The Fijian Church Connection
August 7 2009
The latest political crisis to hit Fiji involves a monumental face-off between the military on one side and the Methodist Church, fronted by paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa, on the other. Many here will be wondering and dangerously speculating about the potential fallout from this unseemly fracas. This article attempts to discuss some of the main issues involved in traditional Fijian politics that have surfaced in this case.
It is no secret that what is seen as the traditional Fijian system is predicated on 3 pedestals: the lotu, matanitu and vanua (church, government and a social-cosmological morph). The concept of vanua is often misunderstood and misused by opportunists especially in the political domain.
Renowned academic Steven Ratuva says the term vanua refers to a conglomeration of three forms of inter-relationships: the territorial sphere (qele), social kinship (veiwekani) and the cosmological dimension (yavutu and vu) (Ratuva, Suva, April 2, 2002). That’s the best attempt at defining this nebulous concept, which also underpins the Bainimarama-Methodist rift in Fiji.
The lotu (church) is very much a part of Fijian life. Its original spiritual role was modified by early missionaries to educate the “natives” to conform to a “civilized” way of life. This social role was later complemented with the soli and fund-raising, so that the church’s economic agenda could be met. And as enlightenment dawned on the political significance of the church, pastors joined the queue to political prominence.
The matanitu, on the other hand, encompassed governance and government. At the centre of this concept lay the traditional chief and the chiefly system. Fijian confusion and political instability can be largely explained through the fact that Fijian chiefs no longer run central government as envisaged by the architects of newly-independent Fiji. The Fijian has had difficulties separating matanitu from central government. That’s why it has been so easy to mobilize Fijians to topple democratic governments.
The lotu and matanitu that had once been complementary forces became one after the 1987 coup. Rabuka centralized the role of the Methodist church and Manasa Lasaro in particular to cushion his precarious post-coup hold on power. It was Lasaro who led the infamous Sunday Ban campaign. The church thus became an integral part of national politics and government.
As power politics began to be played out ruthlessly using the lotu and matanitu, there were many disciples who watched and learnt with heightened personal ambitions. It is no secret that an aspiring Fijian politician had to have the active support of his church as there is no better mobilizing point given the religiosity of the Fijian polity.
Pumping the pulpit and beseeching divine assistance does help churn up adrenalin and channel minds towards votes that are markedly different from the informed choice vote of true democracies. The patronage of the pastors became so important that they began to be rewarded with plum political positions.
Manasa Lasaro and Tomasi Kanailagi, two powerful former heads of Fiji’s Methodist Church, were recipients of such gifts. These are the two men who Bainimarama wants removed from the church scene as they played key roles in openly politicizing the church. Bainimarama also sees them as potential rallying points for a groundswell against his regime.
Lasaro was a key figure in the coup of 1987 and Kanailagi rallied the clergy behind Speight-supporters in 2000. He was a key man in the Qarase government. Furthermore, Lasaro executed a coup within the Methodist church in 1989 and allegedly followed that up with a high-command supported attempt to brutalize his foe at his farm in Pacific Harbour. That is the other outstanding reconciliation within the haloed halls of the church.
Bainimarama is concerned about the distorting role played by the church in politics, hence his demand to remove the 2 pastors from the hierarchy. The church high command disagreed and attempted to rope in the traditional matanitu as the central government was unexpectedly unaccommodating.
Its wily strategists obtained the support of the highest chief in Fiji at present, Ro Teimumu Kepa, the Roko Tui Dreketi. She was still smarting from her ouster from government, and made for a highly useful ally as the forthcoming annual church conference had been strategically scheduled to be hosted by her village, Lomanikoro.
The aim was to use the resilient lotu/matanitu link to daunt the Commodore. It failed, and Bainimarama remained resolute. In an interesting twist, the Vunivalu of Rewa, traditionally the main bulwark of the Roko Tui Dreketi, declared, "It is time for the vanua, church and the matanitu to draw their own respective lines across which the other two must never encroach” (FT 27/7/09).
He tried to minimize the significance of his apparent opposition to the stance taken by his paramount chief by adding, “In the process of involving the vanua, members of the Methodist Church and political party leaders managed to drag the Roko Tui Dreketi into the fray in a vain attempt to change the government's stand on the cancelled Methodist conference."
Attempts to delink the lotu from the matanitu continue, but the fallout would be difficult to predict. Should the church be separated from the government? Why? How will this affect the vanua and does the changing vanua need further changes to assist Fijians in a rapidly changing environment? These are questions that Fiji is grappling with. And the answers might be divinely inspired, but they will need genuine human effort to deliver.
