The plea of guilty to treason by George Speight and the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment will do little to resolve political difficulties in Fiji posed by the bitter racial divide on the islands. That divide arises because the descendants of indentured labourers brought by the British colonialists from India to work the sugar industry form about 45 per cent of the population. They have dominated commerce on in the island to the resentment of indigenous Fijians.
Speight is the scapegoat. He agreed to plead guilty to the high charge of treason ostensibly in a plea bargain so that half a dozen of his co-offenders would be allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of detaining hostages which carries a seven-year sentence rather than the death penalty. But many in Fiji, including its leading newspapers, suspect that the bargain runs higher, wider and deeper than that. There is a reasonable suspicion that Speight was not the leader nor the main instigator of the coup of May 2000 in which Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry his Cabinet and other MPs were held hostage for 56 days. Behind the scenes, some rich and powerful indigenous Fijians gave tacit support and others gave active support or even helped plan the coup, according to both Mr Chaudhry and reports in the Fijian press. They must now be sighing with relief at the end of the prospect of a full trial – with the possibility that a blame-throwing defence might point fingers higher and wider than just the accused.
Clearly, powerful forces among the indigenous Fijians have profited from the coup. In particular, the prospect that the Chaudhry Government would institute land reform that would enable Indians to more easily obtain land and get security of title over land held on shaky leases, has been removed by the coup.
The 200 coup was the third in Fiji’s brief history – Fiji became independent in 1970. Each coup occurred when the Indian minority got a significant say in Government, often as a result of political splits between the slightly more numerous indigenous population.
After Speight put down his arms and released his hostages, there was, unfortunately, no return to the previous constitutional Government. Instead, a new Constitution was drafted and new elections held. Perhaps that was a pragmatic compromise, particularly as the Constitution provided for power-sharing arrangements, under which any party with 10 per cent of the seats was entitled to a proportionate number of Cabinet posts. By the time of the election Mr Chaudhry was no longer leader of the Labour Party, but still the Labour Party did well in the election, obtaining 27 of the 71 seats, against 31 for the main indigenous party of Laisenia Qarase. By now the indigenous political forces were more united.
Mr Qarase has refused to give any Cabinet posts to the Labour Party, which has successfully challenged the decision in the courts. Mr Qarase is appealing.
Whatever the result, the situation will ever remain unstable and divisive while political parties are for practical purposes racially based, with the Labour Party Indian, industrial urban and Mr Qarase’s Fijian Party indigenous, rural and agricultural or subsistence. Even if the Constitution provides for representation in Cabinet for the second party, Cabinet colleagues will still be divided. Only when each of the major political parties are mixed and there are more Indians in the army and bureaucracy and more indigenous Fijians in commerce will stability come to Fiji – for these are the seeds of resentment from both communities.The plea of guilty to treason by George Speight and the death sentence commuted to life imprisonment will do little to resolve political difficulties in Fiji posed by the bitter racial divide on the islands. That divide arises because the descendants of indentured labourers brought by the British colonialists from India to work the sugar industry form about 45 per cent of the population. They have dominated commerce on in the island to the resentment of indigenous Fijians.
Speight is the scapegoat. He agreed to plead guilty to the high charge of treason ostensibly in a plea bargain so that half a dozen of his co-offenders would be allowed to plead guilty to the lesser charge of detaining hostages which carries a seven-year sentence rather than the death penalty. But many in Fiji, including its leading newspapers, suspect that the bargain runs higher, wider and deeper than that. There is a reasonable suspicion that Speight was not the leader nor the main instigator of the coup of May 2000 in which Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry his Cabinet and other MPs were held hostage for 56 days. Behind the scenes, some rich and powerful indigenous Fijians gave tacit support and others gave active support or even helped plan the coup, according to both Mr Chaudhry and reports in the Fijian press. They must now be sighing with relief at the end of the prospect of a full trial – with the possibility that a blame-throwing defence might point fingers higher and wider than just the accused.
Clearly, powerful forces among the indigenous Fijians have profited from the coup. In particular, the prospect that the Chaudhry Government would institute land reform that would enable Indians to more easily obtain land and get security of title over land held on shaky leases, has been removed by the coup.
The 200 coup was the third in Fiji’s brief history – Fiji became independent in 1970. Each coup occurred when the Indian minority got a significant say in Government, often as a result of political splits between the slightly more numerous indigenous population.
After Speight put down his arms and released his hostages, there was, unfortunately, no return to the previous constitutional Government. Instead, a new Constitution was drafted and new elections held. Perhaps that was a pragmatic compromise, particularly as the Constitution provided for power-sharing arrangements, under which any party with 10 per cent of the seats was entitled to a proportionate number of Cabinet posts. By the time of the election Mr Chaudhry was no longer leader of the Labour Party, but still the Labour Party did well in the election, obtaining 27 of the 71 seats, against 31 for the main indigenous party of Laisenia Qarase. By now the indigenous political forces were more united.
Mr Qarase has refused to give any Cabinet posts to the Labour Party, which has successfully challenged the decision in the courts. Mr Qarase is appealing.
Whatever the result, the situation will ever remain unstable and divisive while political parties are for practical purposes racially based, with the Labour Party Indian, industrial urban and Mr Qarase’s Fijian Party indigenous, rural and agricultural or subsistence. Even if the Constitution provides for representation in Cabinet for the second party, Cabinet colleagues will still be divided. Only when each of the major political parties are mixed and there are more Indians in the army and bureaucracy and more indigenous Fijians in commerce will stability come to Fiji – for these are the seeds of resentment from both communities.