His stance is clear but his reasoning is notconsistent. Which goes back to whether it's reasoned or devious. If it's reasoned, it's unwittingly contradictory; if it's devious, the contradiction is deliberate.
On the one hand, he claims that more than half the military and most grassroots (ethnic?) "Fijians" want to get rid of Bainimarama, using hearsay to support his claim.
Fiji government opponents say people in Fiji are too afraid to talk. If this is true, how can Mara, in New Zealand, have any idea of the extent of opposition to Bainimarama? They can't both be right. Like most information, veracity depends on its source. Mara's sources are Mara supporters, and we have no idea how representative they might be.
One must also ask, had this level of opposition to Bainimarama existed when he was in the military, why did he not use it. It is, after all, much easier to launch an attack from within Fiji with 400 troops at your back than it is, troop-less, from without.
On the other hand, he calls for military intervention by Australia and New Zealand. But why, going back to his earlier claim, is this needed if more than half the military and ethnic Fijians really want to get rid of Bainimarama?
Mara's interview on TVNZ program Tagata Pasifika(video posted below).