--
The opinions contained here are Subhash Appana’s own and not necessarily shared by any organizations that he may be affiliated with, both here and overseas.
Email: subhasha@ais.ac.nz
It is no secret that what is seen as the traditional Fijian system is predicated on 3 pedestals: the lotu, matanitu and vanua (church, government and a social-cosmological morph). The concept of vanua is often misunderstood and misused by opportunists especially in the political domain.
Renowned academic Steven Ratuva says the term vanua refers to a conglomeration of three forms of inter-relationships: the territorial sphere (qele), social kinship (veiwekani) and the cosmological dimension (yavutu and vu) (Ratuva, Suva, April 2, 2002). That’s the best attempt at defining this nebulous concept, which also underpins the Bainimarama-Methodist rift in Fiji.
The lotu (church) is very much a part of Fijian life. Its original spiritual role was modified by early missionaries to educate the “natives” to conform to a “civilized” way of life. This social role was later complemented with the soli and fund-raising, so that the church’s economic agenda could be met. And as enlightenment dawned on the political significance of the church, pastors joined the queue to political prominence.
The matanitu, on the other hand, encompassed governance and government. At the centre of this concept lay the traditional chief and the chiefly system. Fijian confusion and political instability can be largely explained through the fact that Fijian chiefs no longer run central government as envisaged by the architects of newly-independent Fiji. The Fijian has had difficulties separating matanitu from central government. That’s why it has been so easy to mobilize Fijians to topple democratic governments.
The lotu and matanitu that had once been complementary forces became one after the 1987 coup. Rabuka centralized the role of the Methodist church and Manasa Lasaro in particular to cushion his precarious post-coup hold on power. It was Lasaro who led the infamous Sunday Ban campaign. The church thus became an integral part of national politics and government.
As power politics began to be played out ruthlessly using the lotu and matanitu, there were many disciples who watched and learnt with heightened personal ambitions. It is no secret that an aspiring Fijian politician had to have the active support of his church as there is no better mobilizing point given the religiosity of the Fijian polity.
Pumping the pulpit and beseeching divine assistance does help churn up adrenalin and channel minds towards votes that are markedly different from the informed choice vote of true democracies. The patronage of the pastors became so important that they began to be rewarded with plum political positions.
Manasa Lasaro and Tomasi Kanailagi, two powerful former heads of Fiji’s Methodist Church, were recipients of such gifts. These are the two men who Bainimarama wants removed from the church scene as they played key roles in openly politicizing the church. Bainimarama also sees them as potential rallying points for a groundswell against his regime.
Lasaro was a key figure in the coup of 1987 and Kanailagi rallied the clergy behind Speight-supporters in 2000. He was a key man in the Qarase government. Furthermore, Lasaro executed a coup within the Methodist church in 1989 and allegedly followed that up with a high-command supported attempt to brutalize his foe at his farm in Pacific Harbour. That is the other outstanding reconciliation within the haloed halls of the church.
Bainimarama is concerned about the distorting role played by the church in politics, hence his demand to remove the 2 pastors from the hierarchy. The church high command disagreed and attempted to rope in the traditional matanitu as the central government was unexpectedly unaccommodating.
Its wily strategists obtained the support of the highest chief in Fiji at present, Ro Teimumu Kepa, the Roko Tui Dreketi. She was still smarting from her ouster from government, and made for a highly useful ally as the forthcoming annual church conference had been strategically scheduled to be hosted by her village, Lomanikoro.
The aim was to use the resilient lotu/matanitu link to daunt the Commodore. It failed, and Bainimarama remained resolute. In an interesting twist, the Vunivalu of Rewa, traditionally the main bulwark of the Roko Tui Dreketi, declared, "It is time for the vanua, church and the matanitu to draw their own respective lines across which the other two must never encroach” (FT 27/7/09).
He tried to minimize the significance of his apparent opposition to the stance taken by his paramount chief by adding, “In the process of involving the vanua, members of the Methodist Church and political party leaders managed to drag the Roko Tui Dreketi into the fray in a vain attempt to change the government's stand on the cancelled Methodist conference."
Attempts to delink the lotu from the matanitu continue, but the fallout would be difficult to predict. Should the church be separated from the government? Why? How will this affect the vanua and does the changing vanua need further changes to assist Fijians in a rapidly changing environment? These are questions that Fiji is grappling with. And the answers might be divinely inspired, but they will need genuine human effort to deliver.
--
The opinions contained here are Subhash Appana’s own and not necessarily shared by any organizations that he may be affiliated with, both here and overseas.
Email: subhasha@ais.ac.nz
The latest political crisis to hit Fiji involves a monumental face-off between the military on one side and the Methodist Church, fronted by paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa, on the other. Many here will be wondering and dangerously speculating about the potential fallout from this unseemly fracas....
