THE PRESS FRIDAY, JULY 24, 1987. Undemocratic solution

Press, 24 July 1987, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, JULY 24, 1987. Undemocratic solution

The Great Council of Chiefs in Fiji has adopted a position which might commend itself to some people within Fiji, and beyond, because it is more moderate than what might have been; but the position cannot be acceptable on any grounds of democracy or fairness. The council is not in favour of the declaration of a republic but of establishing more seats in the Parliament and reserving the majority of those seats for Melanesian Fijians. The present membership of the Parliament is 52; the Great Council of Chiefs favours 62 and reserving 32 of those for Melanesian Fijians, 22 of the rest going to Fiji Indians, and the other eight going to other peoples. The Taukei movement, a Fijian extremist nationalist movement, had wanted the chiefs to declare a republic which would embody Melanesian Fijian domination. The chiefs’ proposal, if adopted, would ensure Melanesian Fijian domination without the complications of the drastic step of declaring a republic. The proposal would mean that there would be a multi-racial Parliament, but it would not be a Parliament elected on a one-man, one-vote system. The Indian Fijians, who are slightly more numerous than the Melanesian Fijians, would be in a permanent position of political disadvantage. The chiefs’ proposal would also have the effect of accentuating the racial divisions in Fiji. The proposal has been advocated on the ground that it provides a path to return to Parliamentary democracy. It would provide a path to Parliamentary rule; but it would not be democracy. Fiji would almost certainly suffer some consequences if it chose the path of a republic and chose to enshrine the idea of racial discrimination in its Constitution. Various members of the Commonwealth, including India, might regard the declaration of a republic as also a declaration of leaving the Commonwealth. Fiji enjoys advantages, including trade advantages, because of its Commonwealth membership. Some countries, including New Zealand and Australia, would probably not discriminate against Fiji over trade, but other countries might. Partly because of its connection with Britain, Fiji enjoys being regarded as one of the Lome Convention countries by the European Economic Community, a membership which brings with it definite aid and trade benefits. It is far from certain that if Fiji adopted

legislation' which discriminated bn racial grounds, that such benefits would continue. Just how much of this is being conveyed by Britain to Fiji is far from certain. Like New Zealand and Australia, Britain has been letting its views on developments within Fiji be known to Fijians, particularly to the Governor-General, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau. The views of New Zealand are being put constantly by the New Zealand High Commissioner to Fiji, Mr Rod Gates, and the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, sent a letter to Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau on July 8. This letter contained no threats to Fiji, but it made the important point: “While there may be those in Fiji who consider that the international standing of the country and its relations with traditional friends are unimportant, I doubt that that is a view wiser heads would share. While everybody recognises that the problems are ones for the people of Fiji as a whole to sort out, it is not the case that the rest of the world will have no opinion on the solution arrived at.” Impatience may endanger arrival at a fair and lasting solution. Because military rule and military dictatorships have such a bad name, efforts will be made to remove that stigma. However, while what has happened cannot be undone, the solution which eventually comes about should not be some hasty and inherently unfair proposal, such as had been put forward by the Great Council of Chiefs. Their immediate solution might seem attractive because it will avoid the associations of military rule. A fair solution needs to take account of the social, cultural, economic, and political needs of all the people who live in Fiji, and to take account of them in an even-handed way. If this is not done, the country is likely to remain in a state of restiveness and potential conflict. Grievances are likely to go unanswered; the Indian people, whose activity produces much of the economic wealth of the country, and its tax revenue, will be inadequately represented; many Indians who have the means are likely to abandon the country — possibly to the satisfaction of Melanesian Fijians, but by no means to the benefit of the economy. If a better solution is to be had by talking and thinking for a little longer, and allowing feelings to cool, the Council of Chiefs would be forgiven for delaying a decision that finally leads to true democracy.