times’.
There are
no guarantees that the policies of the Bainimarama government which one may
interpret as progressive will in effect create a stable multicultural Fiji. The
regime’s hegemonic governance has come at the cost of media censorship, unaccounted
economic practices, political corruption, and human rights violations as documented
by the alternative media and civil society reports. The illegal actions of
Bainimarama are overlooked by Fiji First
supporters who encourage the public to realize that the nation has finally achieved
a ‘national identity’ and to observe the infrastructure development taking
place (never mind its unsustainability).
For
some of the populace, the ideology of “We are all Fijians” is a positive step
towards national unity. For others, it is as a threat to Fijian identity. And still for others, it is an illegal change
with no material rewards. Going into the election, political mobilization will
depend on which party can create a positive and dominant ideological
representation of their party. So far Fiji
First appears to have the upper hand because it has dominated the public
sphere and has complemented this ideology with recent infrastructure
development. For better or for worse, the “We are all Fijians” motto has a wide
appeal and I wouldn’t be surprised if Bainimarama wins the election. But I also
wouldn’t be happy; … maybe I’ll be content, but not happy.
By
Rolando Cocom
Also follow the discussion at:
Croz Walsh's Blog, Fiji: The way it was, is and can be
Fiji Today Blog
Also follow the discussion at:
Croz Walsh's Blog, Fiji: The way it was, is and can be
Fiji Today Blog
References
Derrick, R. A. (1950). A history
of Fiji (Vol. 1). Suva: Stationery Department.
Kelly, J. D. (1995). Threats to
Difference in Colonial Fiji. Cultural Anthropology, 10(1), 64-84. doi:
10.2307/656231
Lal, B. V. (2013). The strange
career of Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s 2006 Fiji coup. Paper presented at
the State, Society and Governance in Melanesia, Australia. Retrieved Sep 8,
2014, from http://ips.cap.anu.edu.au/publications/strange-career-commodore-frank-bainimaramas-2006-fiji-coup
Naidu, V. (2013). Fiji: the
challenges and opportunities of diversity. Suva:
Minority Rights Group International.
Narsey, W. (2012). Fijians,
I-Taukei, Indians and Indo-Fijians: Name changes by military decree. Pacific
Media Centre. Retrieved Nov 8, 2013,
from http://www.pmc.aut.ac.nz/articles/fijians-i-taukei-indians-and-indo-fijians-name-changes-military-decree
Narsey, W. (2012). Choosing
between the Military and the Rule of Law. Wadan Narsey on Fiji. Retrieved Sep 8, 2014, from http://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/choosing-between-the-military-and-the-rule-of-law-part-i-21-august-2014/
Rakuita, T. (2007). Living by
bread alone: Contemporary challenges associated with Identity and belongingness
in Fiji. Suva: Ecumenical Centre for Research, Education and Advocacy.
Ratuva, S. (2002). Participation
for Peace: A study of inter-ethnic and inter-religious perception in Fiji.
Suva: Ecumenical Centre for Research Education and Advocacy.
Robertson, R. T. (1998).
Multiculturalism & Reconciliation in an Indulgent Republic: Fiji After the
Coups, 1987-1998. Suva: Fiji Institute of Applied Studies.
Seemann, B. (1862). Viti: An
account of a government mission to the Vitian or Fijian Islands, in the years
1860-61. London: Macmillan.
Sauvakacolo,
S. (2014). 'I want a new Fiji', Fiji
Times. Retrieved from http://www.fijitimes.com/story.aspx?id=264241
Williams, T., & Calvert, J.
(1859). Fiji and the Fijians: D. Appleton and Company.
Similar Belizean Minds Posts:
Similar Belizean Minds Posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment