On Aristocratic Legitimacy in Fiji.

Mercurial political change coat, Tupeni Baba claims in an interview (audio 1)with Niu Fm that, the unhappiness of the decision to suspend the GCC, is reflected in the relative silence of the indigenous populace.

Baba echoes the sentiments of deposed Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, covered by Fiji Village article and a Radio New Zealand piece.
Although, the assertion by Baba (audio 2)highlighting the importance of chiefs, with respect to tribal leadership; Baba neglects the racial quotient of involving chiefs with national politics. Ironically it was the GCC who supported the coups of 1987 and 2000 and gave their approval in 2005 for the controversial R.T.U Bill, a fact reported by ABC's Pacific Beat article.

The recent rejection of the Interim Government's nomination for VP, labeled by the Fiji Sun Political Editor, Maika Bolatiki as a wake up and shake up call; may in fact be an acknowledgment of selective reasoning:

“The rejection of the President's choice of the Vice President by the Great Council of Chiefs is a wake up and shake up call to the Interim Government. It is also a slap in the face for the administration. However, the Interim Government should receive the decision in a positive manner. The council cares for the people of Fiji and likewise the Government that governs them. This is a fact”.

Bolatiki's rejoice in the VP rejection and calling this as a “slap in the face for the administration” only underlines his questionable premise, declaring that the decision should be accepted positively. The Fiji Sun Political Editor's claims appear to apply disjunctive syllogism: 'GCC cares for the people of Fiji and the Government that governs them'. Therefore the GCC's decision should always override the position of Government, regardless of who is in power.

An odd reality check to point out is that, the majority of Fiji hardly knows the names of the GCC members and neither do the majority of Fiji actively participate in selecting the members of GCC and their ancestral claim of mandate is quite simply a fraudulent application of consent. GCC's mandate is not conducted using democratic principles and their decision does not reflect those of all indigenous people in Fiji.

If anything, GCC attempts to discuss the legal aspects of the Interim Government was exceedingly beyond their scope of expertise and represents their adherence to the Peter Principle-i.e In every hierarchy, each individual rises to their own level of incompetence. What is so questionable in GCC's case, historically very little measurement of this incompetance was done, that it became a dominant trait in an organization where performance was seldom discussed, let alone quantified.

GCC's decision to collide with the Interim Government reflects the hidden agendas of certain personalities within it, to organize a parallel train of authority, using that familiar template of ethnonationalism.
Bolatiki is also familiar with this template of misinformation, that actively dresses up this pseudo representative of Fiji's indigenous people, into the gowns of democratic ideals, in spite of the deductive reasonings against it.
Although, Bolatiki's belief that the administration was shaken to its core; silencing that assertion was the noise of punctured egos of GCC members, who learnt subsequently that the Interim Government had indefinitely suspended the aristocratic institution and diverting any state funding which GCC had freeloaded on.

This suspension is perhaps a watershed moment in Fiji's history, where this beacon of cultural decadence was seen more as a liability than an asset by the Interim Government. A move which could open up infinite possibilities for a plural society in Fiji. A society that will be absent of agenda driven influences, by a group of out-of-touch chieftains, who have long operated with an attitude of entitlement, breeding a contemptuous perspective to good governance and sustaining a cartel that lacked any basic mechanism of oversight.

In a nutshell, the membership of GCC is solely based on birth right and their basic mission was to adjudicate on matters pertinent to the Fijian indigenous population. Sadly, these grass roots issues have long been ignored or trivialized by the GCC who appear to have lofty priorities other than their basic duty of betterment of lifestyles for its people. The sad lesson which the people of Fiji have long learnt is that, the only betterment GCC members advocated, was their own finances.

GCC recently through its Chairman, appointed during the tenure of ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, blatantly waded into the political discourse, despite earlier reassurances from the Chairman that the GCC would be apolitical. It is only accurate to point out the blood ties between Qarase and the GCC Chairman; to understand his lordship's resentment.

For certain, the Interim Government's decision to alienate the GCC, is derived from the conundrum, which the beleaguered institution had positioned itself into. In essence, the GCC had bitten the hand that fed it and paradoxically attempted to act unilaterally as an elected form Government, when in reality GCC was structurally farthest from it. Nor does GCC practice the basic tenets of democracy, it's application in Fiji which they attempted to preside over during their latest meeting.

Bolatiki' false dilemma in comparing the rationale for 2006 events with the events from the 2000 coup is perhaps a token reconstruction of history, that is punctuated with irrelevant reasons and perforated with misinterpretation.

