Fiji Labour Party (FLP) leader Mahendra Chaudhary made submissions to the Constitution Commission, which inter alia asked for the restoration of Great Council of Chiefs (GCC).
Biblically, a good shepherd always protects his flock.
In politics, it is the opposite.
The GCC was the central instrument of ethno-nationalism and a great advocate of racism in Fiji.
In every coup, except in 2006, it was involved in one way or another fomenting the uprisings only because the Governments had Indo-Fijian majority.
Mr Chaudhary was its most famous victim. Not a single chief stood in his defense or that of democracy or Indo-Fijians.
The GCC was like a cancer in the body of democracy in Fiji.
It was also irrefutably proven that the GCC was heavily politicised.
It sponsored the SVT Party in 1991 that saw Sitiveni Rabuka, a commoner, become Prime Minister, ending the reign and dominance of chiefs in the Parliament.
Ironically, Mr Rabuka had executed the coup to restore chiefly rule but ended up becoming Prime Minister. Not one chief objected to the rise of a commoner to a position that should traditionally be taken up by a chief.
In fact, the chiefs were delighted, as Mr Rabuka had taken back political power through the coup.
In 1999, when the SVT Party failed at the polls, he exited Parliament and became the Chairman of the GCC.
Blatant repudiation
Effectively, he became the chief of chiefs! No one raised a voice against the blatant repudiation of the chiefly system, including a cabal of chiefs who were not members of the GCC or its apologists.
Following independence, the GCC became the stooge of Prime Minister Sir Kamisese Mara’s Alliance Party and later, the support base for Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and his SDL Party.
It was used to strengthen the Taukei (Fijian) unity and raised its profile in the coups of 1987 and 2000, becoming the kingmaker.
It colluded with coup-makers to obtain a desired political outcome.
Under the 1990 Constitution, the GCC was given power to appoint the President and Vice President and nominate 14 members to the Senate.
This provision secured the position of chiefs, as the President and Vice-President had to be chiefs and the appointment of Senators meant that most of the chiefs became members of the Senate.
The Government established a vicious circle for political hegemony.
Indo-Fijians hurt
However, this circle did not, and was not meant to benefit the ordinary Taukei and it was disastrous for Indo-Fijians, as they were discriminated and marginalised for supporting Mr Chaudhary and his FLP.
Historically, it is an indigenous institution that had outlived its usefulness.
Its forced fusion destroyed democracy. One is an elected body and the other inherits through lineage.
The GCC originally provided an advisory role to the colonial Government on matters affecting the Taukei and its members were also absorbed in the civil service.
As paid servants of the colonial Government, they were covertly manipulated to serve its interests. It was both strategic and effective. The position, power and perks elated the chiefs so much that they were reluctant for Taukei to be given voting rights in 1963.
The proposal was passed with a narrow majority by the GCC.
Why the reluctance? It was feared that progression to democracy, with voting rights to Taukei would erode the power, authority and stature of the GCC.
Remarkable reversal
Four high chiefs including Sir Kamisese Mara, Sir Edward Cakobau, Sir Edward Cakobau and Sir Penaia Ganilau led Fiji to independence and were able to entrench the power of the GCC in the 1970 Constitution.
Over the years, the dominance of the chiefs in the Parliament dissipated, as commoners took over the positions of Prime Minister and Ministers, as traditional chiefs became subservient to the elected members of the Parliament.
This was a remarkable reversal and with passage of time, the role of the chiefs had to be quashed. However, the Rabuka-led coup of May 14, 1987 resurrected the GCC, as the 1990 Constitution granted it extended constitutional powers.
The Taukei politicians valued the GCC, as the chiefs used their traditional influence to get Taukei votes for the party that it supported. It worked well. The Alliance Party ruled for seventeen years (1970-1987), Rabuka’s reign continued for next ten years (1987-1999) and Qarase’s SDL Party was cruising along (2000-2006) before being deposed by the Fijian Army.
In 2000, the FLP comprised the Government and Mr Chaudhary was the Prime Minister. The GCC was not pleased and it joined in chorus, condemning the 1997 Constitution and democracy.