The latest political crisis to hit Fiji involves a monumental face-off between the military on one side and the Methodist Church, fronted by paramount chief Ro Teimumu Kepa, on the other. Many here will be wondering and dangerously speculating about the potential fallout from this unseemly fracas. This article attempts to discuss some of the main issues involved in traditional Fijian politics that have surfaced in this case.
It is no secret that what is seen as the traditional Fijian system is predicated on 3 pedestals: the lotu, matanitu and vanua (church, government and a social-cosmological morph). The concept of vanua is often misunderstood and misused by opportunists especially in the political domain.
Renowned academic Steven Ratuva says the term vanua refers to a conglomeration of three forms of inter-relationships: the territorial sphere (qele), social kinship (veiwekani) and the cosmological dimension (yavutu and vu) (Ratuva, Suva, April 2, 2002). That’s the best attempt at defining this nebulous concept, which also underpins the Bainimarama-Methodist rift in Fiji.
The lotu (church) is very much a part of Fijian life. Its original spiritual role was modified by early missionaries to educate the “natives” to conform to a “civilized” way of life. This social role was later complemented with the soli and fund-raising, so that the church’s economic agenda could be met. And as enlightenment dawned on the political significance of the church, pastors joined the queue to political prominence.
The matanitu, on the other hand, encompassed governance and government. At the centre of this concept lay the traditional chief and the chiefly system. Fijian confusion and political instability can be largely explained through the fact that Fijian chiefs no longer run central government as envisaged by the architects of newly-independent Fiji. The Fijian has had difficulties separating matanitu from central government. That’s why it has been so easy to mobilize Fijians to topple democratic governments.
The lotu and matanitu that had once been complementary forces became one after the 1987 coup. Rabuka centralized the role of the Methodist church and Manasa Lasaro in particular to cushion his precarious post-coup hold on power. It was Lasaro who led the infamous Sunday Ban campaign. The church thus became an integral part of national politics and government.
As power politics began to be played out ruthlessly using the lotu and matanitu, there were many disciples who watched and learnt with heightened personal ambitions. It is no secret that an aspiring Fijian politician had to have the active support of his church as there is no better mobilizing point given the religiosity of the Fijian polity.
Pumping the pulpit and beseeching divine assistance does help churn up adrenalin and channel minds towards votes that are markedly different from the informed choice vote of true democracies. The patronage of the pastors became so important that they began to be rewarded with plum political positions.
Manasa Lasaro and Tomasi Kanailagi, two powerful former heads of Fiji’s Methodist Church, were recipients of such gifts. These are the two men who Bainimarama wants removed from the church scene as they played key roles in openly politicizing the church. Bainimarama also sees them as potential rallying points for a groundswell against his regime.
Lasaro was a key figure in the coup of 1987 and Kanailagi rallied the clergy behind Speight-supporters in 2000. He was a key man in the Qarase government. Furthermore, Lasaro executed a coup within the Methodist church in 1989 and allegedly followed that up with a high-command supported attempt to brutalize his foe at his farm in Pacific Harbour. That is the other outstanding reconciliation within the haloed halls of the church.
Bainimarama is concerned about the distorting role played by the church in politics, hence his demand to remove the 2 pastors from the hierarchy. The church high command disagreed and attempted to rope in the traditional matanitu as the central government was unexpectedly unaccommodating.
Its wily strategists obtained the support of the highest chief in Fiji at present, Ro Teimumu Kepa, the Roko Tui Dreketi. She was still smarting from her ouster from government, and made for a highly useful ally as the forthcoming annual church conference had been strategically scheduled to be hosted by her village, Lomanikoro.
The aim was to use the resilient lotu/matanitu link to daunt the Commodore. It failed, and Bainimarama remained resolute. In an interesting twist, the Vunivalu of Rewa, traditionally the main bulwark of the Roko Tui Dreketi, declared, "It is time for the vanua, church and the matanitu to draw their own respective lines across which the other two must never encroach” (FT 27/7/09).
He tried to minimize the significance of his apparent opposition to the stance taken by his paramount chief by adding, “In the process of involving the vanua, members of the Methodist Church and political party leaders managed to drag the Roko Tui Dreketi into the fray in a vain attempt to change the government's stand on the cancelled Methodist conference."
Attempts to delink the lotu from the matanitu continue, but the fallout would be difficult to predict. Should the church be separated from the government? Why? How will this affect the vanua and does the changing vanua need further changes to assist Fijians in a rapidly changing environment? These are questions that Fiji is grappling with. And the answers might be divinely inspired, but they will need genuine human effort to deliver.