“In Justice Anthony Gates' judgment on the Chandrika Prasad case he mentioned something on the doctrine of necessity where [...]The doctrine could not be used to give sustenance to a new extra-constitutional regime. Nor it could provide a valid basis for abrogating the Constitution and replacing it with a Constitutional Review Committee and Interim Civilian Government. Necessity did not demand any of that."

According to that rationale used by Bolatiki, since the 2000 case of necessity was rendered invalid by the Justice Gates, then the 2006 use of necessity used by the Interim Government is equally invalid.
To ascertain that argurment, it is only prudent to examine all other subsequent events. That would make Laisenia Qarase's 2001 appointment as Interim Prime Minister invalid as well. If Qarase did not accept the position of P.M and relinquished it back to the 1999 elected Prime Minister, Mahendra Chaudary, then perhaps the events of 2006 would not have occurred at all. Incidentally, having a rear viewing perspective only embarks on an endless cycle of history revision and leads to purely hypothetical conclusions.

An equally fallacious form of reasoning was the Eminent Persons Group's adjudication of the events of December 5th 2006, which Bolatiki attempted to frame:

“When the Pacific Forum's appointed Eminent Persons Group (EPG) visited Fiji it touched on the legality of the Interim Government.
The EPG report said: The legality issue was raised with the EPG by several interlocutors, both legal experts and lay persons. While some agreed with the commander's claim that his actions were justified under the doctrine of necessity, the majority of those with whom the EPG spoke were not convinced that the extra-constitutional actions of the commander (and subsequently the President) could be upheld on this ground. The legal difficulty arises in particular because the actions taken were in fulfillment of threats to the public order made by the RFMF itself, a situation that excludes the applicability of the necessity doctrine. The EPG understands that the prevailing legal view is therefore that the commander's action in seizing power on December 5 was illegal. It went on to say that the legality of the recent events must ultimately be determined by properly constituted Fiji courts of law.”

By and large, EPG's own report admits that legality will ultimately be determined by the Fiji Courts of Law. By extension, the EPG view is reiterated by Bolatiki, who also pre-judges the Courts decision by mitigating the speculation of illegality, whilst ignoring the moral dimensions to it.

An article published by Scoop, reports a New Zealand libertarian's comments on the Interim Government decision to suspend Fiji's Great Council of Chiefs (GCC).

This is an excerpt:

Crunch Time in struggle for equalty in Fiji
Thursday, 19 April 2007, 10:37 am
Press Release: Tim Wikiriwhi
Libertarian Independent.


In Fiji terrible powers are engaged in a life and death struggle. It is Justice and equality vs tribalism and apartheid.

While outside observers may be unable to grasp such details as the names, motivation, and ongoing intrigue of the various factions within the united chiefs of Fiji, we still have a good enough grasp of the situation to understand they are at a crisis point. I don’t see why bloggers are so surprised by the “unconstitutional” behavior of Commodore Bainimarama regarding the current confrontation of Commodore Bainimarama and the chiefs as this was inevitable.

It is this corrupt political body that was behind the Rabuka and Speight coups. It will be too much to expect that these racists who backed the previous ‘Indigenous rights’ coups to surrender their corrupt powers without a violent struggle.

We here in New Zealand are in no position to suggest how Bainimarama defeats this evil obstacle. I hope that he has enough Statesmanship to win a good percentage of support from the more enlightened section of the chiefs and thereby keep to a minimum the number who must be kept from insurrection.

This is an unavoidable part of Bainimarama’s attempt to rid Fiji of racist politics. He must divest these tribal chiefs of corrupt powers that perverted the democracy of Fiji into an apartheid system.


This crisis raises the question, “Is it possible to have real political revolution without the revolution first occurring in the minds of the people?” Unfortunately The UN has successfully lobotomized the masses of the western world.

Has Bainimarama the Statesmanship to swing this dire situation over to victory for Justice and equality? I hope so!

I hope everyone who cares for the well being of Fiji speaks up and calls the chiefs to forsake racism and take the side of progress and justice!

The Commodore ought to appeal to the people to influence their chiefs to support him. The chiefs ought not to immediately think that a system of equality is bad for Fiji or native Fijians. I ask them to seriously consider the justice of the cause, rather than seeking to maintain racist laws.

I hope that Commodore Bainimarama recognizes the chiefs’ right to exist as a voluntary organization, as long as they don’t propagate insurrection against the government. It is a moment for the chiefs to show greatness of soul or alternatively for a display of racist bigotry. It is a time for great leadership to shine.

The chiefs need to understand is that equality before the law does not undermine their positions as Fijian chiefs whatsoever but actually protects it as a private voluntary association, separate from government interference.

Your tribal status does not come by the power of government, but from family tradition and custom. This is a totally private matter.

I am busy trying to show Maoridom the same truth. I am try to convince Maori to see the glory of equality before the law and the corruption of the desire for racial favoritism.

