FROM THE ARCHIVES: Final set from 'Nurturing Justice'
We share this final set of NJ editorial-blogs with readers, insights and commentary from FDP special contrtibutor, Dr Bruce Wearne, on the 2006 coup - its causes and consequences - written at the time, and featured in the FDP. Bruce is an internationally-recognised social theorist, and Christian philosopher. His NJ editorials were set in the context of Fiji's unfolding coup drama of the past decade. They are republished here to help students of the SWP region frame our own understanding of the deep structural political problems faced by Fiji, then and now:
STIFLING FIJIAN JOURNALISM II
Nurturing Justice 4 (2009) May 6th
We are considering the way in which Fiji's political situation is being considered in Australia at this time. We have noted that despite his complaints that no-one understands him, Commodore Bainimarama's views are understood and continue to be heard - and rebuffed - around the Pacific Forum and in the various governments of the region, as well as by the EC, the UN and the USA. He has not been able to persuade them and he continues to present himself as one who is yet to admit to being wrong when it comes to matters of public administration, and in particular his conduct leading up to and following on from the coup of December 5th, 2006. Because of his self- serving and criminal acts, he continues to grind Fiji into the ground.
But now Grubstreet media, with recent articles and interviews by Walkley and Logie Award winner Graham Davis, have stepped into the breach and want us to consider the 55 year-old military commander as something of a post-colonial hero. These journalistic attempts at painting the dictator in heroic tones have recently been featured in The Australian and on the Sky satellite channel.
In this edition of Nurturing Justice, we want to look at this exposure given to Commodore Bainimarama by Australian media.
You might like to read this material by Davis: “Dictator's Plea to Kevin Rudd - let's talk to help restore Fijian democracy: Despot for Diversity” or this much earlier apologia for a military takeover in the weeks leading up to the December 2006 coup “Fiji Army Chief has a Valid Cause”. There is, of course, much more. But for a clear and definitive rebuttal of Davis' attempt to champion Commodore Frank Bainimarama as Fiji's "best hope", the letter by Dr Jon Fraenkel, Senior Research Fellow, Australian National University is highly recommended. “Coup leader has shed his claims to be spearheading reforms”
Here there is one prominent issue that requires our attention. The articles by Graham Davis allow Commodore Bainimarama to promote his own self- serving definition of his illegal actions without any criticism. It is as if, for the duration of his interview, Davis forgot that he was actually engaged in political journalism, and ignores the possibility that he has become an accessory to the Commodore's treachery. Of course, Davis might say that critical questions were suspended in order to allow the "despot" to put his views in his own words. But consider the technique he has employed in this "exclusive interview" and keep in mind that his fellow Fijian journalists are not even allowed to report upon, let alone critically review, this event which was happening in their own country! Davis may presume to be "neutral" or "objective" concerning the vision of the Military Commander about the future of Fiji and the South Pacific. But he is the one whose name appears above this article in The Australian, and it is he who they see on Sky Channel - he may in effect say to his readers and audience "you be the judge" but his "objective" presentation of the Military Commander's views takes place while this "objective" presentation is simply out of reach to Fijian journalists. And further, the results of this privileged access to Fiji's criminal military commander are only able to be published because outside Fiji the freedom of the press is maintained.
In his "Despot for Diversity" article, Davis tells us that he was shocked to see Frank Bainimarama raise his hand Nazi-style and exclaim "Heil Hitler" as he responded to a salute by a uniformed non-commissioned officer. Unfortunately for Davis, this article and other things he has written, plus the TV interview, read as an obedient salute to this military dictator. There is something reckless in this pursuit of a "good story". Davis, the journalist, may allow the military strong-man to explain himself in his own words, but where is the sustained critical edge to his questions when Bainimarama tries to justify the ban on Fijian political journalism? Presumably, Bainimarama would welcome Davis's kind of journalism to become the norm in Fiji once the state of emergency is lifted.
