Intelligence and Thoughtfullness have Flown the Fiji Coup
December 6th 2006 05:42
Fiji had a military coup yesterday and do you know that the world condemned it? Nevermind that the leader of my country-of-birth displays less than stellar intelligence on a regular basis, leaders of other countries went on record to condemn the 2006 coup of Fiji. Australia won't send troops, the EU imposed economic sanctions until 'democratic rule' is restored, the whole thing is chaos.
But you know what would make it trendy? If any of these brilliant, charismatic, politcos had any idea what the whole thing was about. The "democratic free world" hears MILITARY COUP and immediately goes into crisis mode, into public relations mode, into self-preservationist mode. They let their minister of foreign affairs brief them quickly on the situation (mostly in a way that will help them later justify their condemnation) and then quickly go on record to condemn.
A brief look at the troubled history of Fiji will reveal important information, however. The country has been plagued by coups, starting in 1987 when General Rabuka (third in command) of the the Fijian Army took over when an Indian Prime Minister was put in charge of a coalition government. There were indigenous Fijian interests on the line, and largely, the coup was backed by the Indigenous Fijian chiefs, the most important of whom was Rata Sir Kamamisese Mara. Much has been written on the Fijian coup of 1987 and you can find relevant scholarly literature at www. scholar.google.com if you are so inclined.
The 1987 coup paved the ground for what some call the most democratic constitution ever created that was put into place in 1999. The constitution again made possible the rise of an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister (and a pugnacious man, at that) who began to revoke the measures put in place which privledged (fairly or unfairly) the indigenous Fijians. Those Indigenous Fijians who reaped the most benefit, also known as The Children of '87, were less than thrilled to see the government start to hand those privledges out to the Indo-Fijians (a settler population who remains a minority and which is often overwhelemed by the indigenous population). Led by George Speight who had much to gain, personally, from the overthrow of the government, and imbued with the ability to attract indigenous support, the second coup of Fijii in recent history occured in 2000.
Now here's where it gets REALLY relevant (although the overthrow of a government which was representing 'the most democratic constitution ever constructed' is relevant), the coup raged for quite some time and it was only once it got really out of hand that the military (comprised of 99% INDIGENOUS FIJIANS) stepped in to oust Speight and his cohorts. This decision was difficult and controversial among the ranks of the military. Nonetheless, the man who has now ousted the government of Fiji stepped in and overthrew Speight (an unelected civilian) to help restore democratic rule. The army was divided, as many were not interested in putting a government back in place that was going to continue to 'even the playing field' of Indigenous and Indo-Fijians. However, the need to restore a democratically elected official in the face of a take-over overwhelmed personal sensibilities.
The reason for our latest Fijian coup then becomes more muddled. The man who has taken over has, in the past, restored democracy. So where does that leave us? Is it likely that this man is really hoping to set up a military government for Fiji in the long term? UNLIKELY. The reason for the coup of 2006 is clearly stated. The elected Prime Minister was going to offer amnesty to the perpetrators of the 2000 coup and the man who was responsible for putting that coup down despite personal opinions and struggles against him by his own men resents that. More than resents it, he believes it is a negative precedent, completely unfair, and a blatant display of personal relationships interacting with politics in ways negative for the country.
In fact, if you study the situation a bit more carefully you would know that he's probably right. The 2000 coup (along with the 87 coup) went a long way in damaging an already fragile economy and polarized the country a great deal. Granting amnesty to its perpetrators serves no higher purpose for the country except to indicate that it was "acceptable" even when stark reality says it is unacceptable.
Those politicians who thought democracy was on the line when they condemned Coup: 2006, should take a bit more time, a closer look, a better think, and assess what the situation really is. Not only is it trendy but its what they're in place to do!
But you know what would make it trendy? If any of these brilliant, charismatic, politcos had any idea what the whole thing was about. The "democratic free world" hears MILITARY COUP and immediately goes into crisis mode, into public relations mode, into self-preservationist mode. They let their minister of foreign affairs brief them quickly on the situation (mostly in a way that will help them later justify their condemnation) and then quickly go on record to condemn.
A brief look at the troubled history of Fiji will reveal important information, however. The country has been plagued by coups, starting in 1987 when General Rabuka (third in command) of the the Fijian Army took over when an Indian Prime Minister was put in charge of a coalition government. There were indigenous Fijian interests on the line, and largely, the coup was backed by the Indigenous Fijian chiefs, the most important of whom was Rata Sir Kamamisese Mara. Much has been written on the Fijian coup of 1987 and you can find relevant scholarly literature at www. scholar.google.com if you are so inclined.
The 1987 coup paved the ground for what some call the most democratic constitution ever created that was put into place in 1999. The constitution again made possible the rise of an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister (and a pugnacious man, at that) who began to revoke the measures put in place which privledged (fairly or unfairly) the indigenous Fijians. Those Indigenous Fijians who reaped the most benefit, also known as The Children of '87, were less than thrilled to see the government start to hand those privledges out to the Indo-Fijians (a settler population who remains a minority and which is often overwhelemed by the indigenous population). Led by George Speight who had much to gain, personally, from the overthrow of the government, and imbued with the ability to attract indigenous support, the second coup of Fijii in recent history occured in 2000.
Now here's where it gets REALLY relevant (although the overthrow of a government which was representing 'the most democratic constitution ever constructed' is relevant), the coup raged for quite some time and it was only once it got really out of hand that the military (comprised of 99% INDIGENOUS FIJIANS) stepped in to oust Speight and his cohorts. This decision was difficult and controversial among the ranks of the military. Nonetheless, the man who has now ousted the government of Fiji stepped in and overthrew Speight (an unelected civilian) to help restore democratic rule. The army was divided, as many were not interested in putting a government back in place that was going to continue to 'even the playing field' of Indigenous and Indo-Fijians. However, the need to restore a democratically elected official in the face of a take-over overwhelmed personal sensibilities.
The reason for our latest Fijian coup then becomes more muddled. The man who has taken over has, in the past, restored democracy. So where does that leave us? Is it likely that this man is really hoping to set up a military government for Fiji in the long term? UNLIKELY. The reason for the coup of 2006 is clearly stated. The elected Prime Minister was going to offer amnesty to the perpetrators of the 2000 coup and the man who was responsible for putting that coup down despite personal opinions and struggles against him by his own men resents that. More than resents it, he believes it is a negative precedent, completely unfair, and a blatant display of personal relationships interacting with politics in ways negative for the country.
In fact, if you study the situation a bit more carefully you would know that he's probably right. The 2000 coup (along with the 87 coup) went a long way in damaging an already fragile economy and polarized the country a great deal. Granting amnesty to its perpetrators serves no higher purpose for the country except to indicate that it was "acceptable" even when stark reality says it is unacceptable.
Those politicians who thought democracy was on the line when they condemned Coup: 2006, should take a bit more time, a closer look, a better think, and assess what the situation really is. Not only is it trendy but its what they're in place to do!
| 56 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