We in New Zealand need to end Waitangi treaty separatism. There are grounds for Commodore Bainimarama to arrest those chiefs who are planning insurrection or recruiting anti government racist gangs etc.

I call upon every chief of Fiji to support Bainimarama’s drive for equality. I make these statements to encourage the people of Fiji to support Bainimarama during this difficult stage of the reformation of their government and Constitution, and to counter the rubbish coming from such people as Winston Peters.

The Christian chiefs ought to take pride in standing up for equality of every soul before God Almighty and the Law. The best thing a chief can do is support a new constitution of equality.

Tim Wikiriwhi

Although, the GCC had sought advice from a New Zealand lawyer on the issue of illegality prior to their meeting reported by Radio NZ,
the article published by New Zealand Herald, written by Dev Nadkarni, the editor of Auckland based Island Business outlines a level of dichotomy. This is an excerpt of the Nadkarni article;

Little time left as Fiji chiefs' power wavers
5:00AM Wednesday April 18, 2007
By Dev Nadkarni


Dev Nadkarni is the editor of news website islandsbusiness.com and is based in Auckland.

Last week, Fiji's interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, ordered the powerful Council of Chiefs' offices shut and suspended all its future meetings. The council, a 55-member constitutional body of hereditary chiefs and prominent indigenous citizens, is charged with such functions as electing the president, vice-president and some senate members.

For the first time in the country's history, the council last week rejected the President's nominee, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, for vice-president, a position which became vacant after Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi resigned following the December 5 coup.

Bainimarama lashed out at the Council of Chief's rejection - on the grounds that Madraiwiwi was a part of the "illegal" administration - saying they were putting their personal interests above the national interest. He then ordered the closure of the council's offices.

News reports say that the Army has been keeping a close watch on some of the council members.

This was the chiefs' first chance to make their collective presence felt on the political firmament since Bainimarama took over the reins. Their rejection of the nomination was not wholly unexpected. It was a confrontation waiting to happen.

Unfortunately for Fiji, it came as things seemed to be taking a turn for the better after last month's Pacific Forum of foreign ministers, held in Vanuatu.

There has been a thaw in New Zealand and Australia's rigid, isolationist approach to the problem in Fiji since last December and a working group of regional leaders, officials from New Zealand, Australia and Fiji and nominees of the interim administration was formed to work on the recommendations arising from the Pacific Forum.

Many of the recommendations found favour with the Fiji Army, including the possibility of holding elections earlier than 2010.

Last week's development may not in itself have a bearing on this process but it threw up a dustcloud of uncertainty on Fiji's socio-political landscape, because it is unlikely that members of the Great Council of Chiefs - accustomed to the trappings of power given to it by the British in 1876 and then institutionalised by the country's constitutions and a multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded annual grant - will continue smarting under this huge snub for long.

Many chiefs have found their way to powerful positions in the statutory bodies, are wealthy, and still wield influence over their people as they ride around in their expensive four-wheel-drives known in Fiji as ratumobiles.

The interim administration, however, does not believe the chiefs have the clout of past years.

Bainimarama told me that his Administration did not see any possibility of an indigenous backlash. He said the people had seen through their corrupt chiefs and pointed out examples where people had defied chiefly orders to oppose his coup by not participating in protest marches, something previously unheard of in Fiji's hierarchical society.

After last week's developments, the Army doesn't seem to be so sure.

After the council's offices were closed, some of the chiefs planned to meet elsewhere, but reports said the Army soon moved in to stop that happening. The Army also took in a prominent council member for questioning,

Colonel Pita Driti, hitherto the Army's silent strongman, became vocal last week and imposed orders prohibiting the assembly of people anywhere in the country.

That makes it illegal for the chiefs to address their people in public without police permission. It is unlikely the chiefs will be able to take any action in haste, especially with public meetings banned. This may be a good time for them to reassess their hold over their territories, for there is no doubt that their support base has been substantially eroded.

Whether they are able to galvanise support among their people on ideological platforms such as respect for traditions of the chiefly system, or the fact that this was yet another unconstitutional action, is questionable.

The only thing that might possibly fan a popular uprising is if the economic downturn continues - people are having their wages cut and have been losing their jobs since the coup - and the interim Government fails to come up with tangible results in its clean-up operation and takes corrective measures.

A perception of widespread economic distress would be a far more opportune time to sow the seeds of a mass movement fuelled by ideological and emotional sentiments.

That is the kind of climate the chiefs would find worth dying for.

Another article by Radio New Zealand, reports that the suspension of GCC has already been gazetted; despite the GCC Chairman's incessant stance on the Vice President.




Club Em Designs