As you read these articles and watch the interview, ask yourself whether they were designed merely for consumption in Australia? Were they merely aimed to educate people outside of Fiji? I don't think so. They present the Military Régime's selling of the Military Commander; they give voice to his propaganda about his contribution to Fiji and yet these views are set forth within a Fiji media-context where no critical questions can be asked. That is the perverse aspect of this reporting. Because of this, we judge the journalism of Davis, the editorial decision of The Australian to publish, and of Sky Channel to air the interview, as blatant and manipulative violations of press freedom in Fiji, since this is material which, from the side of the interviewee, is intended to lend support to his military régime's suppression of the media and the curbing free speech!
Consider: will not any Fijian journalist who wanted to criticise Graham Davis's interview or articles in Fiji be prevented from doing so? Of course. That is what the media suppression is all about. But could the same Fijian journalist freely write a rebuttal of the content of these items for an Australian or New Zealand media outlet , as freely as Davis has done under the aegis of the illegal reime? Hardly. They might well do so, and Fiji civil society has many brave citizens, courageous journalists among them. But such a journalist would be putting him/herself in danger. He or she (and The Australian, Sky and Graham Davis) would know about the thuggish intimidation and constant press that has faced Fiji's journalistic corps since December 2006. The editor of The Fiji Times was under continual harassment just before the abrogation of the constitution, when the final semblance of the rule of law was still in place. Now, however, it is rule by Presidential decree at the behest of an unscrupulous lying Military régime. Lying is simply a part of the strategy by which Fijian society is kept under the heel of the military. No criticism is allowed. And the articles and interview by Graham Davis do nothing to challenge that suppression of press freedom.
One wonders how or why News Corp has condoned this kind intra- organisational demoralisation of the journalistic profession? Does its global network of professional journalists count for nothing when there is a good story to be had from a military dictator? Their internal organisation policy is not only destructive; it is inherently self-destructive. In this News Corp seems to manifest similar tendencies, although not as far advanced perhaps, as Bainimarama's administration - an inner decay in the administration of just governance.
We conclude that Davis's latest journalistic efforts are seriously deficient and we go further and judge his compliant attitude toward the military régime as an attack on press freedom - even if it is unintended it is still an attack. These articles are evidence of a dogmatic and un-self-critical search for a "good story" whatever the cost, and in this case it is at the expense of the other journalists who are unable to do their work in Fiji.
What are we dealing with in this decay of just governance which has also manifest itself in the journalistic profession? There are many difficult questions to address. We will attempt to address some of these in subsequent editions of Nurturing Justice. Our view is that Davis's portrayal of Bainimarama as Fiji's "despot for diversity" is a journalism framed by a "neo- neo-colonial" attitude which is prepared to support the suppression of press freedom in the search for a good story. His fellow professionals in Fiji deserve something much better than what he has unkindly presented to them on this occasion.
STIFLING FIJIAN JOURNALISM III
Nurturing Justice 5 (2009) May 6th
How should the South West Pacific region's media outlets and professional journalists respond to the suppression of press freedom in Fiji? Clearly it is our view that Davis and News Corp and Sky have failed. But what is the right approach here? Let us not be too hasty in our analysis. Let us try and go deeper .
Consider some other problems in the region. The journalistic profession is not the only one in which destructive tensions leading to injustice are evident. How should the region's jurists and judges view the internal tensions within the ranks of their own profession now that Fiji's judiciary, so long reliant upon justices from neighbouring administrations, has been sacked? What does the deep-rooted tension manifest in Fiji's judiciary for many years say about the standards of the region's judicial judgments, about the quality of the region's jurisprudential education, about the rectitude of regional professional legal bodies? Of course, the reach of the legal profession's network is not confined the region itself.
