Government by Greed: No Capacity for Business
In my last article on “Government by Greed” I wrote that a lot of hidden jealousies and dark aspirations surfaced after the 1987 coup as Rabuka locked Ratu Mara in a silent tussle for control of the out-of-control country. In the process, a host of disrespectful, undignified and fast interests were let loose and these began to make increasingly insistent demands for a piece of the spoils.
I say “spoils” because in any power grab that is one of the main motivators. Lots of theories have been offered on the May 1987 coup, and many of them do have authentic grounding like: US hegemonic and nuclear interests in the Pacific, Ratu Mara’s personal pride, fear of Indian domination, pressure from a local elite who had created a lifestyle with direct access to power and its accoutrements, etc.
The September 1987 coup however, was largely followed by raised ambitions and aspirations – it was fuelled by greed. Rabuka’s avowed mantra at that time was to “complete what (he) started”. And that was to enshrine Fijian self-determination firmly in Fijian hands. Noone was interested in defining what this meant, so long as it served power interests. And power interests carried with it the green card to national coffers.
All those bureaucrats, church ministers, politicians, etc. who had risen to the “call of duty” now saw the possibility of direct monetary rewards in the name of “Fijian business”. The National Bank of Fiji (NBF) was the first and easiest point of access as its new GM Visanti Makrava relaxed all set banking procedures in an attempt to accommodate the Fijian business aspiration.
In the process, he built a house on his island of Rotuma that is quietly referred to as “the palace”.
That was part of the perks of helping in the plunder and exclusive joints for “play” were to pop up around the country after that. The $230-300m pillage of NBF however, could not have been possible without Rabuka’s support as PM and it might have truly helped if the Fijians had been better prepared for business.
Fijians and Business
In any major national programme, the philosophy of the leader of the country plays a pivotal role in the ultimate shape and fate of the initiative. There is little arguing that Rabuka did believe that the Fijians lagged in business because of lack of government support and more importantly, because of an Indian stranglehold on Fiji’s commerce. There was little appreciation of the historical experiences and policies involved; a brief historical overview is therefore necessary here.
After Fiji’s cession in 1874, Governor Gordon’s “indirect rule” was designed to “seize the spirit in which native institutions had been framed, and develop to the utmost extent the capacities of the people for the management of their own affairs, without exciting their suspicion or destroying their self-respect” (quoted in Legge, 1958, p. 204). When Gordon established the Great Chiefly Council (later GCC and then Bose Levu Vakaturaqa or BLV) in 1875, he was enshrining the chief within the national government machinery.
In 1876, the Native Land Ordinance restricted Fijian employment within the paid economy. The Native Taxation Scheme allowed Fijians “to meet tax obligations in kind”. Land laws were designed to forbid further alienation of Fijian land, and to revert all “non-fee simple and non-Crown land in the colony” back into Fijian hands. With the establishment of the NLTB in 1940, land was centralized as the fountain that would meet Fijian economic needs.
A 1943 District Commissioners’ Conference decided that “it is imperative to maintain the closest possible connection between the individual and the land.” Furthermore, it exhorted the revitalising and retention of village society that lay at the basis of Fijian culture. The GCC endorsed this and for the next two decades the Fijian Administration, attempted to stem the tide of change by sheltering the Fijian from the money economy.
In an attempt to discourage participation in wage employment, Native Regulations restricted movement of Fijians into and out of villages. The galala concept that stimulated small holder agriculture among Fijians was suffocated. There were many other regulations that virtually “over-administered” life in Fijian villages. The justification was that these were needed to “secure the continuance of the Fijian communal system and the customs and observances traditionally associated with that system”.
The notion of Fijian economic enterprise is therefore, closely linked to concerns about cultural preservation. The village cocoon persisted into the 50s and early 60s entwining the Fijian in a web of regulations that stifled both his aspirations as well as opportunities. This orientation even led to an “us-n-them” mentality between village Fijians and those who lived on their farms in my own village of Vuna in Taveuni.
Thus while the Indo-Fijian continued to refine his commercial agricultural skills, cherished modern education, and entered into the world of modern commerce, the Fijian had little options but to find sanctuary in looking inwards towards his village and culture. This did precious little to prepare him for the wider world that was moving at an ever increasing pace around him.
When the “Fijians in business” philosophy was implemented by Rabuka in 1987, the Fijian was caught unprepared. His aspirations and hankering for the accoutrements of wealth however, was well honed by looking at the fruits of labour in the residential areas of Suva. The resentment emanating from this had increased in value as part of political rhetoric during elections.
Thus the Rabuka initiatives to help bring Fijians into business were doomed because of an absence of capacity among its recipients. What it did do was: create a heightened expectation of direct monetary assistance from government, loosen control on government resources, remove fear of the rule of law, centralize the role and power of the bureaucrat and release the coup genie. Fiji was indeed in for an era of Aladdin-type magic. Keep tuned for more.
