Walton, Alastair --- "Guns, Politics and the Pacific" [1987] AboriginalLawB 27; (1987) 1(26) Aboriginal Law Bulletin 10

• Guns, Politics And The Pacific
• Reference

---

Guns, Politics and the Pacific

During the weeks of May there were people, both in Fiji and Australia, who took up the coup d'etat in Suva as a simple expression of indigenous aspiration for national control.

In conjunction with this position comparisons were made with other indigenous struggles in the South Pacific, such as the Aborigines in Australia, the Maori people in Aotearoa (New Zealand), and the Kanaks in Kanaky (New Caledonia).

The grouping of the various movements above was. and is, used as a historical justification for the coup, and to illustrate that the Fijian situation was another example of the region's 'nationalist surge. These reasonings are placed alongside the official line of race conflict and tension. The channelled conclusion is then that Dr Bavadra's newly elected government was an Indian attempt to politically suppress the indigenous Fijians.

However, this neat analysis is false in several ways. Firstly, the indigenous people of the South Pacific, while all victims of various forms of European colonialism, do not have a unified model explaining their struggles, and present situation.

Another point that must be raised is the coup's modus operandi. As a political manoeuvre a coup d'etat usurps the rule of law with the barrel of a gun. This can be the mode of expression for revolutionaries, colonialists or for military juntas. In addition one explanation for the imbroglio underscores the coup as a people's movement by suggesting it was a purge by a wealthy conservative elite. This factor then confuses an explanation relying on 'indigenous frustration'.

Thus there are significant weaknesses in connecting the coup in Fiji with indigenous struggles in Australia, New Zealand, or even New Caledonia. It is necessary to outline the unique position of the indigenous Fijians concerning their constitutional power and land control so as to appreciate how distinctive their position is (was) in relation to Australia and New Zealand.

A nominal starting point for describing the constitutional structure in Fiji can start on 10 October 1874, the official day that marks 'an unconditional offer of cession to the British Crown' by a collection of Fijian Chiefs. Exactly ninety-six years later Fiji formally regained its independence after various forms of 'indirect rule'.

This establishment allowed for the following:

'Under it the authority of the Fijian chiefs was maintained and as a matter of conscious policy attempts were made to preserve Fijian social structure ...'

In addition, further alienation of land from Fijian ownership was prohibited. That land remained owned by Fijians. It did not become crown land.

In 1970 the independence constitution was declared and was in force till the coup of may. 1987. The Parliament was bicameral, with a House of Representatives and a Senate.

Nick O'Neill described the system as follows:

The House of Representatives was to be elected by voters on four rolls, a national roll being added to those established in 1966. Twenty-two Fijian members were to be elected, twelve by voters on the roll of Fijian electors and ten by voters from the national roll. Twenty-two Indian members were to be elected, twelve by voters on the roll of Indian electors and ten by voters from the national roll. Eight members who were neither Fijian nor Indian were to be elected three by voters from the non-Fijian non-Indian roll and five by voters from the national roll.

This voting system ensures that the House of Representatives are made up of people elected on a racial basis and members from the three racial groupings elected on a national basis.

The Senate of twenty-two members was made up of eight appointed by the Governor-General acting in accordance with the advice of the Great Council of Chiefs. seven appointed by the Governor-General in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, six appointed by the Governor-General acting in accordance with the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and one Senator appointed by the Governor-General acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of Rotuma.

In regard to the constitutionally entrenched ordinances the following applies:

These ordinances cannot be amended or repealed unless at least three-quarters of the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate vote to do so. Further amendment of them which affects Fijian land, customs or customary rights shall not be passed unless at least six of the eight Senators appointed by the Governor-General in accordance with the advice of the Great Council of Chiefs vote to support it.

The full list of the ordinances is as follows:

Fijian Affairs Ordinance
Fijian Development Fund Ordinance 1965.
Native Lands Ordinance.
Native Land Trust Ordinances.
Rotuma Ordinance 1959.
Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Ordinance,
Banaban Land Ordinance, and
Banaban Settlement Ordinance

As can be seen from the above the Fijian system was unique.

The situation in the South Pacific deserves greater discussion and analysis than is presently undertaken in the Australian mainstream media. When using the term Pacific many and vast differences in history, people and culture must be realised. Uninformed generalisations about the Fijian coup will only perpetuate the ignorance so obviously pervading the reporting of events. The Bicentenary would have been a perfect opportunity to initiate debate on the legacy of the European presence in the South Pacific, but it has been conveniently set aside.

Reference

1. Nick O'Neill. 'The Indigenous Fijians and the Fiji Legal System.' A paper presented to the Commission on Folk Law and Legal Pluralism. Folk Law and Indigenous Rights. A comparative perspective, Sydney, August. 1986.