--
The opinions contained here are Subhash Appana’s own and not necessarily shared by any organizations that he may be affiliated with, both here and overseas.
Email: subhasha@ais.ac.nz
It is no secret that what is seen as the traditional Fijian system is predicated on 3 pedestals: the lotu, matanitu and vanua (church, government and a social-cosmological morph). The concept of vanua is often misunderstood and misused by opportunists especially in the political domain.
Renowned academic Steven Ratuva says the term vanua refers to a conglomeration of three forms of inter-relationships: the territorial sphere (qele), social kinship (veiwekani) and the cosmological dimension (yavutu and vu) (Ratuva, Suva, April 2, 2002). That’s the best attempt at defining this nebulous concept, which also underpins the Bainimarama-Methodist rift in Fiji.
The lotu (church) is very much a part of Fijian life. Its original spiritual role was modified by early missionaries to educate the “natives” to conform to a “civilized” way of life. This social role was later complemented with the soli and fund-raising, so that the church’s economic agenda could be met. And as enlightenment dawned on the political significance of the church, pastors joined the queue to political prominence.
The matanitu, on the other hand, encompassed governance and government. At the centre of this concept lay the traditional chief and the chiefly system. Fijian confusion and political instability can be largely explained through the fact that Fijian chiefs no longer run central government as envisaged by the architects of newly-independent Fiji. The Fijian has had difficulties separating matanitu from central government. That’s why it has been so easy to mobilize Fijians to topple democratic governments.
The lotu and matanitu that had once been complementary forces became one after the 1987 coup. Rabuka centralized the role of the Methodist church and Manasa Lasaro in particular to cushion his precarious post-coup hold on power. It was Lasaro who led the infamous Sunday Ban campaign. The church thus became an integral part of national politics and government.
As power politics began to be played out ruthlessly using the lotu and matanitu, there were many disciples who watched and learnt with heightened personal ambitions. It is no secret that an aspiring Fijian politician had to have the active support of his church as there is no better mobilizing point given the religiosity of the Fijian polity.
Pumping the pulpit and beseeching divine assistance does help churn up adrenalin and channel minds towards votes that are markedly different from the informed choice vote of true democracies. The patronage of the pastors became so important that they began to be rewarded with plum political positions.
Manasa Lasaro and Tomasi Kanailagi, two powerful former heads of Fiji’s Methodist Church, were recipients of such gifts. These are the two men who Bainimarama wants removed from the church scene as they played key roles in openly politicizing the church. Bainimarama also sees them as potential rallying points for a groundswell against his regime.
Lasaro was a key figure in the coup of 1987 and Kanailagi rallied the clergy behind Speight-supporters in 2000. He was a key man in the Qarase government. Furthermore, Lasaro executed a coup within the Methodist church in 1989 and allegedly followed that up with a high-command supported attempt to brutalize his foe at his farm in Pacific Harbour. That is the other outstanding reconciliation within the haloed halls of the church.
Bainimarama is concerned about the distorting role played by the church in politics, hence his demand to remove the 2 pastors from the hierarchy. The church high command disagreed and attempted to rope in the traditional matanitu as the central government was unexpectedly unaccommodating.
Its wily strategists obtained the support of the highest chief in Fiji at present, Ro Teimumu Kepa, the Roko Tui Dreketi. She was still smarting from her ouster from government, and made for a highly useful ally as the forthcoming annual church conference had been strategically scheduled to be hosted by her village, Lomanikoro.
The aim was to use the resilient lotu/matanitu link to daunt the Commodore. It failed, and Bainimarama remained resolute. In an interesting twist, the Vunivalu of Rewa, traditionally the main bulwark of the Roko Tui Dreketi, declared, "It is time for the vanua, church and the matanitu to draw their own respective lines across which the other two must never encroach” (FT 27/7/09).
He tried to minimize the significance of his apparent opposition to the stance taken by his paramount chief by adding, “In the process of involving the vanua, members of the Methodist Church and political party leaders managed to drag the Roko Tui Dreketi into the fray in a vain attempt to change the government's stand on the cancelled Methodist conference."
Attempts to delink the lotu from the matanitu continue, but the fallout would be difficult to predict. Should the church be separated from the government? Why? How will this affect the vanua and does the changing vanua need further changes to assist Fijians in a rapidly changing environment? These are questions that Fiji is grappling with. And the answers might be divinely inspired, but they will need genuine human effort to deliver.
--
The opinions contained here are Subhash Appana’s own and not necessarily shared by any organizations that he may be affiliated with, both here and overseas.
Email: subhasha@ais.ac.nz
Leave a Comment