The last article in this series highlighted the emergence of vanua politics on the national stage and how this influenced the process followed in the formation of the 1990 constitution and its aftermath.
Fiji politics at that juncture was heavily influenced by indigenous Fijian politics and this constrained both the growth of the economy as well as national development. This also became an issue of national concern because it had the innate potential to destabilise the country.
Observers were well aware of how with the fall of the 1970 constitution and subsequent destabilisation of the traditional chiefly system, factions had emerged among the Fijians who had always been seen as a homogenous community.
The emergence of the Fijian Association Party in 1994 just seven years after the Fijianprotection justified coup of 1987 clearly showed that there would never again be Fijian unity under one political banner.
The FAP was headed by Josevata Kamikamica and had strong support from a wide range of chiefs. On the other hand, Rabuka was still juggling with disparate factions that constantly forced him to change his political imperatives.
On the Indo-Fijian side, Mahendra Chaudhry’s Fiji Labour Party and Jai Ram Reddy’s National Federation Party appeared to be locked in a bitter political impasse with Reddy proposing co-operation for a review of the 1990 constitution.
For analytical purposes, the political framework that had featured two bloc electorates had fragmented. This changed and continued to change after 1987 as the bi-polar political equation that had guided Fiji politics became multi-polar.
There was a gradual realisation that appealing to a narrow electoral base no longer guaranteed power and the helm of government. The experiences of 1987 were also instructive in that it brought home the significance of the need for sound economic policies in managing the tottering economy.
As local capital and skills fled the country, tax free zones were set up to attract foreign direct investment. Garment and footwear factories took up the generous 13-year tax holidays on offer.
These, however, were not homegrown industries and had the potential to flee with any winds of change. In a bold and populist move, lending rules were relaxed at the National Bank of Fiji (NBF).
This was meant to fuel entrepreneurial activity, especially among the indigenous communities, and help generate economic growth for the country in the aftermath of the flight of capital with the emigration of Indo-Fijians.
Suva was abuzz with briefcase-toting business aspirants. A number of colourful figures attempted to help in this regard by embarking on a fanciful government-paid project aimed at attracting $200 million from Kuwait.
The picturesque Soqulu Estate in Taveuni was also offered for sale in Hong Kong at a time when land was a hugely sensitive issue. None of these made any dent as the economy continued to decline. Political change was imperative. It was time for hard decisions.
Winds of change
The national significance of the flight of homemade skills and capital was not lost on the more perceptive. Ratu Mara had known this all along. Josevata Kamikamica began to espouse this in the lead-up to the 1994 elections.
It is basic economics that the total output of a country depends on consumption, investment and government activity. The Indo-Fijians featured in all three, but made a particularly strong contribution to investment.
The indigenous Fijians were big in the other two – it was a shared economic wagon. Thus a consensus began to emerge in the country that a system of government which put one community in power to the total exclusion of another was not in the long term interests of the nation.
Political stability had to be established as that was ultimately the most important factor in attracting increased foreign investment in private sector development. Dormant local capital also needed to be mobilised.
In 1992, amid great recrimination, Jai Ram Reddy agreed to a terms of reference for a commission to review the 1990 constitution and a cabinet sub-committee was duly constituted.
Filipe Bole, the chair of the commission and 1987 coup insider, recognised that the 1990 constitution was ultimately a “divisive” document, which did not promote “national reconciliation, togetherness, and unity which (were) vital to the maintenance of political stability in Fiji”.
In 1993, Jai Ram Reddy addressed a General Voters Party (GVP) meeting where he thanked the executive for inviting him and said, “we must break down the old barriers that separate this nation; we must do away with that failed style of politics which is based on destructive and confrontational urges, which seems to thrive on dispute, constant verbal warfare and on impatient and petulant insistence that only one kind of agenda is right for the country.”
The above two developments are significant because Filipe Bole had been part of the inner circle that had planned the 1987 coup and helped hold it together in its turbulent immediate aftermath – he was very close to Rabuka.
On the other hand, Reddy’s invitation to speak at a GVP meeting clearly showed a marked departure from the past among our “other” or “general voter” community where they tended to shy away from appearing “close” to the Indo-Fijians.
Add to this positive signals from Government House and a reluctance from the Great Council of Chiefs to condemn the moves to review the 1990 constitution, and we had an unspoken virtual consensus for change.
As the constitution review process gained momentum, and sputtered at different junctures, Ambassador Don Gevirtz, a multimillionaire former California entrepreneur and former fundraiser for President Bill Clinton, arrived in Fiji as the new United States Ambassador in December 1995.
Shortly after his arrival, he called a press conference where he said that he would be closely monitoring Fiji’s constitutional review process as America was particularly concerned about human rights expectations.
He added that the US expected the new constitution to be more inclusive in its political provisions for Indo-Fijians. This appeared to show an uncharacteristic American concern to involve itself in what appeared to be an attempt at correcting a political wrong inflicted on foreign soil in the furtherance of US geopolitical interests.
There was a strong case to be made about US involvement in the 1987 coup. After all, Colonel Vernon Walters was in Fiji just before that coup. He was also linked to the Pinochet coup of 1973 in Chile.
Rabuka’s epiphany
There is no arguing that Rabuka played a pivotal role in the review of the 1990 constitution. Not only was he the PM, but he was greatly respected, trusted and relied on by the various indigenous Fijian factions that emerged from the 1987 coup.
He was particularly effective in allaying the concerns of the more extremist elements jockeying for power and influence at that point. When Ambassador Gevirtz mentioned the need for a more meaningful inclusion and political role for Indo-Fijians in the proposed new constitution at that fateful first conference in December 1995, Rabuka was reported to have bristled and seethed that the Ambassador had “crossed the line”.
He was very much a champion of the Fijian cause as the constitutional review process plodded along. He underlined his position by insisting: “what I have never been, and what I will never do, is to be disloyal to the Fijian and Rotuman communities, and to give away what I had personally sacrificed myself to achieve in 1987.”
Rabuka, however, was silently accepting of the position that there needed to be some sort of accommodation for the Indo- Fijian community as they were an integral part of the Fiji economy first and Fiji society by extension as a matter of inevitability.
As mentioned earlier, Filipe Bole had softened his stance. Ratu Meli Vesikula, another hardliner, declared publicly that what had happened in 1987 was unchristian. Ambassador Gevirtz had begun to host both Rabuka and Reddy for informal discussions at his residence.
The Reverend Ilaitia Tuwere, a highly respected senior member and president of the Methodist Church, had begun to speak against the politics of division. The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dr Apenisa Kurisaqila, a highly respected gentleman, had also urged Rabuka to have private discussions with Reddy.
Rabuka was to later admit that international contacts and travel had influenced him in his thinking along with the broadening and sobering experience of being the leader of a multiracial country. The Rabuka of 1997 was clearly not the Rabuka of 1987.
A brand new 1997 Constitution was on the way. We will delve further into the 1997 Constitution in the next article.
• DR SUBHASH APPANNA has been writing occasionally on issues of historical and national significance. This series was triggered by a recent reference to Fijians of Indian Descent as vulagi by an aspiring politician. The views expressed in this article are his alone and not those of The Fiji Times or his employer.
