NationStates Jolt Archive

Fiji has "no government", following its dismissal by the Court of Appeal (http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/south-pacific/2327182/Bainimarama-we-do-not-have-a-government).

Fiji's Court of Appeal has ruled that the interim government, led by military head Commodore Frank Bainimarama, is unlawful. Bainimarama came to power through a military coup in December 2006. He ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase after a long dispute, accusing him of being corrupt and racist. No evidence of corruption has surfaced. The accusation of racism was based on Qarase's "Affirmative Action" policies destined to benefit the country's indigenous majority, leaving out the sizeable Indian-Fijian minority. Qarase once stated, soon after coming to power, that he intended to govern only for the benefit of the indigenous population, and members of his government have made openly racist, anti-Indian comments ; the Minister for Women once stated in Parliament that God had warned her the Indians were "weeds".

Bainimarama has said in the past that he intends to restore democracy, but only after altering the electoral system, and implementing a "one citizen, one vote" system. The current system is ethnicity-based, designed for ethnic community representation in Parliament.

So far, there has been no announcement as to when elections might be held. The electoral system has not yet been amended. Legally, it actually can't be amended, since it's defined by the Constitution, and since Bainimarama has suspended Parliament.

Fiji has come under strong pressure, particularly from New Zealand, to restore democracy. It has been suspended from the Commonwealth, pending a return to democracy.

Following his dismissal, Qarase turned to the courts, which ruled in Bainimarama's favour in October 2008. Now the Court of Appeal has reversed the lower court's ruling.

Seemingly accepting the new ruling, Bainimarama has said that Fiji is now without a government. He has said that he will step down as prime minister, and await the president's decision as to what happens next. However, he has also said that he will appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal has granted him leave to do so.

Here's Bainimarama's official statement to the nation (http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_14680.shtml) following the court's ruling:


I speak to you this evening after the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal this afternoon.

As most of you will be aware by now the Court of Appeal has held that amongst other appointments, the appointment of the Interim Government by His Excellency our President is invalid under the Constitution.

It also held that His Excellency our President should in his discretion appoint a caretaker Prime Minister. It held that the caretaker Prime Minister cannot be any person who is a party to the proceedings. In other words, put simple, neither Laisenia Qarase nor I can be appointed caretaker Prime Minister.

Following the declarations by the Court, the state lawyers informed the Court that they would appeal the ruling. The right of appeal rests with all parties, as you will recall Qarase appealed the High Court ruling. We want to appeal the Court of Appeal ruling to the Supreme Court, which is the final appellate court in Fiji.

State lawyers also applied to the Court that a stay be granted on the declarations made by the Court of Appeal pending appeal to the Supreme Court. In other words, while we wait for our appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court, the declarations need to be put on hold.

Unfortunately the Court refused to put the declarations on hold.

This afternoon, I visited His Excellency our President and informed him of the decision and the practical implications. His Office has a copy of the judgment. I understand His Excellency shall inform us of his decision soon.

The ruling of the Court of Appeal and its refusal to grant a stay pending appeal means, in practical terms that we effectively do not have a Prime Minister or any Ministers of the State. In other words we do not have a Government in place.

In meantime ladies, gentlemen and my fellow citizens, I want to assure you all that I, as Commander of the RFMF, together will all security forces shall ensure that there will be no disruption to law and order.

I also want to caution any person who is thinking of interrupting the peace and good governance of our Fiji that no such behaviour shall be tolerated.

I appeal to all of you that you must be loyal and patriotic citizens of our beloved country. Please do not be swayed by petty and ethnic politics or considerations. Do not be swayed by opportunists who call themselves leaders.

We must all think about and work towards building a better Fiji, a Fiji that cares for all its citizens irrespective of their ethnicity, not people who only think about themselves and how to win elections at any cost.

I thank you once again ladies and gentlemen and my fellow citizens for you attention. We now await His Excellency our President’s decision.


It'll be interesting to see how this goes. Bainimarama has proved himself stubborn in the past, refusing to bow to foreign pressure. But this is the first time his government has been ruled illegitimate by a court within Fiji (even if that court was presided over by Australian judges).

Thoughts? How do you see this evolving? What should Bainimarama and President Iloilo do? How would you feel if elections were held and Qarase were brought back to power?

Bananarama?

Bananarama?

Please. You're not the first one to make that bad pun. :p

Sounds like the dictator guy (aka banananananrama) is in the right here...

If I were Fijian, I would vote for the guy. He accepted the rule of law when he could have simply ignored the court. By stepping down, he has earned the right to lead.

I say we get guns and declare my dictatorship over Fiji.
"restore democracy"

Let him step down, and let's hope he gets shot in the head. Military dictators and their supporters do not deserve to live.

Let him step down, and let's hope he gets shot in the head. Military dictators and their supporters do not deserve to live.

Unless I am the dictator then I deserve flowers.

Unless I am the dictator then I deserve flowers.

All military dictators that get to power without a vote and their supporters deserve to die. No exceptions.
(I know you're joking, but it had to be said.)

All military dictators that get to power without a vote and their supporters deserve to die. No exceptions.
(I know you're joking, but it had to be said.)

But even if I give you a cabinet post ?

But even if I give you a cabinet post ?

Depends, do I actually have to DO stuff?

Depends, do I actually have to DO stuff?

Not really but if you practice graft you will make a large amount of money.

Not really but if you practice graft you will make a large amount of money.

Meh. I'll lay low, then betray you when the chips are down and become hailed into leadership as the freedom hero of your country.

Meh. I'll lay low, then betray you when the chips are down and become hailed into leadership as the freedom hero of your country.

I will keep you away from the guns.
besides I will find oil in Fiji and make a deal to sell it to the US exclusively in exchange for the US keeping me in power.

Sounds like the dictator guy (aka banananananrama) is in the right here...

That's an interesting matter for debate... It depends what you think is more important, really.

Bainimarama came to power by force (although without violence). He overthrew a democratically elected government. (There were a number of irregularities in the election that brought Qarase to power, some of them quite serious, but he would probably have won even if the election had been entirely fair.) Bainimarama is an indigenous man who's standing up for the rights of the other ethnic group, for equality before the law and an end to ethnic discrimination. I think he genuinely does find Qarase's race-based policies distasteful. Particularly since Qarase was allied to the Conservative Alliance, the party formed by the supporters of George Speight, a man who took Indian-Fijian Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhy hostage in 2000, and demanded that the government be put exclusively in the hands of indigenous Fijians. That's the kind of people Qarase gets political support from. And he supports them in turn; he tried to get an amnesty for the people who had taken part in Speight's hostage-taking. So in many ways, it's easy to think that Bainimarama is doing the right thing. If he stands true to his word, he wants to make the country more democratic, by implementing a standard "one citizen, one vote" system.

On the other hand... He is a military dictator. He's suspended Parliament, and governs with his own unelected appointees. Can that be condoned? I should also point out that there have been repeated cases of the army intimidating the media under his military government. Bainimarama has little patience with anyone who disagrees with him. He's stubborn, and, in some ways, a bully. But, while the media has been intimidated, it does remain free, and regularly criticises him. Fiji is one of the few dictatorships where the media freely condemns the government. And where the courts remain independent.

If I were Fijian, I would vote for the guy. He accepted the rule of law when he could have simply ignored the court. By stepping down, he has earned the right to lead.

We can hope that he's accepted the rule of law, yes, and so far it seems that he has. But we need to wait and see what happens now.

It remains uncertain what he would do if Qarase were elected again, for example. He (Bainimarama) has said in the past that he would allow Qarase to stand in the next election, but only if Qarase amends his policies. Otherwise, Bainimarama has said he won't let him return to power. Bainimarama's pet project has been a People's Charter, which the next government would have to abide by. Its main aim is to prevent racist politics. I once did a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Charter_for_Change,_Peace_and_Progress) on it, though I haven't kept it up to date with recent developments.

Bainimarama defended his government, his aims and his Charter in front of the UN last September. (Video here. (http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/ga/63/2008/ga080926pm.rm?start=02:25:34&end=02:50:10) Starting from 6:12.)

I say we get guns and declare my dictatorship over Fiji.
"restore democracy"

That's not a very constructive comment...

Let him step down, and let's hope he gets shot in the head. Military dictators and their supporters do not deserve to live.

And that's a downright stupid comment. The situation in Fiji is a complex one; too complex for you to understand, perhaps? Whatever you may think of Bainimarama, he does not deserve to die.

I will keep you away from the guns.
besides I will find oil in Fiji and make a deal to sell it to the US exclusively in exchange for the US keeping me in power.

That may (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Royal_Family) or not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) work well.

That may (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Royal_Family) or not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) work well.

It will be fine. Fiji's neighbors are too far away to invade.

All military dictators that get to power without a vote and their supporters deserve to die. No exceptions.
(I know you're joking, but it had to be said.)

Who are you to determine who "deserves" to die?

And that's a downright stupid comment. The situation in Fiji is a complex one; too complex for you to understand, perhaps? Whatever you may think of Bainimarama, he does not deserve to die.

He's a military dictator, isn't he? Then he deserves to die.

Who are you to determine who "deserves" to die?

I'm Heikoku. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with me!

(Not really, but you gave me such a nice opportunity to use a line from Dr. Who...)

He's a military dictator, isn't he? Then he deserves to die.

Have you actually read the information I've provided in this thread? I can only assume not.

Only a thoughtless, simple-minded and inhuman monster would say he "deserves" to die. It's a fundamentally stupid thing to say.

I'm Heikoku. If you don't like it, if you want to take it to a higher authority, there isn't one. It stops with me!


The Mods might argue about that

The Mods might argue about that

The disclaimer is there for a reason. :p

Have you actually read the information I've provided in this thread? I can only assume not.

Only a thoughtless, simple-minded and inhuman monster would say he "deserves" to die. It's a fundamentally stupid thing to say.

Again, he's a military dictator that came into power without respecting the wishes of the people. As a Brazilian, I know what kinds of people those are, and that's pretty much why I stand by my statement.