Or consider the region politically in terms of the way the Pacific Forum operates, the way ANZUS relates to it, how the UN's voice is respected among the nations of the region, and the influence of the EC and various international committees and bodies that administer complex agreements, promote trade, travel and tourism. Think also of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) which among other things promotes the rights of the region's indigenous Melanesian peoples. What are the elected politicians in the various regional governments and inter-government agencies to make of the sacking of the judiciary, the abrogation of the constitution, all on the back of the initial dismembering of its parliamentary democracy, let alone the suspension of the great Council of Chiefs? Davis' contribution seems to be motivated by a despair, shared by Bainimarama, that the historical experiment in Fijian political independence has had its day and now the only thing to do is to wipe the slate clean and start again. The region, they imply, will simply have to accept that fact.
But this despairing view suggests that Fijians are a different species from others in the region and in this instance particularly different from Australians and New Zealanders. It is a view that implicitly assumes Fijians cannot handle constitutional parliamentary democracy and instead need a "despot for diversity." This view of Fiji's current and immediate future almost imperceptibly slides into the swamp of an uncritical post-modern cultural relativism that anticipates a totalitarian rule.
Davis opines that Bainimarama's way may be the only way and so appeals to his own version of South Pacific exceptionalism, except we would have to ask whether this isn't a disguised form of racism against the good people of the land of his birth. Davis accepts Bainimarama's view that Fiji has a basic need for military or militarised government. But even if Bainimarama was to concede that the preconditions are right for elections today, Fiji's problem, which Davis's journalism does nothing to combat, remains. Fiji's problem is not the racism of the Qarase-SDL government - Fiji's political problem is the military's presumption of a "reserve power" that arrogates to itself the right to determine the timing of any election, the interpretation of any constitution, and the composition and performance of any government when it is finally elected. As by-product of his work, Davis might win favour among Fiji's illegal elite, but the reality of military "reserve power" is the reality which he, in his eagerness to put forward a "good story", successfully and totally avoids.
Bainimarama says that to have elections tomorrow will simply be a return to the racist politics of the previous Government. Yes, but to wait until September 2014 with this untrustworthy military commander in charge gives no guarantee that the military will have given up its role as primary advisor and manipulator of the head of State. Davis's view that Bainimarama may be the "best chance" for Fiji and the region (inc Australia and New Zealand) is a form of journalism that avoids the issue of justice. His version of South Pacific "exceptionalism" implies, with Arthur De Gobineau, that "dark skinned races are fit only for military governments"? Parliamentary democracy under the thumb of a military dictatorship is still a military dictatorship. If Bainimarama is Fiji's "best chance" then why not now just leave things as they are? Why not dispense with this charade of a return to democracy and simply announce that Fiji has finally arrived at where it has to be? But, then racism has not been eradicated and the 5 years are needed as the designated timeline to demonstrate that Fiji can now do things in true Fijian style. This is mere wishful thinking. Clearly Bainimarama has no immediate plans to disestablish the military from its political dominance. The Commander's definition of "racism" is intentionally vague to give him maximum manoeuvrability; his identification of the underlying problems he was called upon to fix have changed on an almost daily basis since he assumed office. What is clear however is that under his command the military is determined to maintain its assumed "reserved power". And in that context Davis's view that Bainimarama is Fiji's "best chance" is a hopelessly naïve, if not childish, playing with the possibilities of journalistic spin doctoring.
Parliamentary democracy under a constitution requires a system of public legal governance that is willing to work through lawful and constitutional means with an eye upon the volatility of the electorate and the structural injustices that prevail from generation to generation. Just politics requires patience, that Christians confess comes as a gift of the Spirit of God.
In his interview with Bainimarama, Graham Davis allows the usurper to once again intemperately parade Laisenia Qarase as a racist. This is a purely unprofessional acquiescence in propaganda and libel, from a man impatient to have his view dominate Fiji's public view of itself. Davis simply lets it pass.
