The Fijian great Council of Chiefs should have realised that they were dealing with an erratic, criminal, megalomaniac when they sat down to discuss the demands of George Speight. Instead they treated him seriously as a person to be negotiated with. It was a foolish mistake and now the council and all Fijians are paying for it. Speight was not a man to be negotiated with, except on a pretend basis to get his hostages released, after which he could be arrested and tried for kidnapping a violence.
Having negotiated with him, Speight has continued to increase his demands. The council has betrayed Fiji by acceding to Speight’s demand that Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry – a man that Speight holds at gunpoint — be forced from office. This is an appalling turn of events, not just for Fiji but for democracy in other South Pacific countries. The Australian Government has rightly denounced the developments and announced measures that will be taken if constitutional government is not restored. The Papua New Guinea Government has been far too weak in its reaction. A clear message needs to be sent that political and constitutional change cannot legitimately arise from the barrel of a gun. Once it is permitted, no South Pacific Government is safe. Any disgruntled group with a significant number of backers could force any government from office.
Speight and others among the community of indigenous Fijians might well have had grievances against Mr Chaudhry’s Labour Government. Mr Chaudhry, a descendent of indentured Indian labourers sent to Fiji by the British a century ago, might well have had plans to make changes to the land tenure system that might have caused concern among indigenous Fijians. But the proper place for the resolution of those concerns and disputes is within the institutions of government and political parties and ultimately the ballot box. Judging by the numbers of demonstations against the Chaudhry Government, it might have had a difficult time winning the next election. It was doing a reasonable job in difficult circumstances and had got popularity early, but that was waning. The folly of the chiefs’ action is not only that it was unprincipled, but that it was unnecessary. Mr Chaudhry’s Government might well have fallen anyway, or even sooner his political party might have seen the political necessity of replacing Mr Chaudhry with an indigenous Fijian if it were to win the next election.
As it is, anything other than a replacement of the Chaudhry Government or some other Government approved on the floor of the people’s House of Parliament will be tainted with illegitimacy. There will be a lasting and damaging legacy for Fiji.
(There are similarities with Malcolm Fraser’s action against Gough Whitlam’s Government here. Government would have fallen into Mr Fraser’s hands with more legitimacy given a little patience and he could have done more with it.)
There is further danger in the position of the chiefs. Not only are they excusing Speight’s criminal action by granting him a pardon, but they are rewarding it by suggesting he should have a role in a new government. It is an open invitation to violence against any future government which any group (including a future Indian minority) might disagree. It legitimises violence. Moreover, the invitation to Speight is an invitation to join a race-based government.
The international community cannot tolerate this. Such a Government must be brought to its knees in the same way that international pressure helped bring an end the racist pre-Mandela government in South Africa. It is unfortunate that many ordinary Fijians of both indigenous and Indian background will suffer in the short term, but democracy is the only acceptable long-term solution. So-called “”Pacific” or “”Asian” ways are not substitutes for democracy. They are forms of tyranny.