The disclaimer is there for a reason. :p

just making sure you don't get a temp ban. Your one of the few people who enjoys my humor here.

Again, he's a military dictator that came into power without respecting the wishes of the people. As a Brazilian, I know what kinds of people those are, and that's pretty much why I stand by my statement.

So, in other words, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and know literally nothing about the situation in Fiji.

So, in other words, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and know literally nothing about the situation in Fiji.

He's a military dictator. He deserves to get shot, among other reasons, because Médici, Geisel, Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva and Pinochet didn't.

Heikoku, what are your views on Fidel Castro? I ask because I'm not sure if I could find the answer in your posting history quick enough, and I'd like to know it for possible future discussion.

He's a military dictator. He deserves to get shot, among other reasons, because Médici, Geisel, Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva and Pinochet didn't.

so your saying Médici, Geisel, Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva and Pinochet didn't deserve to get shot? this is a rather surprising view from you.

so your saying Médici, Geisel, Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva and Pinochet didn't deserve to get shot? this is a rather surprising view from you.

Because they didn't *get shot*. :p

Heikoku, what are your views on Fidel Castro? I ask because I'm nt sure if I could find the answer in your posting history quick enough, and I'd like to know it for possible future discussion.

He replaced a military dictatorship with a different military dictatorship. Batista and him should get the same bullet.

That said, NOT by American intervention.

Again, he's a military dictator that came into power without respecting the wishes of the people. As a Brazilian, I know what kinds of people those are, and that's pretty much why I stand by my statement.

Okay, I am being facetious here, but without the military rule in Brasil, how much music would we have missed? Would Caetano be Caetano without his travails, or Gil?

Seriously, though, Heikoku, the way to do it is to try the dictator first, and then shoot him. I have to admit, my first thought on reading this was, "Fiji has a military?" But really, ousting the legally elected head of state does appear to me to be something the Fijian Department of Justice might want to look into. And if there are other actions the Commodore took that are actionable, then a proper legal procedure should be followed.

I liked the cabinet member who speaks personally with God, though. Reminds me of John "There is no King in the US but Jesus" Ashcroft, our one-time Attorney General who would have himself annointed with oil at what he considered important moments in his life.

Okay, I am being facetious here, but without the military rule in Brasil, how much music would we have missed? Would Caetano be Caetano without his travails, or Gil?

Seriously, though, Heikoku, the way to do it is to try the dictator first, and then shoot him. I have to admit, my first thought on reading this was, "Fiji has a military?" But really, ousting the legally elected head of state does appear to me to be something the Fijian Department of Justice might want to look into. And if there are other actions the Commodore took that are actionable, then a proper legal procedure should be followed.

I liked the cabinet member who speaks personally with God, though. Reminds me of John "There is no King in the US but Jesus" Ashcroft, our one-time Attorney General who would have himself annointed with oil at what he considered important moments in his life.

Wow. You're an American who knows (and seemingly likes) Caetano and Gil? Splendid! :D

But I didn't say he shouldn't be tried, I said he deserved to die. WITH a trial, but... ;)

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, vesting every individual with equal rights, was directly opposed to the hierarchical social structure of indigenous Fijian society. Chiefs were at the apex by virtue of their birth and rank. The rest of the people had a communal functional role in this hierarchy."

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, vesting every individual with equal rights, was directly opposed to the hierarchical social structure of indigenous Fijian society. Chiefs were at the apex by virtue of their birth and rank. The rest of the people had a communal functional role in this hierarchy."

Then that must be dealt with by UN sanctions and/or by a democratically-elected government.

Then that must be dealt with by UN sanctions and/or by a democratically-elected government.

You mean like the democratically-elected government of Qarase that was appointed by Bainimarama himself after the 2000 coup?

Again, he's a military dictator that came into power without respecting the wishes of the people. As a Brazilian, I know what kinds of people those are, and that's pretty much why I stand by my statement.

So, in other words, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and know literally nothing about the situation in Fiji.

Thank you, Sdaeriji. That more or less sums it up. Heikoku 2 has obviously not read the information I've provided, has not looked any up himself, knows nothing about Fiji, and has not the faintest idea what he's talking about.

He's a military dictator. He deserves to get shot, among other reasons, because Médici, Geisel, Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva and Pinochet didn't.

Bainimarama has nothing in common with any of those people. As you would well know, if you had any idea what you're talking about. Is your mind really so simple and limited that it can't fathom the complexity and nuances of the situation?

Try this on for size, if you can understand it. Bainimarama is, unquestionably, in many ways, a better person than Qarase. Qarase believes in the political supremacy of his own "race", and is allied to the party of a hostage-taker who wanted to ban all Indians from being elected.

Bainimarama is not your typical dictator. Yes, he's an unelected leader. But

1) He has claimed he wants to make the country more democratic, by implementing a "one citizen, one vote" system, which the country currently hasn't got. He's also said that, once democracy is restored, he won't stand for election, because he has no interest in leading the country longer than necessary. There's no telling for certain whether he's sincere, but bear this in mind:

2) If he were simply interested in being a dictator, he could have taken power at any time. He spent several months trying to pressure Qarase into withdrawing his controversial legislation, before overthrowing him. Bainimarama controls the army, who support him; his actions strongly suggest that he took power because of the circumstances, and not simply out of lust for power. Also, consider this: When Speight took Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry hostage in 2000, and there was no government, Bainimarama took power very briefly, to deal with the crisis. He negotiated for Chaudhry's release, obtained it, ensured Speight's arrest, and was widely viewed as a national hero. He then immediately handed power back to a civilian government. If he had wanted to be a dictator, he could have clung to power at that point. His past strongly suggests that he's not interested in being a dictator.

3) Civil freedoms have mostly been maintained under his rule. Yes, soldiers have bullied journalists on several occasions, but the media have refused to be intimidated. Freedom of the media has remained. No media has been shut down. The media freely criticise Bainimarama. Qarase and other political opponents of Bainimarama's continue to express themselves freely, and to have their views aired and printed in the media. Freedom of assembly has not been infringed upon. The judiciary system remains independent, as it has just demonstrated.

As I said, not your typical dictator. Yes, it's legitimate to criticise him. But wishing him dead is fundamentally stupid, and despicable.

Snip.

Okay: He, like Pinochet should have, like the other dictators in Latin America should have, needs to be tried.

And then killed. Like they should have been.

He's a military dictator. His intentions do not matter. Even because every military dictatorship claims it'll "restore power to the people when necessary" (once they're thrown out). It's one of the mottos of military dictatorships.

Pinochet didn't get killed. Nor did the four dictators here in Brazil. Some morons still PRAISE them and claim they were "needed". All I want is the head of ONE military dictator. The heads of said morons wouldn't hurt either.

Okay: He, like Pinochet should have, like the other dictators in Latin America should have, needs to be tried.

And then killed. Like they should have been.

He's a military dictator. His intentions do not matter. Even because every military dictatorship claims it'll "restore power to the people when necessary" (once they're thrown out). It's one of the mottos of military dictatorships.

Pinochet didn't get killed. Nor did the four dictators here in Brazil. All I want is the head of ONE military dictator.

Your demands are as assinine as your claims. Bainimarama ALREADY HAS restored power to the people after a coup, in 2000, after the government was taken hostage by ultra-nationalists. He had control of the nation, and he voluntarily surrendered it.

Your demand for the head of any military dictator because of what happened in Brazil is akin to me saying that, because a Brazilian once offended me, you must be thrown in jail for the rest of your life.

Your demands are as assinine as your claims. Bainimarama ALREADY HAS restored power to the people after a coup, in 2000, after the government was taken hostage by ultra-nationalists. He had control of the nation, and he voluntarily surrendered it.

Your demand for the head of any military dictator because of what happened in Brazil is akin to me saying that, because a Brazilian once offended me, you must be thrown in jail for the rest of your life.

There's a difference between a person from a nationality and a person who directly overthrew a democratic government with force of arms.

There's a difference between a person from a nationality and a person who directly overthrew a democratic government with force of arms.

And there's a difference between a man who overthrew a democratic government through force of arms and a man who seized control of the anarchy following a democratic government disbanding itself because it was held hostage by a madman with guns, defeated the hostage-takers, and returned control to the democratic government. Guess which one is Pinochet, and guess which one is Bainimarama, and then figure out why your hysterical rants are completely out of place here.

He replaced a military dictatorship with a different military dictatorship. Batista and him should get the same bullet.

That said, NOT by American intervention.

Thx, that was just what I was curious of. By the way, you get a + in my book, I expected somewhat more of Castro praise. ^_^

I'll leave the discussion for the others now, at least for some time.

Seriously, though, Heikoku, the way to do it is to try the dictator first, and then shoot him.


There's no death penalty in Fiji. Or, more accurately, I think it's still on the books, but it's never applied; death sentences are systematically commuted into life in prison. That's what happened to Speight.


I have to admit, my first thought on reading this was, "Fiji has a military?"


Fiji has a large military, proportionally to its size. I think it's one of the only two Pacific Island countries with a military, the other being Tonga. Papua New Guinea also has a military, if you consider PNG to be a Pacific Island country. (And New Zealand, if you consider that to be a Pacific Island country. ;))

Fiji is a big contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. Fijian soldiers are currently serving all around the world in UN operations. As I once wrote in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_and_the_United_Nations) ;) ,


Fiji's participation in the United Nations has been notable primarily for its active role in UN peacekeeping operations, which began in 1978.[1] Fiji soldiers served in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which Fiji's Major General George Konrote commanded in 1998 and 1999.[2] The country has also contributed to other operations including Kosovo and Sinai[3], and, in 2004, Fiji was the first country to volunteer troops to protect United Nations officials in Iraq. The BBC has remarked on Fiji's "long and proud history of sending its forces to the world's trouble-spots".[4] As of September 2004, 35 Fiji soldiers had been killed in the line of duty while serving on UN peacekeeping missions.[5]

As of April 2007, Fiji had 292 soldiers, police officers and military observers serving in United Nations peacekeeping operations in Iraq, Liberia, Sudan and Timor-Leste.



