THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1987. At the end of the coup

Press, 20 May 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1987. At the end of the coup

If Lieutenant-Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka accepts in deed, as he is reported to have accepted in word, the settlement made by the Fijian Governor-General, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, the coup d’etat in Fiji is over. The political situation will then be constitutionally correct, although it will not result in an immediate return to democracy. That will not occur until new elections are held.

In theory, it would seem appropriate that the Government of Dr Bavadra should be returned to power; but a political and constitutional crisis has left the coalition in tatters. Any Government in Fiji at the moment needs immense authority and acceptance. The Fiji Labour Party and the National Federation Party, which formed the coalition, are in a battered condition; both need a time to recover.

Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, backed by the Fijian judiciary, showed immense courage throughout the crisis and on most occasions showed good judgment. He defied the coup leaders from the beginning. Had he faltered and accepted military rule, Fiji would have quickly sunk into a military dictatorship and, possibly, serious disorder.

Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau carried the authority not only of his post of GovernorGeneral, but also that of being a paramount chief. Two establishment men were crucial to the success of the coup: the GovernorGeneral and Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, the Prime Minister before the last election. Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara acted without credit and the burden fell on Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau. Something of the strain on him showed when he mistakenly swore in Colonel Rabuka, but his momentary lack of judgment was repaired after taking advice from the Chief Justice, Sir Timoci Tuivaga. The role of the judiciary throughout was beyond reproach and their expressed intention of stepping down would have brought the system of civil justice to a standstill. They made the distinction between stepping down and resigning; they retained authority, but refused to carry out their judicial functions. After the lapse over swearing in Colonel Rabuka, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau recovered his position by asserting his executive power, refusing to accept the council of ministers named by Colonel Rabuka, saying that he would dissolve Parliament, call fresh elections and, in the meantime, appoint his own Council of Advisers. The New Zealand and Australian Governments had both placed their hopes for a resolution on the belief that the GoyernorGeneral would do the right thing. The two

Governments lent as much support as possible to the Governor-General. Both Governments refused to act militarily, which was sound. The nearest New Zealand came to military action was over the hijacking of the Air New Zealand airliner; but that could not be seen in any way as an attempt to bring about a change in the political situation in Fiji — rather, it was a sign of readiness to act to solve a problem of crime when other law enforcement seemed to be incapacitated. No country accorded recognition to the military regime which was imposed on Fiji. The South Pacific Forum meeting will doubtless ventilate regional attitudes next week about what happened, if only informally. There have been no reports so far of any bloodshed during the days of the coup. Enough happened, nevertheless, for some of the nastier aspects of the seizing of power unlawfully and the attempts to muzzle newspapers, radio, and television to be apparent The South Pacific cannot be regarded as exempt from such occurrences. The hijacking of the aircraft is another disturbing development, even though it appears to have been a strictly individual act, and not engineered by the Colonel. Hijackings have not been confined to unstable areas, but instability helps to contribute to such actions as hijacking. Tourism throughout the region as a whole may be upset by yesterday’s incident, and the region will be the worse off for the events of the last five days.

The resolution of the political and constitutional crises cannot resolve the racial circumstances which were a major contributing factor to the whole affair. Colonel Rabuka appears to have obtained some concessions from the GovernorGeneral. One is that the incoming advisers will examine the 1970 Constitution. A second is that there will be a prerogative of mercy for those involved in the coup. This may well be extended if only to avoid further action from those members of the population who saw merit in the Colonel’s intervention. Just what the advisers will decide to do about the Constitution is a vital question. If an attempt is made to entrench the dominance of the Alliance Party, or of indigenous Fijians, something other than democracy will be the outcome. Indigenous Fijians already have land rights extensively protected under the present Constitution. Much will depend on whom Ratu Penaia Ganilau appoints to his advisory council. For the future of Fiji, it must be hoped that his sense of honour and his wise judgment will continue.