For all his attempt to air an "alternative" view, his sympathy for one who has been misunderstood, he thereby promotes a most egregious "good guy, bad guy" classification, which he says has to be avoid if reality is to be faced. When is he going to use his position to allow the one accused to answer the revelations he puts forward in this (patently childish) "exclusive".
The coalition government of Laisenia Qarase achieved more in the seven months after the May 2006 election, in terms of bringing that broken country together, than the Commander of the Military has done through his persistent and treacherous threats to lawful government, or via his own illegal tenure since the December 5th 2006 coup. Let us, then, list the resulting devastation in terms of major public legal institutions that has resulted from this process which Davis has been so keen to promote - both before the military took over and subsequently.
The former Police Chief who had begun the reform of the service was forced from the country with threats being made to his life. Since then the Police has been run as an arm of the military.
The coup was staged after the lawful military commander had come to an agreement in Wellington with the lawfully appointed Prime Minister - and with that broken promise the coup drove a wedge through Fiji's relationship with New Zealand.
The imposition of a state of emergency resulting in deaths and other illegal assaults upon citizens. Now those found guilty are reported to have been released from prison on Community Supervision Orders.
The dissolving of the Great Council of Chiefs.
The sacking of Chief Justice Fatiaki.
Persistent military appointments to non-military institutions.
The sacking of the judiciary
The abrogation of the 1997 constitution
The suppression of the media and curbs on free speech.
The undermining of freedom of association for dissenting groups and those holding opinions different to what the military deem "safe".
And finally, an absurd naïve proposal that assumes that racism can be overcome without a parliament in five years.
Davis's articles and interview thus allows for the view that the Qarase-SDL regime was racist because it sought to fulfil its own party mandate to its indigenous constituents who had elected it in elections declared free and fair by all and every independent outside observer group. As I have said, Davis allows Bainimarama to accuse Qarase of racism and he does that by blurring the historical record as if the 1997 constitution was Qarase's document. It was not. It was an all party multiracial outcome that passed every judicial body overseeing it. Qarase did not invent the racial voting system - this policy was developed under Ratu Mara's leadership in the '60s. As an election winner Qarase was simply doing what every PM has had to do - manage it! Live within it. And for doing so he is accused of racism. On the other hand one has to wonder why Davis would turn so resolutely allow the conscientious Methodist, Laisenia Qarase, to be continually slandered by a man who, on the public record, has shown repeatedly that his word can not be trusted.
In sum, Davis' journalism is merely a failure to criticise the régime in control in Suva, and by presenting himself as the correspondent working "behind the front lines" can only embolden the injustice perpetrated by Bainimarama et al on his fellow professionals in Fiji who can not now do their work. His fellow professionals in Fiji deserve something much better than what has been unkindly presented to them on this occasion.
COULD A REAWAKENED CHRISTIAN REGIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS FACE UP TO FIJI'S SLIDE?
Nurturing Justice 8 (2009) October 6th
Just what is going on in Fiji? Why have the Pacific Forum, the Australian and New Zealand Governments, the Commonwealth, the EU, the USA and in recent times the UN, been unable to shift the intransigent military régime in Suva?
In recent times the Commodore has addressed the United Nations. His self- justificatory speeches, resorting once more to the blame game, don't seem to convince anyone. We have to wonder how much, within his own coup- supporting ranks, the perception of unreality has gained ground.
Now, it would seem, that justifying the 2014 time-line to elections is necessary in order to "get the economy moving again". The approach of the régime leader, or rather of his advisers and what we can imply of the muffled murmurings of his elite "team", seems to suggest that "economic management" is now the issue and the junta moves into a new phase of post-coup justification, a new phase in what they say is building the Fiji of the future.
One wonders how long this avoidance of reality can last. As one commentator on a "rogue" blog put it: "How many more ex post facto justifications will the failed regime put forward before they face reality?"