But really, ousting the legally elected head of state does appear to me to be something the Fijian Department of Justice might want to look into. And if there are other actions the Commodore took that are actionable, then a proper legal procedure should be followed.

(Head of government, not head of state. The head of state is the President, essentially a figurehead, whom Bainimarama allowed to stay where he was.)

Indeed. Unfortunately, as far as justice is concerned, I imagine he'll get himself an amnesty. (Which would be mildly ironic, given how strongly he's opposed an amnesty for Speight's fellow hostage-takers...) At present, Bainimarama seems willing to step away from government, but not to relinquish command of the military. He's said he intends to simply go back to commanding the military - unless, presumably, the President re-appoints him prime minister to maintain an interim government, or the Supreme Court overturns the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

If an election takes place under the provisions of the current Constitution, and Qarase is elected, I imagine he may try to pacify the situation by granting Bainimarama an amnesty.


I liked the cabinet member who speaks personally with God, though. Reminds me of John "There is no King in the US but Jesus" Ashcroft, our one-time Attorney General who would have himself annointed with oil at what he considered important moments in his life.

Did he really do that? :D The Fijian minister was Aseneca Caucau. If I recall correctly, she was later arrested for assault while on a visit to the United States. A very pleasant woman.

And there's a difference between a man who overthrew a democratic government through force of arms and a man who seized control of the anarchy following a democratic government disbanding itself because it was held hostage by a madman with guns, defeated the hostage-takers, and returned control to the democratic government. Guess which one is Pinochet, and guess which one is Bainimarama, and then figure out why your hysterical rants are completely out of place here.

Is he military?

Is he a dictator?

Then he deserves to die.

Besides, he's done it AGAIN, and, this time, had to be called on by the courts to GTFO.

Okay: He, like Pinochet should have, like the other dictators in Latin America should have, needs to be tried.

And then killed. Like they should have been.

I'll say it again: Bainimarama has absolutely nothing in common with Pinochet.

He has done nothing which would warrant the death penalty in any civilised country. You still have no idea what you're talking about.


He's a military dictator. His intentions do not matter. Even because every military dictatorship claims it'll "restore power to the people when necessary" (once they're thrown out). It's one of the mottos of military dictatorships.


You're not even bothering to read what I write, are you?

Bainimarama DID restore power to the people once before. In 2000. He's proved himself in that regard.


Pinochet didn't get killed. Nor did the four dictators here in Brazil. Some morons still PRAISE them and claim they were "needed". All I want is the head of ONE military dictator.

What you're saying is still fundamentally ignorant and stupid. The current situation in Fiji is nothing like what it used to be in Brazil or Chile. Your petty, bloodthirsty whining isn't going to change that. Is it really that hard for you understand something this simple?

Is he military?

Is he a dictator?

Then he deserves to die.

Besides, he's done it AGAIN, and, this time, had to be called on by the courts to GTFO.

Right, like I said, you've done absolutely nothing to excavate yourself from your own mountainous ignorance, and you simply prefer to apply one-size-fits-all judgement to a situation you know literally nothing about. You are just as bad as TAI.

Snip.

My country was a military dictatorship once. And there are STILL people in this very forum who claim it was "necessary". I figure that, if this one military dictator bites it, I at least get to see one military dictator killed by the people of the country he ran within my political lifetime.

Besides, media intimidation by itself is bad enough. He dies.

Heikoku 2 seems to be dealing in a nonsensical absolute without considering the circumstances. That's probably the worst thing that anyone can do, because when you don't consider the circumstances and do a one-size-fits-all measurement, you end up making incorrect statements, because you neglect the differences between situations.

Fiji is an interesting situation, that's for sure. I'm curious to see who takes power now - where the country goes really depends on this, more than Bainimarama (can one just call him "Frank"? ;) ).

Right, like I said, you've done absolutely nothing to excavate yourself from your own mountainous ignorance, and you simply prefer to apply one-size-fits-all judgement to a situation you know literally nothing about. You are just as bad as TAI.

When was one military dictatorship good in the long run?

Besides, no. I'm not at all like TAI. I want democracy restored to Fiji by the Fijians, and I want it now. And, also unlike TAI, I want the head of military dictators, not their praise.

This guy seems like a rather inept military dictator if he stepped down just because the courts told him to.;)

What you're saying is still fundamentally ignorant and stupid. The current situation in Fiji is nothing like what it used to be in Brazil or Chile. Your petty, bloodthirsty whining isn't going to change that. Is it really that hard for you understand something this simple?He apparently doesn't even understand that Pinochet voluntarily surrendered power in Chile once he'd got the situation there (as he saw it) stabilised...

He apparently doesn't even understand that Pinochet voluntarily surrendered power in Chile once he'd got the situation there (as he saw it) stabilised...

That's not enough for Pinochet to deserve anything but an eternity in hell.

Pakistan provides an interesting case study on how the military's involvement in politics can alleviate poverty and improve social conditions (http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/1997/Volume1/39-68.pdf), while holding some extremism at bay (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1627&l=1).

That's not to say that Pakistan is that good in any way, but economically and (hopefully) socially, it's been "good in the long run". Naturally, Pakistan has its problems (as an Indian, that's a favorite topic ;) ), but it's not "terrible".

When was one military dictatorship good in the long run?

Besides, no. I'm not at all like TAI. I want democracy restored to Fiji by the Fijians, and I want it now. And, also unlike TAI, I want the head of military dictators, not their praise.

How about the 2000 Fijian coup, where the military stepped in and took control after the government was held hostage by ultra-nationalists in order to defeat and arrest the ultra-nationalists and save the hostages? The coup where the military took control of a government-less Fiji on May 30, and returned control to a civilian government on July 4, during which they re-established order, rescued all the hostages, and arrested those responsible for taking the government hostage. Does that count?

You're exactly like TAI in your blind support for your "side" of the "fight", despite the actions taken, and by your unwavering, uniform approach to all situations, regardless of the actual circumstances.

You're exactly like TAI in your blind support for your "side" of the "fight", despite the actions taken, and by your unwavering, uniform approach to all situations, regardless of the actual circumstances.

Again, untrue. I don't support military coups.

Besides, media intimidation by itself is bad enough. He dies.

He's never even been convicted of media intimidation. There's no proof that he ordered any of it, and that military officers or soldiers weren't bullying journalists of their own initiative. Besides, even if he could be convicted on that count, it's not a capital crime! You would like to see someone die, without being proven guilty, for a crime that no sane person would apply the death penalty to? What kind of a sick, bloodthirsty monster are you?

Is he military?

Is he a dictator?

Then he deserves to die.

Besides, he's done it AGAIN, and, this time, had to be called on by the courts to GTFO.

Are you seriously implying that he was wrong to take power briefly in 2000? Seriously? Even though he did it to obtain the release of hostages, to secure the arrest of a coup-maker, and to ensure the restoration of democracy? You're making absolutely no sense.

Look at the damn context in which it happened this time, too. Read up on the situation in Fiji. And trying using your brain and thinking, for once.

This is the last time I'll say it. The situation in Fiji is not comparable to what the situation was in Brazil or in Chile. They have absolutely nothing in common.

I won't try to explain it to you again. If you're not capable of understanding something as simple as this, and of responding in a human, appropriate and intelligent manner, then you're a hopeless case.

Again, untrue. I don't support military coups.

No, but you do call for the heads of all military dictators without even attempting to evaluate the situation based on its individual merits. You apply a one-size-fits-all mentality to politics, EXACTLY like TAI does. TAI's blind opposition to communism is precisely the same as your blind opposition to fascism.

What kind of a sick, bloodthirsty monster are you?

One that wants:

1- A military dictator to get killed because many others did not.

2- The notion that military coups may get one killed so that fewer people will attempt them.

3- A person who couped their way into power to get offed, because that's what I think people who coup their ways into power deserve. The ends do not justify the means.

4- People to learn that couping out governments because you didn't like how the elections turned out gets you killed.

No, but you do call for the heads of all military dictators without even attempting to evaluate the situation based on its individual merits. You apply a one-size-fits-all mentality to politics, EXACTLY like TAI does. TAI's blind opposition to communism is precisely the same as your blind opposition to fascism.

1- TAI's country was never communist. Mine was a dictatorship once. Which TAI supported. And keeps on supporting.

2- I do call for the heads of all military dictators. Because, then, the likelihood is there'll be less or no coups. Count that as the "stick" part of "carrot and stick" if you will.

2- The notion that military coups may get one killed so that fewer people will attempt them.

3- A person who couped their way into power to get offed, because that's what I think people who coup their ways into power deserve. The ends do not justify the means.

4- People to learn that couping out governments because you didn't like how the elections turned out gets you killed.No, they'd learn that surrendering power back to democratic hands afterwards gets you killed: Just hold on to the power yourself, instead, and you'll be a lot safer... Is that really the lesson that you want to teach?

No, they'd learn that surrendering power back to democratic hands afterwards gets you killed: Just hold on to the power yourself, instead, and you'll be a lot safer... Is that really the lesson that you want to teach?

Mmm. You have a point there, I admit...

1- TAI's country was never communist. Mine was a dictatorship once. Which TAI supported. And keeps on supporting.

2- I do call for the heads of all military dictators. Because, then, the likelihood is there'll be less or no coups. Count that as the "stick" part of "carrot and stick" if you will.

1. Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

2. No. It would teach them that letting their opposition live increases the chances that they may be executed some day. It would only encourage people like Bainimarama to hold onto power, instead of relinquishing it to a democratic government once order has been restored. Your primitive bloodlust would only create more Pinochets.

2- The notion that military coups may get one killed so that fewer people will attempt them.

Or so that when they gain power, they're more reluctant to give it up (and thus will kill more people) because they'll be killed once they do? It's call backlash. See, this is why truth and reconciliation commissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_and_reconciliation_commission) are used (http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993661).

I suppose that with an international criminal court, now that there's a body to prosecute dictators under, TRCs have lessened a bit, though. Point remains the same.

1. Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant.

Nah, it - at least - gives some justification for being so pissed.

Nah, it - at least - gives some justification for being so pissed.

There is no justification for wishing for, or calling for, the death of another human being, no matter how much you think that person might have "wronged" you. I understand the base emotion, but it has no place in civilized society.

Okay, you folks have a point. He lives.

Fiji is an interesting situation, that's for sure. I'm curious to see who takes power now - where the country goes really depends on this, more than Bainimarama (can one just call him "Frank"? ;) ).

People do call him "Frank". Technically, his given name is Voreqe (pronounced "Vorenge", with a hard "g"), but that's the Fijianised form of "Frank". Many Fijians have Fijianised English names, dating back to the christianisation of the country by English-speaking missionaries in the 19th century.

I'm also curious to see who takes power now. It depends both on President Iloilo, and on "Frank" himself.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Bainimarama has accepted the court's decision. It's a strong point in his favour... if he doesn't change his mind. After all, he's been adamant that he wants to see his reforms through to the end before restoring democracy. If he really does accept the court's decision, he probably won't have the opportunity to do that.

There are several possibilities now, as I see it.

One would be for Iloilo to do exactly what the courts suggested (it was merely a suggestion on their part) - i.e., appoint someone other than Bainimarama or Qarase as caretaker prime minister, with a mandate only to bring about new elections. Presumably under current legislation, discounting the People's Charter and upholding the existing "race-based" electoral system.

Another would be for Iloilo to reappoint Bainimarama. I imagine Bainimarama may pressure him to do exactly that. That would fly in the face of the spirit of the court's ruling and recommendation, though.

Or, Bainimarama could change his mind and refuse to relinquish power. Which probably wouldn't end well.

Or, I suppose, Bainimarama could pressure the yet-unnamed caretaker prime minister to implement the People's Charter and hold elections on a "one citizen, one vote" basis, also keeping out candidates with policies similar to what Qarase's were. That would be an infringement upon the Constitution, but it could be a condition under which Bainimarama would accept to see elections held in the near future. A sort of compromise.

Lots of possibilities, really...

This guy seems like a rather inept military dictator if he stepped down just because the courts told him to.;)

Well, he's always said that he respected the law. His argument was that he was appointed by the President. Which is technically true, but the President just did what Bainimarama told him to do. Bainimarama claimed it was a legitimate use of the President's emergency powers, which was always highly disputable. Now the Court of Appeal has ruled against that interpretation. So Bainimarama no longer has a legal leg to stand on. He can appeal, but legally, as I understand it, he has to step down until and unless the Supreme Court rules in his favour.

Pakistan provides an interesting case study on how the military's involvement in politics can alleviate poverty and improve social conditions (http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/1997/Volume1/39-68.pdf), while holding some extremism at bay (http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1627&l=1).

That's not to say that Pakistan is that good in any way, but economically and (hopefully) socially, it's been "good in the long run". Naturally, Pakistan has its problems (as an Indian, that's a favorite topic ;) ), but it's not "terrible".

True. Pakistan's has always been an interesting case. It raises potentially uncomfortable, but interesting, questions on the consequences of democracy in some situations, and the "good" brought about by undemocratic regimes.

If you're Indian, you may be interested in Fiji (if you're not already). Its main ethnic minority is Indian, and ethnic tensions have been plaguing the country for decades. Mainly due to right-wing indigenous fears regarding Indian-majority governments. Fears that have never been substantiable, but which seem to die hard.

TAI's blind opposition to communism is precisely the same as your blind opposition to fascism.

Insomuch as fascism is an ideology, I wouldn't call Bainimarama a fascist. He seems to hold no political views beyond supporting equality of all citizens before the law, without ethnic distinction, and supporting a form of multiculturalism in which a citizen's identification to the nation would transcend his or her identification to his/her ethnic group.

Let him step down, and let's hope he gets shot in the head. Military dictators and their supporters do not deserve to live.

Do you all support the same views against dictators for life Fidel and Raul Castro of Cuba? I NS $ bet not in that case?

People do call him "Frank". Technically, his given name is Voreqe (pronounced "Vorenge", with a hard "g"), but that's the Fijianised form of "Frank". Many Fijians have Fijianised English names, dating back to the christianisation of the country by English-speaking missionaries in the 19th century.

Heh. Thanks for that little bit of Fijian linguistic knowledge.

I'm pleasantly surprised that Bainimarama has accepted the court's decision. It's a strong point in his favour... if he doesn't change his mind. After all, he's been adamant that he wants to see his reforms through to the end before restoring democracy. If he really does accept the court's decision, he probably won't have the opportunity to do that.

A lot of my own opinion of him relies on this right here. Most dictators, including all of those who Heikoku 2 referenced, would have completely ignored the view of the courts (something which I believe has happened in countries like Pakistan). Even many democratic leaders (FDR, for example) have attempted to manipulate the judicial system. If Frank (I'm calling him that now :tongue: ) continues listening to the court, it really removes him from the category of "dictator", insofar as he's willing to listen to a higher authority. Perhaps he will listen, perhaps he won't. Is there any other chance for Fiji to become democratic beyond the call of an unelected leader? There's nothing wrong with the latter (Nepal says as much), but he *is* unelected and, now, unconstitutional.

The problem lies in the fact that the status quo is not interested in a fair democracy, and the only way to alter an entire status quo is via something radical - in Frank's case, that's a military uprising. Eesh. These are times when one wishes there was an international authority to check these things.

True. Pakistan's has always been an interesting case. It raises potentially uncomfortable, but interesting, questions on the consequences of democracy in some situations, and the "good" brought about by undemocratic regimes.

Indeed.

If you're Indian, you may be interested in Fiji (if you're not already). Its main ethnic minority is Indian, and ethnic tensions have been plaguing the country for decades. Mainly due to right-wing indigenous fears regarding Indian-majority governments. Fears that have never been substantiable, but which seem to die hard.

I'll have to do some more research. Sounds fascinating, that's for sure.

Do you all support the same views against dictators for life Fidel and Raul Castro of Cuba?

Said yes, she.

Said yes, she.

I'm a MAN.

But thanks.

A lot of my own opinion of him relies on this right here. Most dictators, including all of those who Heikoku 2 referenced, would have completely ignored the view of the courts (something which I believe has happened in countries like Pakistan). Even many democratic leaders (FDR, for example) have attempted to manipulate the judicial system. If Frank (I'm calling him that now :tongue: ) continues listening to the court, it really removes him from the category of "dictator", insofar as he's willing to listen to a higher authority. Perhaps he will listen, perhaps he won't. Is there any other chance for Fiji to become democratic beyond the call of an unelected leader? There's nothing wrong with the latter (Nepal says as much), but he *is* unelected and, now, unconstitutional.

The problem lies in the fact that the status quo is not interested in a fair democracy, and the only way to alter an entire status quo is via something radical - in Frank's case, that's a military uprising. Eesh. These are times when one wishes there was an international authority to check these things.


Well, put it this way. Qarase's SDL party enjoys the support of a very large majority of indigenous voters (http://www.elections.gov.fj/img/fijian-parties.gif). Understandably, hardly any Indian Fijians (http://www.elections.gov.fj/img/indian-parties.gif) vote SDL, but the indigenous vote is enough to put the SDL ahead. The indigenous population is a growing majority, according to census data. Unless the Labour Party can somehow woo a significant number of indigenous voters, there's a distinct possibility that the SDL may be returned to office again and again.

Even a "one citizen, one vote" system may not help much. In fact, some members of the SDL have said they'd welcome it now. They used to oppose it, when demographics weren't so much in their favour.

Bainimarama's Charter is intended to outlaw discriminatory legislation and policies. But of course the Charter isn't the product of a democratically elected government.

One solution might be to submit the Charter to referendum. The outcome would be uncertain. Bainimarama claims it's widely supported, but that's unlikely. A Fiji Times opinion poll last year suggested that public opinion is split roughly down the middle, with 46.2% opposing the Charter, and 45.8% supporting it.

Well, Iloilo has made his decision (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2IyclYSjoh6SIAytXgRalwFsNPw). He's taking power, and has repealed the Constitution - something Bainimarama didn't do. Iloilo says he'll soon appoint a new interim government, to prepare elections, but that elections may be postponed until 2014. It looks as if Iloilo wants to see Bainimarama's proposed reforms carried out first. There's no word yet as to whether Iloilo will ask Bainimarama to be part of the new interim government. Interviewed by ABC Radio Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/stories/m1727185.asx), Bainimarama has restated that he is no longer prime minister, but is simply answering "I don't know" to almost every other question about what's going to happen next. He won't say whether he would take up the position of prime minister again if Iloilo offered it to him.

Here (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/stories/m1727186.asx) is the view of Brij Lal, an Indian Fijian intellectual and one of the authors of the 1997 Constitution.

I'm a MAN.

But thanks.

:eek:

All that time, and I'd never think... Funny. I'll try to remember now. :D
As for the thanks: for some reason unknown, I usually tend to side with the underdog. I, myself, am surprised to support you, as knowing your views I'd rather expect me to be against. Maybe I'm unconsciously trying to soften you for some future communism-related talk or whatnot... :cool:

Well, Iloilo has made his decision (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2IyclYSjoh6SIAytXgRalwFsNPw). He's taking power, and has repealed the Constitution - something Bainimarama didn't do. Iloilo says he'll soon appoint a new interim government, to prepare elections, but that elections may be postponed until 2014. It looks as if Iloilo wants to see Bainimarama's proposed reforms carried out first. There's no word yet as to whether Iloilo will ask Bainimarama to be part of the new interim government. Interviewed by ABC Radio Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/stories/m1727185.asx), Bainimarama has restated that he is no longer prime minister, but is simply answering "I don't know" to almost every other question about what's going to happen next. He won't say whether he would take up the position of prime minister again if Iloilo offered it to him.

Here (http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/stories/m1727186.asx) is the view of Brij Lal, an Indian Fijian intellectual and one of the authors of the 1997 Constitution.

Good to see you posting again. I haven't been listening to the news today so the last I knew was the court decision. Reading your post has been tonight's news for me.

It's hard to see a truly democratic government succeeding long term in Fiji. If it were one person, one vote then there would probably be a government closely linked to Indian Fijians and the Fiji Labour Party. That wouldn't sit well with the traditional landowners.

I'm a MAN.

But thanks.

Because I am a man!

*Punches*

Because I am a man!

*Punches*
Hey hey, quit that scuffle! Let's go back to talking about Bananarama -er, Bainiramama... Bainiramana.. whatever...

Good to see you posting again.


It's just a one-off. How have you been? :)


It's hard to see a truly democratic government succeeding long term in Fiji. If it were one person, one vote then there would probably be a government closely linked to Indian Fijians and the Fiji Labour Party. That wouldn't sit well with the traditional landowners.

Unless I'm much mistaken, indigenous land ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, and can't be amended except with the approval of a two thirds majority in the Senate... where 14 members out of 32 are appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs, giving indigenous Fijians a permanent majority in the Senate. Indigenous land ownership would be rock-solid safe even if a government attempted to meddle with it. Plus, of course, neither the FLP nor the NFP -the parties seen as "Indian"- have ever demonstrated any interest in taking indigenous people's land away from them.

Unfortunately, many indigenous voters don't seem to realise how safe their land is, and that "the Indians" aren't going to take it away. Mostly because right-wing politicians have been stoking their fears for years.

I'm not sure that a "one person, one vote" system would "probably" lead to an FLP government. Yes, there are more indigenous people voting FLP than Indo-Fijians voting SDL, for understandable reasons, but the FLP's support base among indigenous voters is pretty small (http://www.elections.gov.fj/img/fijian-parties.gif). The ethnic political divide is playing in the SDL's favour right now, I think. I may be wrong, though; I'd have to take a closer look at the figures.

It's just a one-off. How have you been? :)

Well.

Unless I'm much mistaken, indigenous land ownership is enshrined in the Constitution, and can't be amended except with the approval of a two thirds majority in the Senate... where 14 members out of 32 are appointed by the Great Council of Chiefs, giving indigenous Fijians a permanent majority in the Senate. Indigenous land ownership would be rock-solid safe even if a government attempted to meddle with it. Plus, of course, neither the FLP nor the NFP -the parties seen as "Indian"- have ever demonstrated any interest in taking indigenous people's land away from them.

Unfortunately, many indigenous voters don't seem to realise how safe their land is, and that "the Indians" aren't going to take it away. Mostly because right-wing politicians have been stoking their fears for years.

I'm not sure that a "one person, one vote" system would "probably" lead to an FLP government. Yes, there are more indigenous people voting FLP than Indo-Fijians voting SDL, for understandable reasons, but the FLP's support base among indigenous voters is pretty small (http://www.elections.gov.fj/img/fijian-parties.gif). The ethnic political divide is playing in the SDL's favour right now, I think. I may be wrong, though; I'd have to take a closer look at the figures.

Fiji is at a crisis (in the classical Greek sense of the word). Events could now go off in all sorts of directions.

What's your day job, Ariddia?

Because I am a man!

*Punches*

>.>

*Dodges. The next moments aren't very clear, but WMU ends up on the floor with 6 daggers on his back*

<.<

What's your day job, Ariddia?

I'm a teacher. At uni. Mostly British history, to undergrads. I've been on short contracts for several years so far, but I'll finally have a stable position starting next year.

(I'm going to be without Internet for the next few days, but I'll check back on this thread when I get back. Be well in the meantime... and I hope Fiji will, too.)

That's not very dictatorial. I see he's giving the club a bad name :(

NEWSFLASH: Iloilo takes power, sacks judges (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-10-voa43.cfm)

So did anybody see this coming? What are your reactions?

NEWSFLASH: Iloilo takes power, sacks judges (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-10-voa43.cfm)

So did anybody see this coming? What are your reactions?

It's what military dictators DO.

It's what military dictators DO.

I guess it's a good thing that Iloilo was a career soldier, and not something like a teacher, before becoming a politician. Otherwise, you might look even more foolish than you normally do by declaring the actions of a civilian politician "what military dictators DO."

I guess it's a good thing that Iloilo was a career soldier, and not something like a teacher, before becoming a politician. Otherwise, you might look even more foolish than you normally do by declaring the actions of a civilian politician "what military dictators DO."

Still a power grab for the military.

Still a power grab for the military.

You're going to have to explain your Bizarro-Heikoku logic on this one. The courts rule that the military dictator must step down, he does, the CIVILIAN government seizes power, and it's a military grab for power? You cannot be typing this with a straight face. You're trolling.

Still a power grab for the military.

Really? (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25316239-601,00.html)

President Ratu Josefa Iloilo has announced on a national radio broadcast today that he has abolished the constitution, assumed governance and rescinded all judicial appointments.

Emphasis mine. Iloilo heads the civilian government and he did it as a national radio broadcast. How's that a military coup?

Really? (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,24897,25316239-601,00.html)



Emphasis mine. Iloilo heads the civilian government and he did it as a national radio broadcast. How's that a military coup?

The maneuver is widely seen as preserving power for the military.


http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-10-voa43.cfm

NEWSFLASH: Iloilo takes power, sacks judges (http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-10-voa43.cfm)

So did anybody see this coming? What are your reactions?

Not good. Iloilo was Bainimarama's cats paw, as I saw it. This will be used by political elements to try to entrench power by non-democratic means and Fiji will end up with another sham democratic system.

>.>

*Dodges. The next moments aren't very clear, but WMU ends up on the floor with 6 daggers on his back*

<.<

Ouch. And, nobody got the reference.

Iloilo has suspended the constitution and re-appointed Bainimarama.

I'm totally appalled and not the slightest bit surprised.

Uh huh. No more judges!

Man, Fiji is an embarrassment to the South Pacific.

I'm totally appalled and not the slightest bit surprised.

Same here. Bainimarama's re-appointment was sadly predictable. Iloilo is just doing whatever the military tells him.

Suspension of the Constitution, dismissal of judges, media censorship... Bainimarama refrained from doing that for two and a half years, but it's happened now. He's lost whatever credibility he might have had. If his actions up until now might have been seen as justifiable to some extent (which is highly debatable in itself), they aren't any more. There can be no justification for the new crackdown.

A sad day for Fiji.

More (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/04/15/1245aa0d9497):


Fiji seen as threat to Pacific stability: forum considers immediate action
16 April 2009

The chairman of the Pacific Islands Forum says Fiji now poses a threat to the stability of the region and the possibility of immediate action is being considered.

Niue premier Toke Talagi, who currently chairs the forum, says he's written to forum leaders to ask them what to do about Fiji's ruling military regime.

In January, the forum vowed to partially suspend Fiji if it didn't name a credible date for elections by 1 May. Mr Talagi has now asked whether the forum should act against Fiji before that date, given recent developments.

He has also asked whether the forum secretariat should continue to be based in the Fijian capital, Suva.

Prime Minister John Key says New Zealand is likely to support moves to suspend Fiji from the organisation immediately.

Dialogue urged - but without NZ and Australia
Some leaders of Pacific nations are calling for more dialogue with the Fiji regime - but without input from New Zealand and Australia.

Cook Islands deputy PM Sir Terepai Maoate says a leaders' group needs to meet interim Fiji prime minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama, but it should not include New Zealand and Australia, he says, because both countries have taken the wrong approach and the commodore feels cornered by bullying.

Kiribati's President Anote Tong says no progress will be made while Fiji is under pressure to set a fixed timetable for elections.

However, Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi says Fiji cannot be left to drift, and strict measures are required.

Emergency rule necessary for electoral reform - Bainimarama
Commodore Bainimarama has meanwhile defended the imposition of emergency rule, saying it had to be done for the sake of electoral reform.

Widespread restrictions were imposed after Fiji's president revoked the constitution and sacked the judiciary in retaliation for a Court of Appeal decision that the regime in power since a military coup in 2006 was illegal.

Commodore Bainimarama says the constitution was abrogated after a survey found that 64% of those in Fiji wanted electoral reform so that voting would no longer be based on race.

Emergency regulations had been imposed so that the reforms could be implemented: "The last thing we want," he said"is opposition to these reforms throughout."

He said media controls might be lifted in a month's time.

Listen to Frank Bainimarama on Morning Report (http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2009/04/15/fiji_pm_defends_moves)

Fijian dollar devalued by 20%
The Fiji Reserve Bank has devalued the Fijian dollar by 20% and the bank's governor has been replaced by his former deputy, Sada Reddy.

On Tuesday, the bank tightened exchange controls in a move to safeguard foreign reserves. Official reserves stood at $674 million (Fijian) at the end of February, equivalent to about 2.7 months of imports of goods.

House of Travel sales director Brent Thomas says the devaluation will further reduce the cost of holidays in Fiji - not through airfares, which are paid in New Zealand dollars, but through other costs.

Life still normal, says spokesperson
The Fijian information ministry has indicated that the emergency regulations may remain in place until elections are held in 2014.

Asked whether the government would operate under the current rules until then, spokesperson Major Neumi Leweni said yes.

"Life is still normal in Fiji," he added, "and there's no detaining of people unnecessarily."

Fiji TV journalist Edwin Nand was released on Wednesday after 36 hours in police custody, as was Law Society president Dorsami Naidu, who was held for 24 hours after he questioned the sacking of the judiciary.

Mr Naudi says he will continue to voice the views of the Fiji Law Society, despite being concerned for his personal safety.

The interim regime is yet to appoint new judges and it's understood the courts are closed until new appointments are made.


Australia, New Zealand, Samoa and Niue are the four countries in the region which have taken a tough stance on Fiji. Kiribati has been more conciliatory (probably because its economy relies on Fiji in many ways), as has Tonga, and the Cook Islands apparently are too. PNG has condemned recent developments, but not as strongly as the PNG government's Opposition would like. I have no idea whether other countries in the Forum -Solomons, Vanuatu, Tuvalu...- have expressed a view.

Here (http://www.fiji.gov.fj/publish/page_14715.shtml)'s what Bainimarama himself is saying:


PM Bainimarama - Address to the nation following appointment of Cabinet - 11 April 2009

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, our elderly, our youth, those in the rural areas, outer islands, all citizens of our beloved Fiji.

As you are aware His Excellency our President yesterday morning abrogated the 1997 Constitution. His Excellency has informed me that the decision of the then Court of Appeal; the anomaly in the decision, the serious consequent vacuum created by that decision; the existing circumstances in Fiji and the way forward as mapped out by the Charter left His Excellency no choice but to abrogate the 1997 constitution.

His Excellency also informed me that he did not take that step lightly but he believes that it was the best for Fiji and her people.

Under the new legal order His Excellency our President appointed me this morning the Prime Minister of Fiji. Later in the day he appointed the rest of the Cabinet ministers.

Following consultations with me His Excellency appointed the same individuals who served previously to the new cabinet because we want continuity and the reform agenda to be fast tracked.

My fellow citizens under this new legal order I as Prime Minister, the Cabinet ministers and all of the security forces endorse, support and shall implement the vision, direction and decrees of his Excellency our President.
We shall also ensure that elections are held at the latest by September 2014 under an electoral system that is based on equal suffrage.

We have already received many wishes of support from a range of citizens, those from the rural areas, from the islands, the youth, business people, workers and the everyday people of our country. I acknowledge and thank them sincerely for their wishes.

I appeal to you all that we now have the opportunity to come together as a nation on a clean slate, a new beginning.

We must rid ourselves of our past prejudices, our past negative influences; we must be focused on building a better Fiji.

A Fiji that cares for all its citizens irrespective of their ethnicity, whether they are poor, rich, children, women the disabled, the youth, the marginalized. We must have a fair and just Fiji. A Fiji with equal and economic opportunities.

My government will be focused on carrying out a number of reforms with the view to modernize our governmental systems. We shall continue with our agenda to liberalize our economy, and eradicating systemic corruption. I shall continue to allocate more resources to building better roads and water systems.

I want to take politics out of sugar and put it on a path of commercial viability and for it to provide viable livelihoods.

I want to ensure that the right framework is provided so that commoner indigenous Fijian benefit from their lands and at the same time that framework provides for land development and national economic growth.

Essentially ladies and gentleman I want to rid politics from decision making that has an impact on our economy, our future.
We cannot be beholden to petty politics, communal politics, provincial politics and religious politics.

We need to grow up and mature if we are to survive in a highly competitive environment.

Many countries that were less developed than us only a few decades ago are economically superior to us today. They have far less resources than us, they have much smaller land size than us yet we are nowhere near them.

Why? Because these countries have a national focus. Their politicians have put their respective countries ahead of their personal interests. They have built strong nations on the platform of equal citizenry, good decision making and absence of systemic corruption. They have been united.

I know we all have our different ethnicities, our different cultures and we should, we must, celebrate our diversity and richness. However, at the same time we are all Fijians. We are all equal citizens. We must all be loyal to Fiji; we must be patriotic; we must put Fiji first.

Emergency regulations are in force, as endorsed by His Excellency. However, these regulations are only a cautionary measure. I am sure you will all, including the media, collaborate with the relevant agencies.

You will note that around you life is continuing as normal. I wish to take this opportunity to thank you all for acting in a responsible manner.

My message to our development partners and our neighbors is that we wish them to work with us to take Fiji forward. We shall be liaising with them individually in due course.

Over the next few days new decrees shall be issued.

My focus over the next few days together with the president’s office shall be to ensure that all the key provisions pertaining to governance and services and an independent judiciary are put in place.

I thank you once again ladies and gentlemen and my fellow citizens for your attention.

Oh well, at least this will shut up the people who actually thought it was okay that he took over in the first place. It's another one of those Chávez-type things: some new guy is sticking it to the man (in this case "the man" being racially charged election laws) and lots of people flock to him.

But here's the deal: people who do military coups don't go by their own free will. They are used to command chains and to having everyone follow their lead. That just isn't compatible with democracy or pluralism.

Alas, the only thing I take slightly personally is the decision to take over the central bank. Maybe it's time for a compulsory UN requirement for all national leaders and their immediate environment to attend a 12-week crash course in basic economics, sponsored by the various UN economic organisations?

...It's another one of those Chávez-type things: some new guy is sticking it to the man (in this case "the man" being racially charged election laws) and lots of people flock to him...

You're drawing a very long bow equating Bainimarama with Chávez. When all is said and done, Chávez was elected. Since his election he has altered things to suit himself and increased his power but, let's face it 1) He will faces re-election and 2) You simply don't like his socialist policies.

But here's the deal: people who do military coups don't go by their own free will. They are used to command chains and to having everyone follow their lead. That just isn't compatible with democracy or pluralism.

My take on supposedly "idealistic" military coups such as Bainimarama's and Musharraf's is that, no matter the reason for them, the perpetrators almost always lack political legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled. To counter the lack of legitimacy, coup leaders invariably end up further removing political rights. It seems to happen over and over again.

Alas, the only thing I take slightly personally is the decision to take over the central bank. Maybe it's time for a compulsory UN requirement for all national leaders and their immediate environment to attend a 12-week crash course in basic economics, sponsored by the various UN economic organisations?

Why would you take personally, governments that have different economic ideals to you your own?

2) You simply don't like his socialist policies.
I don't like Chavez cause he's a total dick. Policies not withstanding.

My take on supposedly "idealistic" military coups such as Bainimarama's and Musharraf's is that, no matter the reason for them, the perpetrators almost always lack political legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled. To counter the lack of legitimacy, coup leaders invariably end up further removing political rights. It seems to happen over and over again.

This happens in ANY coup and is the basic reason why I point out that, no, it's NOT okay to coup for any ideology.

You're drawing a very long bow equating Bainimarama with Chávez. When all is said and done, Chávez was elected.
The second time around. Don't forget: Chávez was a wannabe military dictator, who just so happened to try an alternative path to power once he got out of jail. That doesn't change what I'm saying about the men themselves: they're military officers who expect everyone and everything to comply to their will.

Since his election he has altered things to suit himself and increased his power but, let's face it 1) He will faces re-election and 2) You simply don't like his socialist policies.
1) Yes, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with pluralism. Chávez doesn't do opposition very well, he's incapable of normal political discourse: it's not the guy from the other party who happens to disagree on a policy, it's the "enemy of the people and the revolution". Note the martial language. Hence why Venezuela doesn't have normal, calm and collected politics and normal elections anymore.
2) Is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I don't think I've ever made a secret of my objections to Chávez economic policies. It is worth noting though that I haven't been wrong so far...

My take on supposedly "idealistic" military coups such as Bainimarama's and Musharraf's is that, no matter the reason for them, the perpetrators almost always lack political legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled. To counter the lack of legitimacy, coup leaders invariably end up further removing political rights. It seems to happen over and over again.
Yeah, but why is their response to a lack of legitimacy to outlaw opposition in some form or another? Because they don't know how to operate outside a world in which their will is absolute law, which is what the military is.

Why would you take personally, governments that have different economic ideals to you your own?
I don't care what ideals they have. Sweden's government has different economic ideals to mine. Hell, Australia's does too.

But by taking over the central bank and using it to impose capital controls and print money, or even just forcing it to conduct monetary policy according to their will, they are going against reality itself. There is simple, straight-forward, neutral evidence that says an independent central bank produces superior results (except if you like inflation, of course). There is simple, straight-forward, neutral evidence that says printing money is not a good idea. And there is less straight-forward but no less neutral evidence that capital controls don't work either (especially if you're using them to combat a loss of faith in the domestic currency by your own citizens).

If Bainimarama wants to create a socialist paradise, that's his problem and eventually that of the people he imposes it on. But regardless of whatever we may think about his ultimate goals, the means are not up to interpretation. We may disagree about what sort of architectural style we like, but that doesn't mean you can build a house out of soap bubbles.

So whenever a government tries to use non-sensical tools, like price controls, monetising deficits and so on, it's not just an affront against their people. It's a failure to appreciate that for all its faults, economics aims to describe the real world no less than any other science does. And while it's fuzzy at the edges, there are some things we know. For certain. And just because you happen to be able to write laws doesn't excuse you from certain constraints imposed by reality.

But here's the deal: people who do military coups don't go by their own free will. They are used to command chains and to having everyone follow their lead. That just isn't compatible with democracy or pluralism.

He did go by his own free will in 2000. Which is probably why some believed he might this time.

I remain curious about his long-term plans... if he even has any. Whether he's just developed a taste for power, or whether he honestly still is looking for a long-term exit that will enable him to step down while keeping Qarase out of office and avoiding jail himself. With his new repressive policies, he's writing himself into the proverbial corner.


Alas, the only thing I take slightly personally is the decision to take over the central bank.

You would. You recognise no human right higher than monetary issues. Violations of freedom of the press? Arbitrary summons to police offices or military barracks? Not a concern?


Maybe it's time for a compulsory UN requirement for all national leaders and their immediate environment to attend a 12-week crash course in basic economics, sponsored by the various UN economic organisations?

That would be an interesting idea - if they could agree on sound economics in the current world context. After all, some people still espouse the bad ole' Reaganomics even now. Equally to the point, try getting Kim Jong-il or Robert Mugabe to sit down to an international course on economics. ;)

The second time around. Don't forget: Chávez was a wannabe military dictator, who just so happened to try an alternative path to power once he got out of jail. That doesn't change what I'm saying about the men themselves: they're military officers who expect everyone and everything to comply to their will.

I don't think anyone would deny that Chavez has a bully streak. But surely you won't fault him for going to the ballot box. Venezuela remains a democracy. I don't think you're a TAI-type - i.e., "democracy is bad and must be violently opposed if it brings people I don't like to power".


2) Is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But I don't think I've ever made a secret of my objections to Chávez economic policies. It is worth noting though that I haven't been wrong so far...

Given that you (a former self-professed socialist) oppose all forms of social policies, "wrong" depends on your priorities. He has brought a lot of people out of poverty. But since you once said explicitly that the poor and crippled should be left to die rather than receive any emergency financial assistance from the State, I'm not surprised that doesn't rank highly on your list of laudable achievements.


If Bainimarama wants to create a socialist paradise

He doesn't. I don't think he has any coherent ideological framework. I can't recall what politicians exactly are still in his government, but the FLP cut its ties with him long ago.

Bainimarama is now talking about deregulating the economy, cutting down on bureaucracy and civil service interference in the private sector... while apparently doing pretty much the opposite. I presume some bunch of advisers are dictating his financial policy to him, but it's looking messy and ill-defined.

One thing he is most definitely not is a socialist.


And just because you happen to be able to write laws doesn't excuse you from certain constraints imposed by reality.

Indeed.

You would. You recognise no human right higher than monetary issues. Violations of freedom of the press? Arbitrary summons to police offices or military barracks? Not a concern?
All those things are standard issue among his type. Those don't surprise me, though they may surprise some people who weren't opposed to the coup when it first happened, I don't know. That's not saying I agree with them, obviously I don't. But governments imagining laws make economies rather than the other way around is just one of my pet hates.

That would be an interesting idea - if they could agree on sound economics in the current world context. After all, some people still espouse the bad ole' Reaganomics even now. Equally to the point, try getting Kim Jong-il or Robert Mugabe to sit down to an international course on economics. ;)
I don't know what Reaganomics is, and I doubt its supporters do either. But that's a debate for another day. The point is that, contrary to popular belief, there actually is such a thing as economics, the science, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what you see on the news as "economic commentary". There are plenty enough entirely uncontroversial cause-effect relationships these people should be taught, because they evidently don't understand them. And make attendance a necessary requirement to being allowed to say anything at the General Assembly (and maybe they can do a test at the end, and you mark determines how long your speech is allowed to be...), and you'll get plenty of marginal tinpot types showing up.

I don't think anyone would deny that Chavez has a bully streak. But surely you won't fault him for going to the ballot box. Venezuela remains a democracy. I don't think you're a TAI-type - i.e., "democracy is bad and must be violently opposed if it brings people I don't like to power".
Well, my issues with democracy are on a different level to that. I'm just saying that Chávez tried to take over by force, and got thrown into jail. Then his supporters organised a political movement which happened to be populist enough to have a chance in an election, so he went with that. Surely no one would actually claim that Chávez is a democrat at heart. And it shows in the way democracy has developed in that country since he took sole control of public political discourse. He's not about forming a government to take care of the country for a while, he's about a revolution and crushing its enemies.

Given that you (a former self-professed socialist) oppose all forms of social policies, "wrong" depends on your priorities. He has brought a lot of people out of poverty. But since you once said explicitly that the poor and crippled should be left to die rather than receive any emergency financial assistance from the State, I'm not surprised that doesn't rank highly on your list of laudable achievements.
We'll see the value of his achievements in a few years' time. As it is, the numbers that come out of these government departments are hardly reliable, and the quality of the education in particular that people get in these "mission" schools is, at least by anecdotal evidence, poor. At the same time, the policies are producing the usual side effects, namely rampant inflation, a government monopolisation of the food supply, cronyism, a vast black economy and the corresponding crime and so on. So in order to finance the missions, he's using up the country like a resource. He apparently thinks the missions are an investment that will eventually pay off and rescue him from the damage caused now*. They aren't and they won't.

And that's quite apart from any issues I may have with forced charity.

I presume some bunch of advisers are dictating his financial policy to him, but it's looking messy and ill-defined.
Well, the answer is astonishingly simple in his case. You wouldn't actually need an economist to know it.

Fiji has one thing it can do profitably right now, and that is tourism. Every other aspect of the economy relies on foreign development aid. He needs to go, the aid will come back and the economy gets back on its tracks. Problem solved.

It's just that asking a type like this to remove himself from office is a waste of perfectly good breath.

*Which is, ironically enough, actually extremely close to the underlying logic behind what people call "Reaganomics"...certainly closer than most things Reagan did.

You're drawing a very long bow equating Bainimarama with Chávez. When all is said and done, Chávez was elected. Since his election he has altered things to suit himself and increased his power but, let's face it 1) He will faces re-election and 2) You simply don't like his socialist policies.

To be fair, as a younger man Chávez attempted to lead a military coup against the democratically elected Andrés Pérez.

My take on supposedly "idealistic" military coups such as Bainimarama's and Musharraf's is that, no matter the reason for them, the perpetrators almost always lack political legitimacy in the eyes of the ruled. To counter the lack of legitimacy, coup leaders invariably end up further removing political rights. It seems to happen over and over again.

So true. It's a terrible precedent; I would call it an alternative claim to legitimacy which once used rears its head again and again. Governments brought to power by coup are often overthrown by coup, even if they have since gained the legitimacy of popular election.

I can think of exceptions. The Meiji restoration, De Gaulle, Aquino. But overwhelmingly, military coup is a disaster for any country. De Gaulle was a 'pre-emptive counter-coup' to win loyalty from the military, and in the Philippines a divided military was won over by peaceful protest.

The examples where coup has lead to counter-coup, where it has led to military adventurism, or to gross oppression (holding power by the means it uses to gain power, brute force) outnumber the exceptions a hundred to one.

The military attracts those who are heirarchical, then it trains them to follow the orders of superiors, and command inferiors. With power, command; without power, obey. The military is a good servant and a terrible master, in politics.

Once the military has a taste of political command, it is very hard to rehabilitate it to be once again a good servant. So military coups are a total bummer for any country.

I don't know what Reaganomics is, and I doubt its supporters do either. But that's a debate for another day. The point is that, contrary to popular belief, there actually is such a thing as economics, the science, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what you see on the news as "economic commentary". There are plenty enough entirely uncontroversial cause-effect relationships these people should be taught, because they evidently don't understand them.


I can agree with you there.


And make attendance a necessary requirement to being allowed to say anything at the General Assembly (and maybe they can do a test at the end, and you mark determines how long your speech is allowed to be...), and you'll get plenty of marginal tinpot types showing up.

Interesting idea, but utterly unfeasible. Leaving aside, of course, the question of why they should be trained solely in economics.


We'll see the value of his achievements in a few years' time. As it is, the numbers that come out of these government departments are hardly reliable, and the quality of the education in particular that people get in these "mission" schools is, at least by anecdotal evidence, poor. At the same time, the policies are producing the usual side effects, namely rampant inflation, a government monopolisation of the food supply, cronyism, a vast black economy and the corresponding crime and so on. So in order to finance the missions, he's using up the country like a resource. He apparently thinks the missions are an investment that will eventually pay off and rescue him from the damage caused now*. They aren't and they won't.

*nods* We'll see what happens. But I think it would be difficult to argue that his policies haven't had a beneficial impact on the lives of many people - definitely in the short term, and probably also in the long term, to some extent at least. At least in the fields of health and literacy, for example.

The Right has had its day, a long one, in Latin America. It failed to improve living standards for most people. Democracy has now swung the continent to the Left - Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia... Different types of Left (I'm sure you can support the Chilean version, for example), but unrestricted capitalism has failed in the eyes of the citizens, who feel it's time to repair the damage. Good luck to them.


Well, the answer is astonishingly simple in his case. You wouldn't actually need an economist to know it.

Fiji has one thing it can do profitably right now, and that is tourism. Every other aspect of the economy relies on foreign development aid. He needs to go, the aid will come back and the economy gets back on its tracks. Problem solved.

The economic problem would be solved. Short-term. Fiji's problem are much more deep-rooted than that. Given that the political party supported by the majority explicitly bases its policies on racial differentiation, and gets votes by hyping up ethnic tensions, a return to democracy under present conditions would almost certainly bring back problems of its own. Which is not to say that Bainimarama's current repressive actions are in any way justifiable, but it's naive to think that Fiji's problems will all magically be solved if he steps down. All four of Fiji's coups, and the economic downturns they provoked, were due in large part to issues revolving around the place of ethnic communities in Fijian society and politics. Bainimarama is right about one thing, even if his actions aren't helping: Fiji's "coup culture" won't be solved simply by fresh elections. And if it persists, the economy will continue to suffer.


= = = = = =

From the BBC:


Democratic future fades for Fiji (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7996581.stm)

As Fiji's armed forces strengthen their control over the troubled South Pacific archipelago, there are warnings the country risks further international isolation and economic hardship as democracy continues to fade.

A turbulent week has seen the military government that seized power in 2006 declared illegal by a panel of senior judges, which prompted an ailing president to tear up the constitution, sack the judiciary and reinstate army strongman Commodore Frank Bainimarama.

"The country's about to fall off a cliff," Professor Helen Ware from Australia's University of New England told the BBC.

"They're going to be in an impossible situation, they don't have a constitution, or a legally constituted government or any obvious way of getting themselves back onto the straight and narrow."

For almost a decade Commodore Bainimarama, an indigenous Fijian, has been a mighty figure in domestic politics.

As head of the country's most powerful organisation, the military, he guided Fiji through the chaos of a nationalist uprising in 2000, only to eventually turn on the man he helped to become prime minister in that uncertain post-coup period, Laisenia Qarase, a retired banker.

Ethnic tensions

The Qarase government, accused of dishonesty and of discriminating against Fiji's ethnic Indian minority, was ousted by Bainimarama's troops in December 2006.

"I think he [Cmdr Bainimarama] is genuine in his views about both racism and corruption," explained Prof Ware.

"Fiji's always had a difficulty in balancing the rights of the native Fijians against the Indians who were originally brought in as indentured labourers.

"Like many people who lead coups, they don't necessarily start off with bad motives."

The army commander, a former UN peacekeeper, has repeatedly resisted international calls to set a timetable for fresh elections, insisting that before democracy is restored, he must cleanse a rotten political system and to create a fairer, multi-racial society.

But more than two years after becoming interim prime minister, Commodore Bainimarama's plans appear vague and worryingly open-ended.

Critics will ask if such a forceful character would be able to hand power back fully to an elected civilian.

His close ally, President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, has indicated that the military administration will serve for another five years and that Fijians will not get the chance to choose their own destiny at the ballot box until September 2014.

Australia's Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said recent events had made Fiji even more of a diplomatic outcast.

"They further isolate Fiji from the international community, they run the very grave risk of Fiji's economic and social circumstances further deteriorating and, of course, to suggest that an election will be held in 2014 is nothing more than a sham," Mr Smith said.

Canberra expects Fiji to be formally suspended from both the Pacific Islands Forum and the Commonwealth.

However, Daryl Tarte, chairman of the Fiji Media Council, believes such steps would simply amount to gesture politics.

"I don't think there is anything the international community can do," he told the BBC News website from his home in the Fijian capital, Suva.

"This is something we have to deal with ourselves here in Fiji."

Press curtailed

There is likely to be little, if any, public dissent against the country's new order, but under emergency measures military censors have moved in to stop the press publishing stories that could cause "disorder" or "promote disaffection or public alarm."

"It is tragic as far as the media is concerned," said Mr Tarte.

"The Bill of Rights no longer exists and that means we no longer have the right freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

"The media are all being censored."

Commodore Bainimarama has promised the people a "fresh start", but Fijians will no doubt wonder where his authoritarian style is taking them and their fragile country.

I can think of only two good military coups in history: the 1989 coup in Paraguay that ended the thirty-four year reign of right-wing military dictator Alfredo Stroessner, and the 1991 Malian coup that ended the twenty-one year reign of left-wing military dictator Moussa Traoré.

This is not to say that the coups were squeaky clean or that they had no bad side effects. The Paraguayan coup was rather bloody (about 50 deaths), and was not launched out of humanitarian concern, but only because its perpetrator, General Andrés Rodríguez sensed that Stroessner's time was up, and he wanted to abandon the sinking ship rather than go down with it (he had a well-known reputation for corruption; he was widely accused of trafficking drugs, and he owned a spacious palace while living on a meager salary). Even so, in both cases, unpopular dictatorships paved way to flawed, but generally successful democracies, and Rodríguez, for example, abolished the death penalty, ended the state of emergency (which had been in place almost continuously for decades), freed political prisoners, and enabled a free press.

This is not to say that coups are a good thing; the fact that, of several hundred examples, only two reaped positive results, says that (obviously) these are extremely rare exceptions, not the rule.

As for Fiji, doesn't it have a history of this sort of thing?

I can think of only two good military coups in history: the 1989 coup in Paraguay that ended the thirty-four year reign of right-wing military dictator Alfredo Stroessner, and the 1991 Malian coup that ended the twenty-one year reign of left-wing military dictator Moussa Traoré.The army in Turkey has seized power three or four times since Kemal Attaturk's days, set things in order (according to its own standards) and then handed power back to elected civilian governments. I don't know whether this would still be the case, but apparently there was considerable public support at the time for at least some of those coups because the army's leaders proclaimed themselves to be -- and were publicly seen as -- "protecting Attaurk's legacy"...

I can think of only two good military coups in history: the 1989 coup in Paraguay that ended the thirty-four year reign of right-wing military dictator Alfredo Stroessner, and the 1991 Malian coup that ended the twenty-one year reign of left-wing military dictator Moussa Traoré.


No love for Portugal? :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

No love for Portugal? :( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

Damn, I knew I was forgetting one! Thanks. :)

:fluffle:

He's a military dictator. He deserves to get shot, among other reasons, because Médici, Geisel, Castelo Branco, Costa e Silva and Pinochet didn't.

So because a few other dictators didn't get shot we should kill him simply because somehow it will right a wrong?

Come now H2, I thought you were better than this.

Besides, no. I'm not at all like TAI. I want democracy restored to Fiji by the Fijians, and I want it now.

You mean like Bainimarama? Sorry you feel the same way, you die.

Uh huh. No more judges!

Man, Fiji is an embarrassment to the South Pacific.

No more than Kiwiland :p

In latest news, the UN Security Council ain't happy (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=30534&Cr=fiji&Cr1=).


As for Fiji, doesn't it have a history of this sort of thing?

Fiji has had four coups - three military, one civilian.

In 1987, Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka overthrew the government, twice, for openly racist reasons. The Labour-led government had an indigenous Prime Minister, but many other members of government were Indo-Fijians, and Rabuka decreed that this was intolerable. His regime led to the racist 1990 Constitution, which effectively restricted Indians' participation in government. Under the new Constitution, Rabuka was "democratically" elected Prime Minister.

Indians fled the country in great numbers, leading to a significant indigenous numerical superiority, which continues today.

Then he had a change of heart. He began to swing the other way and state publicly that Indians should not be discriminated again. He supported the 1997 Constitution, which removed (most) of the racist provisions of the 1990 one (while still stating that racial discrimination may be legal in some circumstances). Since then, Rabuka has regularly published statements in the press defending the idea of an inclusive multi-ethnic society. (When he's not coaching rugby teams.)

In 1999, Fiji's citizens elected an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry, for the first time. In 2000, failed businessman George Speight took him hostage with his own private armed militia - a civilian coup. Speight is of mixed white and indigenous descent, but presented himself as a defender of indigenous supremacy. His rhetoric was the same as Rabuka's earlier one: it is intolerable that Indians can be elected to power, etc, etc...

In 2006, after three racist coups, Fiji had its first anti-racist coup.

In 1987, Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka overthrew the government, twice, for openly racist reasons. The Labour-led government had an indigenous Prime Minister, but many other members of government were Indo-Fijians, and Rabuka decreed that this was intolerable. His regime led to the racist 1990 Constitution, which effectively restricted Indians' participation in government. Under the new Constitution, Rabuka was "democratically" elected Prime Minister.

Indians fled the country in great numbers, leading to a significant indigenous numerical superiority, which continues today.Before which they actually outnumbered the indigenous people slightly, yes? Without actually condoning the coup, I can see why that ratio annoyed many of the indigenous people...

Before which they actually outnumbered the indigenous people slightly, yes? Without actually condoning the coup, I can see why that ratio annoyed many of the indigenous people...

In 1986, Indians constituted 48.7% of the population, and indigenous Fijians 46% (or 47.2%, counting Rotumans). Any fear this provoked was of course utterly irrational, and stoked by populists for their own political agenda. The Constitution protected indigenous political and land rights. Rabuka, and the indigenous nationalist politicians who supported him, played on people's ignorance of the country's institutions and Constitutions. Indians were never a threat to indigenous rights.

In 1986, Indians constituted 48.7% of the population, and indigenous Fijians 46% (or 47.2%, counting Rotumans). Any fear this provoked was of course utterly irrational, and stoked by populists for their own political agenda. The Constitution protected indigenous political and land rights. Rabuka, and the indigenous nationalist politicians who supported him, played on people's ignorance of the country's institutions and Constitutions. Indians were never a threat to indigenous rights.I didn't say that I thought the natives concern was "rational", I said that I could understand it... There they are living in the same land where their ancestors have lived since time immemorial, and there's this relatively massive population of immigrant stock -- whose own ancestors had originally been invited into the country by a foreign power (Okay, I admit it, by the British Empire...) rather than by the native leaders of that time, meaning that they could still be seen as "uninvited guests" by some of the indigenes -- that has a significantly different cultural background to the indigenous people and whose greater numerical strength gives it (at least potentially, depending on how each of those ethnoses is split between political parties) a greater say than the natives in the creation of that country's laws... Of course many of the indigenous people don't like the fact, I know damn well that if I were in their shoes then I wouldn't like it either.
After all, even though that constitution protects the natives 'land rights' and 'political rights' (with the latter including the right to block constitutional changes?), the cultural differences mean that there could still be considerable differences between the 'ordinary' laws that a majority of the indigenous people would favour on some matters and the laws that a majority of the 'Indo-Fijians' would prefer in those cases instead.

After all, even though that constitution protects the natives 'land rights' and 'political rights' (with the latter including the right to block constitutional changes?),


Yes. The Upper House of Parliament (the Senate) has, per the Constitution, a permanent indigenous majority. The Senate can block any constitutional amendment.


the cultural differences mean that there could still be considerable differences between the 'ordinary' laws that a majority of the indigenous people would favour on some matters and the laws that a majority of the 'Indo-Fijians' would prefer in those cases instead.

You're thinking solely in terms of ethnic blocks. One of the few good things about Bainimarama is that he wants to get people to stop thinking only in those terms, and to see themselves instead as fellow citizens of the same country. Goodness knows how he hopes to achieve that, though.

There are differences within each ethnic group. One of the reasons why the indigenous Right has kept playing the race card in recent years is precisely because some indigenous Fijians were beginning to think that they had more in common, in many ways, with ordinary Indo-Fijians than with the indigenous aristocracy. That's how Bavadra was elected in 1987, and Chaudhry in 2000: by appealing to the working and middles classes without ethnic distinction. The appeal drew in indigenous voters, prompting the Right to try and bring them back into a "racial" focus. The SDL also tried to counter Labour by claiming that "the Indians" were in control of the economy. Which is true to some extent, but, while a tiny number of Indians are over-represented among the richest in Fiji's society, Indians are also over-represented among the very poorest. A fact the SDL conveniently ignored, prefering to whip up racial antagonism by falsely claiming that Indians as a whole were privileged. (Qarase was very good at that.)

The main point is, Indians aren't a monolithic block. There are vast differences in economic status and education within the "Indian community". There are also religious differences, with a fairly significant Muslim minority - and a tiny number of Christians, who therefore share the same religion as most indigenous Fijians.


Of course many of the indigenous people don't like the fact, I know damn well that if I were in their shoes then I wouldn't like it either.

Other than denying human and citizenship rights to Indo-Fijians, I don't see what more can be done to entrench indigenous rights. Indians have been discriminated against for years; if democracy is to have any meaning, they must have rights as fellow citizens of their indigenous (and White and Asian and Pacific Islander) compatriots.

See, I can understand why indigenous Australians or indigenous New Zealanders feel they're not in control of their country. Because, of course, they aren't. But that's simply not true of indigenous Fijians. They need to accomodate the rights of the non-indigenous minorities, but that's a far cry from being "dominated" by them in any sense.