By Sanjay Ramesh
The Fiji coups of 1987, 2000, and 2006 have caused irreparable damage to race relations and provoked intense competition for political power within the Indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities.
In 1987, the simple message from the coup leader Col. Sitiveni Rabuka (now Prime Minister of Fiji) was that the Indo-Fijian-dominated coalition government of the late Dr Timoci Bavadra threatened Indigenous Fijian land, culture, and tradition. At that time, Indo-Fijians slightly outnumbered Indigenous Fijians as Indigenous Fijian nationalists supporting the coup argued that democratic politics based on majority rule would ensure the extinction of the Indigenous community and such democracy was not suitable for Fiji.
13 years later, a group within the Republic of Fiji Military Forces, the Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit, which Rabuka created after the 1987 coup to protect future governments from civilian insurrection, entered the parliament house on 19 May 2000 and held the coalition government of former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhary hostage for 56 days. The coup supporters used a similar argument in 1987 to justify the takeover. However, in 2000, the Indigenous Fijians were in the majority and significant differences appeared among Indigenous Fijians regarding the 1997 Constitution, an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, and protection of Indigenous land, in particular expiring agricultural leases held mostly by Indo-Fijian farmers.
Indo-Fijian families in rebel-held areas in mostly eastern Fiji were allegedly attacked and driven from their homes and a spate of non-renewal of agricultural leases forced Indo-Fijian families to exit sugar cane farming. The 1997 Constitution was abrogated by Commander Voreqe Bainimarama, but the abrogation was overturned by the Fiji High Court which ruled that the constitution can only be enacted or amended by an act of parliament and that the President of Fiji had no reserve powers to overturn a constitution.
As a result of the reinstatement of the 1997 Constitution, Fiji went to the polls in 2001 and elected a pro-Indigenous Fijian government sympathetic to the 2000 coup. Tensions emerged between the military and the government as former Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase pushed racial, tolerance and unity, indigenous foreshore, and land tribunal bills to give greater voice and control to Indigenous Fijians over their natural resources and land.
In December 2006, the multiethnic government of Prime Minister Qarase was overthrown by Bainimarama. The 1997 Constitution continued to exist but following the Fiji Court of Appeal judgment against the 2006 coup, the President of Fiji abrogated the 1997 Constitution in 2009, and a new constitution and electoral system was implemented in 2013 with the new FijiFirst Part comprising of supporters of the 2006 coup won the 2014 and 2018 elections. Media rights were curtailed, and those opposed to the FijiFirst Government were pursued by the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Fiji Elections Office, and the Fiji Police.
Former Fiji Prime Minister Bainimarama opposed any truth and reconciliation whereas the current Prime Minister Rabuka whilst in opposition supported a national commission to encourage truth-telling and forgiveness. However, following the recent release of George Speight and some of his fellow co-conspirators, there are pressures to get the truth and reconciliation right.
Using South Africa Truth and Reconciliation as a starting point, four key reconciliation concepts must be in scope as terms of reference for the Commission. These are political tolerance, legitimacy of political authority, interracial reconciliation, and support for the principles of human rights.
Political tolerance in the South African context refers to putting up with political ideas with which one strongly disagrees and requires that people be asked about repressing ideas and groups they find objectionable.
In Fiji, tolerance and reconciliation have been discussed for some time. However, the former FijiFirst Government was against any form of reconciliation because former Prime Minister Bainimarama believed that the coup of 2006, the 2013 Constitution, and the policies of FijiFirst had ushered in a new era of interethnic cooperation. However, this was hardly the case with the political and economic marginalisation of Indigenous Fijians.
Views contrary to those of FijiFirst were cancelled by the authorities which used state institutions like the Fiji Independent Commission Against Corruption (FICAC), the Fiji Elections Office, and the Police to pursue dissidents. Whilst the coalition government that came to office in 2022 has promoted media freedom and freedom of expression, governance issues persist as it tries to divest itself from the authoritarian practices of the past.
This leads to the legitimacy of the current political authority in Fiji. The current Prime Minister, Rabuka, was elected by a single vote in parliament as per the 2013 Constitution which a majority of Indigenous Fijians feel was imposed without consultation, aimed at bolstering the political fortunes of those involved in the 2006 coup.
Further, the deregistration of FijiFirst and the arrest and conviction of former Prime Minister Bainimarama indicate that the current political authorities are serious about the rule of law. However, political governance remains an issue with mediocre performance and choices from elected officials with further questions being raised about appointing senior public servants (ABC, 6 September 2024).
Indo-Fijian members of the former FijiFirst party in parliament continue to highlight the alleged race-based appointments to senior positions within government as concerning, including the release of George Speight and some of his supporters and co-conspirators.
Interracial reconciliation in Fiji has not occurred since language and cultural differences ensured that such an initiative fail. However, the coalition government remains committed to a proper truth and reconciliation regime based on truth-telling and acknowledgments of past human rights violations.
While the intent of Rabuka government is noble, before setting up any such truth and reconciliation initiative, we must ensure that such a commission should avoid mistakes and ensure that victims’ voices are not marginalised.
In her study, Anne Menzel has argued that “there are tensions between victim participation and other professional standards in the field of transitional justice.”
“These tensions become most evident in victims’ ‘active’ involvement in transitional justice projects: victim participation has become a well-established principle – yet victims only become participants via selection and mobilisation procedures of which they are neither authors nor drivers,” she observes.
Analysing the Sierra Leone truth and reconciliation approach, Menzel highlights two critical issues: victim participation particularly participation of women and the broader concept of transitional justice and local actors. These tensions must be addressed before architecting a truth and reconciliation framework for Fiji.
In fact, truth and reconciliation regimes are established to counter the lack of a transitional justice framework within the existing justice system, and the purpose of the truth commissions is to document human rights violations and provide a forum for perpetrators and victims to recount their experiences and establish a clear understanding of the nature of the conflict and assist in healing those affected.
So, whilst truth and reconciliation commissions are set with the assistance of the international community and international transitional justice professionals, the commission should have a term of reference that takes into consideration local context as well as traditional and cultural sensitivities around truth-telling, reconciliation, and forgiveness.
Contributing Author: Dr Sanjay Ramesh is an Associate Senior Lecturer at the University of Sydney and an Associate Senior Fellow at the University of the South Pacific.
Support Our Journalism
Global Indian Diaspora and Australia’s multicultural communities need fair, non-hyphenated, and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. The Australia Today – with exceptional reporters, columnists, and editors – is doing just that. Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.
Whether you live in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America, or India you can take a paid subscription by clicking Patreon and support honest and fearless journalism. LINK: https://tinyurl.com/TheAusToday
