A Coup d’œil for Fiji’s Fourth Coup d’état
How should the world and virtuous citizens, deeply committed to the welfare and good of their country and all its people react to an extra-constitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government? Not very positively, of course, as many would say. Indeed this has largely been the international reaction to Fiji’s fourth Coup d’état.
Australia, Britain, New Zealand and others have come very strongly against the recent military take over of the Qarase led administration. The world has threatened Bainimarama, Fiji’s military leader and presently the acting president with travel restrictions, aid and trade decline all of which will unfortunately but surely follow with the nation losing its commonwealth membership.
Yet, is it not possible that this response is misguided? That virtuous citizens in so far as they are acting virtuously would react affirmatively in some rather unusual circumstances, such as the one that exists in Fiji to the overthrow of their own government? That reason and virtue actually side along those that now come off so badly? If all these things are possible then dissenting citizens and international community should reconsider their prima facie opinion on Fiji’s most recent coup.
A Coup d’état generally speaking is not a good thing. It involves according to my Oxford dictionary, “a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government”. But not all coups are violent or sudden. In Fiji, there has been no recorded violence on the part of the army nor has it really come as a surprise to anyone living here. Bainimarama had been repeatedly warning Qarase of toppling his administration since July 2005.
No one will deny that lack of violence and surprise has been positive, but few will affirm that these things are enough to make coups desirable. Indeed there is still something fundamentally wrong with an “illegal seizure of power from a government”. A virtuous citizen among other things is a law abiding resident and since a coup involves him doing something illegal (perhaps the worst he could do) against the state in whose jurisdiction he lives, there is still a strong reason for the international community and virtuous citizens alike to generally side against a coup.
However, if there is a reason to be generally against something, then does it follow that we must always be against it, whatever the circumstance? We should ask if coup is like torture, which invites a total moral ban. According to Philippa Foot, a leading moral philosopher, “whatever the circumstances, it is in my opinion morally ‘out’ (Foot: 2001). Foot’s opinion is that the act of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment is never justified. Foot does not discuss coup in her books, but we can speculate whether coups unlike torture can be morally justified and endorsed in some special circumstances.
Imagine a case where a democratically elected government is thoroughly corrupt and racist. Auditor general and Transparency International records reveal high level of corruption and rot that exists widely in the administration. Public monies that are budgeted for direct assistance of the 30% already poor (and another 30% who are at risk of poverty) is channeled to the pockets of the rich business interest that has captured public offices.
Affirmative action programs that should go first to the citizens that are most disadvantaged irrespective of their ethnic background (Rawls) have been in fact defined by race. Qarase’s affirmative action policy outlined in “The 20 year Development Program” explicitly discriminates against the ethnic Indian and other minority communities by reserving 10 programs specifically for the aboriginal Fijian community and only 2 for others. This ethno-nationalistic policy, which effectively reduces the humanity of some to 1/5, this document, is seriously at odds with the poverty results and recommendations published by the UNDP in 1997. Also it is seriously odds with the universal declaration of human rights that recognizes the equal humanity of all.
In addition to these charges of corruption and racism lets add the criticism of unconstitutionality and undemocratic to the leadership of the deposed ethno-nationalist Fijian state. In its first term in office, Qarase refused to offer cabinet seats to the labor party as required by Fiji’s constitution. Fiji’s court ruled as was expected against Qarase and he was legally obliged to follow the constitution. In the second term and more recently we heard during the budget deliberations threats made to the Labor ministers to vote for the budget. Democratic leadership is about listening and respecting differences not threatening or crushing them. But Qarase put the ministerial job on the line if anyone should vote against him and justifying this as the “ground rules” of his administration.
There is then much justification for any fair, well-informed and virtuous citizen to strongly condemn the corrupt and racist policies and sometimes unconstitutional and undemocratic leadership of the Qarase led government. However does this warrant a coup? Do disagreements license an illegal overthrow of a democratically elected government? Is coup ever a morally justified way to express dissent?
These questions cannot be answered in the abstract. Any judgment will have to carefully draw from the actual circumstances. Thus a contextual approach needs to be taken to make an informed decision. All this despite the fact that coup by definition implies a bad action. However it is not difficult to envision consequences and motivations that can make it still an all-things-considered the right thing to do.