We would agree that the Commodore and his elite show an incredible ability to ignore criticism. But now that the UN is in the process of turning its back on Fijian military peacekeepers, one has to face the consequences and the December 5th 2006 coup has almost completely undermined the well- earned international standing of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. Whatever else the Fijian senior military intended by their taking over the Government and so much of Fiji's public administration, their switch now to "economic management", is merely a bizarre distraction from the evaporation of international respect for the RFMF.
That evaporation is something the region as a whole ought to regret very much. But this is the result of a presumption by senior military, and those supporting them, that by forcing out the elected government, by closing down the Fijian Parliamentary process, by abrogating the constitution, they were "necessarily" reconstructing .... what? Reality? They apparently thought they could reconstruct the preconditions for just governance, just like the Committee for Public Safety had presumed in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ancien Régime.
They seem to have confidently dismissed the Government of Laisenia Qarase &co on the presumption that all Fiji would fall into their hands once they had taken over. Napoleon thought that with Moscow taken, all Russia would capitulate to the "necessity" of his rule. Poor darling. Those who aim to reconstruct reality, after their own deconstructive efforts based upon their own presumption, find it ever so hard to face facts after it becomes patently obvious that reality is biting them hard. As the Raw Fiji blogging commentator says, "Failed military strategies in the light of the emergent military reality now move on to equally failed economic strategies in the light of persistent economic reality."
Clearly, for economic management to promote deeply rooted economic flourishing, a nation will require a just political order. It's no use trying to attract investment from abroad as long as the régime has a "road map" to democracy that tells potential regional investors that the public-legal stability of any future elected government will be in place because the military demand it. That's not stability folks. That's instability.
A military is not a Government. The Queen Elizabeth Barracks is not the Fijian republic in microcosm. The military might want the nation to be ordered like a barracks. But they are two different things.
That's why a new political order, with a new constitution, will not be brought about by mere military finesse, nor will it only be "looking forward" to the future. Consequently the "new régime" - when or if it arrives - will also have to have some account of how it connects to what has been going on with Frank Bainimarama &co at the helm. It certainly seems as if he wants to stay for as long as it will take him to become recognised as a "necessary" part of Fiji's "new era". And that is about as close as one can get to identifying the cause of Fiji's slide into the turbulent political swamp.
The "road map" of Commodore Bainimarama &co seems to have become bogged down in its implicit attempt to insist on enforcing an interpretation of Fiji's recent history upon the nation. They would make the two coups (Dec 2006, Good Friday 2008) into "necessary" stepping stones to Fiji's future.
And what the Commodore and his supporters don't seem to understand is that no Government can provide justice for its people if it is bogged down by its own demand that the republic establish a new order on the basis of its own self- serving interpretation of its own actions.
And a healthy economy always needs the interventions of Government in the interests of public justice. For the current illegal régime to suggest they are able to "fix" the economy ignores many things, including the need for citizens to be able to freely co-operate in national reconstruction, as well as the need for a climate generated by the harmonious working together with all the peoples of the region.
So with this situation in mind, let us try to focus upon our own regional responsibility? How should we, Christians living in Australia, respond? Do we not need to reassess our place in the world - are we not called to believe that Jesus Christ calls us to a ministry of mercy in our region, for the true healing of broken lives, in the setting right of broken human relationships?
Dare we reconsider our citizenship of the South West Pacific region to deepen our awareness that Fiji's "coup culture" might also be a result of our Christian negligence, our failure to "do those things which we ought to have done" for decades past with respect to supporting and encouraging the lives of those with whom we share this part of the world? Is "reconciliation" going to take on a regional character for us as we ask Jesus Christ, through His Spirit, to show us how to live justly here and now? Will we, in this part of God's earth, confess Christ's Kingship and rise to the challenge of Fiji's slide to us as citizens of the region? We cannot simply develop our rhetorical critique of the evident injustice. Somehow we have to learn to be citizens of the Kingdom of God in this region and thereby reach out to love our neighbour as ourselves.
