ANOTHER VOICE
Why one-man-one-vote is the Indian in Fiji's woodpile
AUBERON WAUGH
Fiji is a long way away and one can quite understand that not many Britons are tremendously interested in what is happen- ing there. It is also one of the few places left on earth which I have not visited which I was still hoping to visit, with its 100-odd islands permanently inhabited by the same polite, charming Melanesian people who voluntarily decided, in 1879, to seek Queen Victoria's protection for their ancient habits and idiosyncratic ways. Perhaps the only hope of interesting New Britons in the Fijians' plight is to present it as another holiday destination which is waiting to be discovered — just as the beaches of Greece and Turkey have been discovered by our exciting young people but which may be removed from the holiday map by Foreign Office incompe- tence.
One might have supposed that if Britain had learned a single lesson in the past quarter century of decolonisation it was that one-man-one-vote democracy does not work in Third World countries which are divided on tribal, racial or religious lines. Far from being a guarantee of peace and justice, it is an open invitation to strife, civil war, oppression and massacre. With- out even visiting the Third World one can see the operation of this principle in Ulster and Cyprus. Having misguidedly imposed one-man-one-vote on a large part of the world's surface, Britain must now sit back as benevolently as possible and watch her unfortunate victims sort out the resulting problems for themselves. We have nothing to offer but our friendship. To seek to influence events, or to insist that democra- tic propriety be observed, is merely to add insult to injury.
The particular problems of Fiji were caused by Britain discovering that the native Fijians, while being amiable and easy-going people (who also make good warriors) were not particularly impressive in the plantations — originally cotton, then sugar — which became, under British guidance, the staples of the Fijian eco- nomy. Accordingly, the British imported indentured labour from India, just as they did in East Africa, on the firm understand- ing that this indentured labour force would never be allowed to interfere with the tribal rights, land apportionments or estab- lished practices of the autochthonous Fi- jians.
When Fijian independence approached in 1970, Whitehall supposed they had to be given some sort of government, and that this government would have to be en- shrined in some sort of constitution. The Fijians themselves had never needed nor expressed any desire for a government beyond the loose, pyramidical structure of chiefs they had always known. What kept the country together was a system of privilege, favours and reciprocal obliga- tions bound together by natural politeness.
A constitution was worked out in 1970 which protected Fijians' rights to their land under the Native Land Act, and allowed the Grand Council of Chiefs to nominate eight members of the Senate, while seats in the House of Representatives were divided between Fijians and Indians, all under a governor general appointed by the Queen (who, in her capacity as Queen of Fiji, has no obligation to listen to advice from the British Foreign Office). For 17 years every- thing worked very well under the inspired guidance of Sir Kamisere Mara, who allowed the Indians to get on with making money and breeding while the Fijians smiled at each other and did each other favours. Ugly voices in the Fijian national- ist movement, Taukei, were kept in their place and everybody prospered.
Everything went wrong in April of this year when an Indian-dominated coalition won 28 of the 52 seats, appointing an Indian Prime Minister — called Bavadra. By now, after four or five generations of young marriages and determined breeding, the Indians not only control most of the wealth (although not the land) but also make up 50 per cent of the population, against 44 per cent of autochthonous Fi- jians.
Frightened — with reason — that they would be driven off their land and lose out entirely to the hard-working Indians, the Melanesians demanded further guaran- tees. When these did not seem to be forthcoming the army, which is 97 per cent Melanesian, kidnapped the Prime Minister and appointed an interim, caretaker gov-
'I hear we've been twinned with Auschwitz.'
ernment in defiance of the governor gener- al and against the wishes of the govern- ments of Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the United States, all of which de- nounced the coup.
Goodness knows why these countries thought it was any of their business to express an opinion. The only result has been to stiffen the Indians' resolve — as if they were not already self-righteous and persistent enough — and sharpen animos- ity between the communities. The com- promise solution proposed was no com- promise because it gave the Fijians — now seriously alarmed — no guarantee that one-man-one-vote would not eventually take away everything they have been able to save from Indian encroachment in the commercial field.
My own sympathies, as will be apparent, are with the ethnic Fijians and against the Indians. In 17 years the Melanesians showed that their political hegemony however undeserved by strictly democratic criteria — was not oppressive. They allowed the Indians (and Europeans) to make money so long as they were allowed their traditional privileges. But they need protection against the greater industry and application — not to say greater avarice of the Indians, especially now that the Indians are in a majority.
But the more important point seents to me that it does not matter where our sympathies lie. We have no business to be involved. Almost every culture in the history of the world has had its different castes and races living happily together in various positions of privilege and subservi- ence, warriors on top, merchants under- neath or whatever. They need each other and make their own accommodations to each other. Occasionally the balance is upset and various atrocities result, but there is no earthly point in deliberately upsetting the balance by intruding our own alien and inappropriate notions of constitu- tional propriety.
If the Indians and Fijians decide to start massacring each other it will be very sad, but we should really not encourage them to do so. Quite possibly Colonel Rabuka's bloodless coup was necessary to maintain the existing tranquillity. That is certainly what many Fijians believe. But even if it was not, it is none of our business. We should leave it to the Queen, the ,governor general and Colonel Rabuka to decide.
Previous page
