The stand-off in Fiji after Friday’s coup is troubling, but hopeful. It was the third coup in 13 years, but unlike the previous two, this one does not seem likely to succeed. The armed forces, police and (largely ceremonial) presidency have denounced the coup and armed men who stormed Fiji’s Parliament building taking Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and two score MPs prisoner. The men are led by bankrupt businessman George Speight. The military led the previous two coups.
But the underlying cause of all three coups is the same – racial tension between the indigenous Fijian population and the descendants of Indian indentured labourers brought to the islands by the British. The Indians have made great commercial success in the major cities. By 1987, the time of the first coup, the Indians began to outnumber the indigenous Fijians. In April that year a Coalition led by an indigenous Fijian Prime Minister but with a majority of Indian Ministers won the election. The gradual population changes and economic success coupled with the sudden political success of the Indians caused great resentment. A military coup, led by Sitiveni Rabuka, followed a month later.
Settlement talks and a new Government under a compromise constitution did not get a chance. A second coup was launched by Lieutenant-Colonel Rabuka who then took the reins of government for several months before handing over to civilians with himself in a military watchdog role as Minister for Home Affairs. Mr Rabuka returned to the prime ministership under a racist Constitution that barred Fijian nationals of Indian or other non-indigenous background from the top job. After a decade’s work that Constitution was replaced.
It had taken 13 years to undo the effects of those coups: to get the economy back on track and to undo racist Constitution and come up with one that gave guarantees to the indigenous Fijians while retaining a democratic framework. The events of Friday will undo much of the economic work and unless there is some quick restoration of the democratically elected Government, the constitutional work will be undone, too.
When the new Constitution came into force in 1998 it appeared to be so weighted as to practically preclude an Indian Prime Minister. However, such was the unpopularity of Mr Rabuka, that Mr Chaudhry’s Labour Party got an effective majority in the election a year ago, much to its own surprise. It seems, though, that Mr Rabuka and President Kamisese Mara had put so much into the new Constitution that they had to accept the result. They have supported the Constitution and Mr Chaudhry in the face of Friday’s coup. That was an encouraging development.
The best hope for Fiji is for Friday’s events to be treated as a criminal kidnapping and a failed attempt to overthrown the Government. There will be some tricky negotiation with the kidnappers to ensure the safety of Mr Chaudhry and the other captured MPs, but that must not result in any constitutional compromise. At best the rebels can expect some form of amnesty and passage out of Fiji, though they deserve long jail terms.
The 1998 Constitution was a good compromise. It was accepted by the world community and both major communities in Fiji at the time. That it delivered an Indian PM under the first election was the result of democratic processes. And Mr Chaudhry appeared to be doing a reasonable job and retaining a fair degree of popularity. Fiji’s best hope is for politics to be less concerned with race and for the major parties to attract significant numbers of both major races over time.
It will take a long time to overcome the economic damage caused at the weekend, but it can be overcome more quickly with a quick restoration of Mr Chaudhry and his government. If indigenous Fijians feel they are not getting a fair economic or social outcome, the way to deal with that is at the ballot box, not through violence. The violence road will only lead to worse economic and social outcomes.