Indians evicted
Yet, to appease them and secure his position, Mr Chaudhary sent most of the chiefs to Malaysia to study Government land use policy, hoping that upon their return they would support his plan for the establishment of Land Use Commission, staving off eviction of Indo-Fijian tenants from the native land.
The chiefs returned and waged a campaign of eviction of Indo-Fijian tenants.
They joined the then General Manager of the Native Land Trust Board and initiated the most vicious campaign of persecution in the contemporary history of Fiji.
Hundreds of Indo-Fijian sugarcane farmers were thrown out of their homes and land. Their crime was voting for FLP!
Mr Chaudhary and FLP MPs were incarcerated in the Parliament buildings for 56 days and no chief condemned this despicable crime or stood up for democracy.
Instead, they were all grooming George Speight for great things ahead, as they had done for Mr Rabuka, following the 1987 coup.
As if this were not enough, the chiefs engaged in their own intra-chiefly feud and in a cruel twist, removed President Sir Kamisese, Fiji’s highest chief and father of modern Fiji, at gun point.
Fearing for his life and security of his family, he fled to his island home in Lakeba, Lau Group. There is clear evidence that the chiefs played a crucial part in the 1987 and 2000 coups, destroying democracy.
Difficult questions
Turning to FLP’s submission, the following questions should be answered.
How representative it is of the views of Indo-Fijians?
Are Indo-Fijians naïve?
Is it conceivable that Indo-Fijians would support the chiefs and the SDL Party, ignoring the discrimination that they suffered and demeaned as ‘weeds’ and ‘camels’ in the Parliament?
Would they or should they support those that advocate blatant racism?
In taking this stand, the FLP leadership is pouring scorn on the plight of Indo-Fijian families in Muaniweni, Tailevu who suffered violence, rape and looting of their possessions. Again, not one chief came to their rescue or publicly condemned the actions of the racist thugs.
Political astuteness in today’s context generally favours the leader and not the people. When politicians choose to compromise moral and ethical values to entrench or enhance their own political future, democracy cannot escape brutality.
Political leaders carry the image and dignity of their communities.
When they display arrogance, conceit and selfishness, they destroy not only their own image but also the image of the communities that they purport to serve.
Sadly, the Indo-Fijian community has not, nationally or internationally, fared well because of the failings of their leaders.
For example, in an editorial in 2007, the New Zealand Herald had chastised Mr Chaudhary for joining the Bainimarama Government, following the December 5, 2006 coup that deposed the Qarase Government.
“There is little more melancholy than the sight of a person’s last sheds of credibility being burned. Such was the case this week when Fiji’s former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhary threw in his lot with Commodore Frank Bainimarama, taking the post of Finance Minister. Perhaps there should have been no surprise, however. This was the same man who, after the 2001 elections, craved power so much that he contemplated a coalition government with the party of George Speight, the man who overthrew his democratically elected Administration and held him hostage for six weeks.”
An opportunist
The great irony in Mr Chaudhary’s support for the GCC is that he sees a rare opportunity to strengthen his political future.
It is not clever but simply cruel.
In the history of Fiji, the GCC has been the bastion of racism and Indo-Fijians were its worst victims.
Any leader who opts to sacrifice his or her own community to secure his or her own position is not a leader but an opportunist. In the contemporary history of Fiji, Indo-Fijians have suffered more from the failure of their own selfish leaders than from the actions of others.
Their liberty, freedom and rights have always been under threat, as leaders gave priority to their own interests.
Today, a Taukei leader has stood up to remove every vestige of racism in Fiji and an Indo-Fijian leader chooses to play the dangerous game of Russian roulette.
Rajendra Prasad is a thinker, writer and our Columnist. His book, ‘Tears in Paradise’ has been highly commended for its factual, historic and emotional narration of the infamous Girmit, which robbed thousands of Indo-Fijians of their freedom and decent living, leaving a deep scar in the socio-economic fabric of Fiji.
Email: raj.prasad@xtra.co.nz