Qarase’s administration over the years did not go unnoticed. Indeed it received strong condemnations for its racist and corruption records. In addition Qarase was widely criticized for introducing legislation that would in effect set free criminals associated with the 2000 coup and make sea the economic property of some abroginal Fijian landowning groups. Despite strong public disapprovals, Qarase has not taken these public feedbacks seriously. It has always considered itself above public opinion and surely things would not have been different if his administration would have allowed to continue its full term. In the next five years, Fiji would have greatly risked good governance of its public finance and deepened the already strained ethnic relations. There is then a good consequential reason for supporting the coup.
Another good reason for supporting the coup lies in Bainimarama’s motivation for it. People overthrow their governments for all sorts of reasons and most of them are surely evil. Fiji has seen three coups (in addition to the present) in the last 20 years. In 1987 Rabuka seized the Bavadra, and aboriginal Fijian leader’s government and later the interim administration for self-serving reasons and so did the failed businessman, George Speight. However Bainimarama’s motivation appears not in a self-interested obsession with political power (like Rabuka) or economic gain (like Speight) but rather in an honest patriotic commitment to Fiji’s prosperity.
Bainimarama has in the last few years spoken against racism, corruption and bad governance. He has been a citizen who has led by example. As the leader of Royal Fiji Military Forces, he has transformed the institution, which had under Rabuka and Speight’s influence been captured by ethno-national and self –serving interests. The military today is still almost entirely composed by aboriginal Fijians and yet it has become under Bainimarama’s leadership a civic institution that has publicly asserted its promise of safety and well-being of all citizens despite their ethnic and economic backgrounds. Fiji and indeed the entire world stands to gain a lot if the full humanity of all were similarly recognized and it seems Bainimarama has moved to do just this.
Motivation and ends are important criteria to judge the goodness of actions. And if Bainimarama’s coup has won on these grounds it can still fail to be the virtuous thing. Surely coup is not something that we should encourage our children to do. However nor should we teach that a coup by definition is a moral out. Rather we should pause to carefully consider its ends, motivation but also the means. An illegal overthrow is not a morally admirable way to express dissent or recall those that lead the country to ruins. Indeed it is the means that often invites such wide condemnation of coups.
Yet coups even if they fail to the virtuous action they can still be all things considered the best moral option. A functioning and stable democracy requires well-informed, critical and virtuous democratic citizens. Among other things, citizens should have the critical capacity to separate fact from political opinions and disposed to a sincere consideration of the general good of the country. These things unfortunately are severely lacking in Fiji as it is lacking in many parts of the world.
Democracies have legal means to recall elected officers. In Fiji this can be done through elections or a vote of no confidence. Elections here occur every five years while vote of no confidence can be cast at any time. However for it to seriously work, elected officers should be free but also made responsible for their constituency when they vote. Certainly any “ground rules” that antecedently prevent a dissenting vote jeopardizes the possibility of an effective no confidence vote thus undermining a democratic way of changing the government. Qarase’s “ground rules” then had effectively blocked a democratic means of recalling his administration or at least till the next elections in 2011.
History will record that Fiji in December 2006 was pushed on a critical crossroad. On one side stood Qarase, the constitution defying and undemocratic leader with his corrupt and racist administration. The future could have been hardly different, as Qarase had shown scant regard and respect for social unity, justice and honesty that the public and military insisted on. On the other path stood the motivation and ends for a better and united Fiji but one that could only happen by rejecting Qarase’s government and its prospects for further ruin.
Why should the world then condemn Fiji for choosing the lesser evil? Yes, a coup is not virtuous action, but all things considered it was certainly the best moral option. As citizens of Fiji we cannot support a leader and administration that does not recognize the full humanity of some, is corrupt and self-serving. As concerned citizens we cannot be indifferent to the ruin of our future that was, to be sure, expected of the Qarase led administration.
We humbly ask the world for understanding. We ask that it reconsider its aid, trade and travel policies towards our developing nation. Indeed, we must all work together to solve the world’s problem as we in Fiji will for the first time have come together as one community united to work towards our greater public good.
Club Em Designs
+ Enlarge this image
+ Enlarge this image
+ Enlarge this image