Opinion - News Analysis   

Democracy loses another battle in Fiji

P.S. Suryanarayana

There have been four coups in nearly two decades. With the latest action, the military chief Commodore Bainimarama has signalled he cannot brook the rehabilitation of his opponents.

PHOTO: AFP

A man jogs past a house covered with anti-coup banners near Suva on Thursday.

IT WAS a rare occurrence: a `real-time' announcement of a military coup against an elected civilian government. Fiji's military commander, Commodore Josaia Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama, announced his coup, in an internationally televised address, at the same time as he took control in Suva, the country's capital, on December 5.

This marks the fourth coup in nearly two decades in the south Pacific state. Fiji, where the indigenous people of Melanesian stock constitute a clear majority, is also home to ethnic Indians, now numbering 44 per cent of the population, as a result of a British colonial practice.

The story of their troubled co-existence since 1970, when Fiji gained independence, is not the real reason behind the latest coup. Yet, Cmdre Bainimarama has now pledged to take steps he "trusted" would help "mend the ever-widening racial divide." So, if he is sincere and can indeed deliver on this promise in an often-divisive political setting, the minority may have a beneficial spin-off in the end. However, diplomatic and political sources, familiar with the situation in Fiji, emphasise that the military leader's reasons are central to his own power-grab calculations rather than any game-plan of fair play among the communities.

The political reason behind this coup is a power struggle between the military chief and the now-deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase. And, for weeks before the takeover, Cmdre Bainimarama frequently warned Mr. Qarase about the impending move against him. Mr. Qarase was originally appointed by Cmdre Bainimarama himself following the coups by George Speight, a civilian, and the military forces in 2000. Importantly, however, Mr. Qarase won a decisive victory in the general election of May this year through a process the international community, by and large, endorsed as a fair and free exercise of the popular will.

It was against that background that Mr. Qarase briefed the Pacific Islands Forum, dominated by Australia and New Zealand, about Cmdre Bainimarama's coup threats. And, encouraged by the Forum's expressions of pro-democracy sentiments, Mr. Qarase requested Australian Prime Minister John Howard to send troops to Fiji and stave off the impending coup. Mr. Howard refused, and Cmdre Bainimarama, who had earlier held coup-averting talks with Mr. Qarase, with New Zealand playing the moderator, sensed no obstacles along his take-over path.

For Mr. Howard, though, the dilemma was not over yet. Asked why he baulked at saving democracy in Fiji after having sent soldiers to Iraq on a similar mission, Mr. Howard on Friday said he "did not want the horror of Australian and Fijian troops firing at each other in the streets of Suva." More candidly, he said, "the Fijian military is quite well trained" and Australia had not sent troops to Suva to quell any coup attempt there in the past as well.

Mr. Howard's reasoning explains the limitations of his own recent assertions about Australia's primacy in the South Pacific region. He has also hinted that Canberra will be proactive only if the United States and the United Nations take the lead in resolving crises of international concern, even if these take place in his country's neighbourhood. For the U.S., now deeply troubled over its own military interventions abroad, Fiji might well be on Mars.

So, is Cmdre Bainimarama free to run Fiji as he pleases until it becomes "stable" by his watch and fit for an "election" that would restore "democracy"? The answer is unclear. But several countries have been quick to impose military-oriented and economic sanctions on Fiji.

No two military takeovers in Fiji are comparable — for easy answers about its political future. Nor do military juntas in different countries serve as examples, although Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's "doctrine of necessity" has now been cited in Fiji too. Yet, back in 2000, Cmdre Bainimarama had built up some reputation for being a thinking soldier. And, in some quarters, he was also seen as a democracy-friendly leader who might allow multi-racial politics.

His image-building exercises at that time were related to his own military coup to address the situation caused by Mr. Speight's armed action against the government led by Mahendra Chaudhry, a leader of ethnic-Indian stock.

Now, by opposing Mr. Qarase's legislative proposals for national reconciliation and related amnesty to those involved in the episodes of 2000, Cmdre Bainimarama has signalled he cannot brook the rehabilitation of his opponents of any period. And, his opposition to the planned expansion of the land rights of Melanesians had more to do with the economic logic of attracting tourism-related foreign investments along the country's coastline. To this extent, he is not grandstanding for the rights of his ethnic-Indian compatriots.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A glass half-empty
The quality of India's higher education
Neocons finish what the Vietcong started
India has little reason to cheer
Democracy loses another battle in Fiji
Corrections and Clarifications
Fear of democracy
Welcome ruling
Repeal the Act
Next Rashtrapati

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu