The Bainimarama government has finally dissolved the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), which had gained notoriety for delving into politics, aiding and abetting successive coups.
It even launched the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) political party in 1991 to the dismay of those who felt that it had seriously compromised its position and violated its charter.
The SVT Party enjoyed a landslide victory with the help of the racist 1990 Constitution with its wholly communal and first-past-the-post voting system.
However, it fared badly at the 1999 polls conducted under the provisions of the 1997 Constitution.
The GCC’s chosen candidate for leading the Government, Lt Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, the person who executed the first military coup on May 14, 1987, subsequently resigned from Parliament but the GCC rewarded by appointing him as the GCC Chairman.
This was a departure from the norm where the GCC membership and Chairmanship were restricted to the Chiefs.
Highhanded behaviour
The formation of the SVT Party clearly established that the GCC was heavily politicised. The GCC also realised, following the first coup, that it had the influence and power to dictate as to who should be the Prime Minister and which Party should govern Fiji.
In essence, an Indo-Fijian dominated party and an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, even if democratically elected were unacceptable.
The GCC shared the same hymn-sheet with the nationalists, advocating indigenous Fijian political supremacy, racial discrimination and marginalisation of Indo-Fijians.
In executing the first coup, Colonel Rabuka had used the cover of the chiefly system, claiming that the election of the Timoci Bavadra Government saw leakage of votes to coalition parties and it clearly showed that the young people were ignoring or defying the old values, their chiefs and elders.
This claim primed the chiefs, as they saw Colonel Rabuka as their benefactor.
However, it later emerged that it was merely a façade and Colonel Rabuka had other designs that eventually saw him, a commoner, become the Prime Minister of Fiji, as chiefs were relegated to the periphery of the indigenous political landscape.
Political stooges
The chiefs were valued for the influence they had over their people when it came to harvesting the votes from their subjects. They became the tools of political parties namely, the Alliance Party (1966-1987) and SVT Party (1991-1999).
They became powerful in uniting indigenous Fijians and getting them to vote for the “official” party. Essentially, from position of power and influence in the pre-coup days, the chiefs’ residual value became one of subservience to their political masters, largely comprising commoners.
Effectively, a reciprocal relationship was established in the coup-era between the two elements and in return, the chiefs retained their traditional positions, meeting, partying, feasting and retaining the traditional rewards that included sharing in rental incomes that belonged to the indigenous landowners.
The Bainimarama government has now cancelled this practice.
What the Chiefs did or achieved at their meetings remains a mystery. They had Constitutional duties of appointing the President and Senators but these did not require several meetings every year. They were well looked after and the Laisenia Qarase Government had intended to reward them with a $40 million Meeting House. It was under construction in 2006 when the Fijian military deposed the government and suspended the GCC.
The government is now using the building.
Monstrous Nonsense
In the past, several reports that called for the review of the Fijian Administration were repudiated and condemned by the chiefs and indigenous Fijian politicians.
The Review would have had an adverse impact on the GCC and compromised the privileged positions of the beneficiaries.
In 1964, Dr Rusiate Nayacakalou, an indigenous Fijian academic, in his book, ‘Leadership in Fiji,’ expressed his consternation at the Fijian premise on embracing both democracy and the traditional system.
He said, “On the one hand ,there are expressions of disappointment that they are not being helped enough to enter the modern world of competitive economic enterprise, while on the other, there is emphatic demand that they must not change their way of life. It seems to me that one of the greatest obstacles facing Fijians today is the failure to recognise that there is contradiction; they must now make the momentous choice between preserving and changing their way of life. The belief that they can do both is a monstrous nonsense.
Imperial benefits
Dr Fereti Seru Dewa wrote in Fiji Sun (April 13, 2007) differently.
He said, “There is nothing traditional about the GCC or even chiefs’ positions. These are all creations of British imperialists who diverted the natural order of Fijian society to make it easier for them to rule. Traditionally, the Fijian society, prior to contact with Europe, was led by chiefs who had the right to rule, not just by their birthright but by their intelligence, their ability to lead their people wisely and their prowess in battle.”
Sadly, none of the indigenous Fijian politicians alerted their people on the need for change and adjustments for their benefit. The GCC became embedded in the local political network and their role and that of individual chiefs diminished considerably since the colonial period (1874-1970). The prime responsibility of the chiefs subsequently was to serve their political masters in a desperate bid to retain their privileged position.
Their works complemented each other but the fruits of their works, failed to reach ordinary indigenous Fijians. Most lived in abject poverty but their loyalty to their chiefs and politicians remained strong.
Poverty amidst plenty
In a nation with abundant resources, indigenous Fijian poverty is due to monumental failure of indigenous Fijian leadership, including the chiefs.
Yet, they escaped censure or scrutiny because they used Indo-Fijians as villains impeding indigenous Fijian success in the social and economic sectors. This lie continued to hound indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians suffered racial backlash that resulted in many being evicted from their homes and farms. It was a cruel and ruthless endeavour of the GCC and indigenous Fijian politicians who showed sheer malice and hatred against Indo-Fijians.
Interestingly, the GCC has not met since it was suspended in December 2006. Over five years have passed and indigenous Fijians or Fiji has not missed the GCC, except those that used it as their political tool. It clearly reaffirms the point that that the GCC was not only a negative but also a deeply disruptive and a divisive force. It was an institution that seriously disadvantaged the social, political and economic development of ordinary indigenous Fijians and caused great pain and suffering to Indo-Fijians. Its demise should not be mourned but celebrated.
Rajendra Prasad is our commentator and contributor living in Auckland.
Email: raj.prasad@xtra.co.nz