Subhash Appana is an academic and political commentator. The opinions contained in this article are entirely his and not necessarily shared by any organizations he may be associated with both in Fiji and abroad. Email subhasha@ais.ac.nz
In my last article on “Government by Greed” I wrote that a lot of hidden jealousies and dark aspirations surfaced after the 1987 coup as Rabuka locked Ratu Mara in a silent tussle for control of the out-of-control country. In the process, a host of disrespectful, undignified and fast interests...
In my last article on “Government by Greed” I wrote that a lot of hidden jealousies and dark aspirations surfaced after the 1987 coup as Rabuka locked Ratu Mara in a silent tussle for control of the out-of-control country. In the process, a host of disrespectful, undignified and fast interests were let loose and these began to make increasingly insistent demands for a piece of the spoils.
I say “spoils” because in any power grab that is one of the main motivators. Lots of theories have been offered on the May 1987 coup, and many of them do have authentic grounding like: US hegemonic and nuclear interests in the Pacific, Ratu Mara’s personal pride, fear of Indian domination, pressure from a local elite who had created a lifestyle with direct access to power and its accoutrements, etc.
The September 1987 coup however, was largely followed by raised ambitions and aspirations – it was fuelled by greed. Rabuka’s avowed mantra at that time was to “complete what (he) started”. And that was to enshrine Fijian self-determination firmly in Fijian hands. Noone was interested in defining what this meant, so long as it served power interests. And power interests carried with it the green card to national coffers.
All those bureaucrats, church ministers, politicians, etc. who had risen to the “call of duty” now saw the possibility of direct monetary rewards in the name of “Fijian business”. The National Bank of Fiji (NBF) was the first and easiest point of access as its new GM Visanti Makrava relaxed all set banking procedures in an attempt to accommodate the Fijian business aspiration.
In the process, he built a house on his island of Rotuma that is quietly referred to as “the palace”.
That was part of the perks of helping in the plunder and exclusive joints for “play” were to pop up around the country after that. The $230-300m pillage of NBF however, could not have been possible without Rabuka’s support as PM and it might have truly helped if the Fijians had been better prepared for business.
Fijians and Business
In any major national programme, the philosophy of the leader of the country plays a pivotal role in the ultimate shape and fate of the initiative. There is little arguing that Rabuka did believe that the Fijians lagged in business because of lack of government support and more importantly, because of an Indian stranglehold on Fiji’s commerce. There was little appreciation of the historical experiences and policies involved; a brief historical overview is therefore necessary here.
After Fiji’s cession in 1874, Governor Gordon’s “indirect rule” was designed to “seize the spirit in which native institutions had been framed, and develop to the utmost extent the capacities of the people for the management of their own affairs, without exciting their suspicion or destroying their self-respect” (quoted in Legge, 1958, p. 204). When Gordon established the Great Chiefly Council (later GCC and then Bose Levu Vakaturaqa or BLV) in 1875, he was enshrining the chief within the national government machinery.
In 1876, the Native Land Ordinance restricted Fijian employment within the paid economy. The Native Taxation Scheme allowed Fijians “to meet tax obligations in kind”. Land laws were designed to forbid further alienation of Fijian land, and to revert all “non-fee simple and non-Crown land in the colony” back into Fijian hands. With the establishment of the NLTB in 1940, land was centralized as the fountain that would meet Fijian economic needs.
A 1943 District Commissioners’ Conference decided that “it is imperative to maintain the closest possible connection between the individual and the land.” Furthermore, it exhorted the revitalising and retention of village society that lay at the basis of Fijian culture. The GCC endorsed this and for the next two decades the Fijian Administration, attempted to stem the tide of change by sheltering the Fijian from the money economy.
In an attempt to discourage participation in wage employment, Native Regulations restricted movement of Fijians into and out of villages. The galala concept that stimulated small holder agriculture among Fijians was suffocated. There were many other regulations that virtually “over-administered” life in Fijian villages. The justification was that these were needed to “secure the continuance of the Fijian communal system and the customs and observances traditionally associated with that system”.
The notion of Fijian economic enterprise is therefore, closely linked to concerns about cultural preservation. The village cocoon persisted into the 50s and early 60s entwining the Fijian in a web of regulations that stifled both his aspirations as well as opportunities. This orientation even led to an “us-n-them” mentality between village Fijians and those who lived on their farms in my own village of Vuna in Taveuni.
Thus while the Indo-Fijian continued to refine his commercial agricultural skills, cherished modern education, and entered into the world of modern commerce, the Fijian had little options but to find sanctuary in looking inwards towards his village and culture. This did precious little to prepare him for the wider world that was moving at an ever increasing pace around him.
When the “Fijians in business” philosophy was implemented by Rabuka in 1987, the Fijian was caught unprepared. His aspirations and hankering for the accoutrements of wealth however, was well honed by looking at the fruits of labour in the residential areas of Suva. The resentment emanating from this had increased in value as part of political rhetoric during elections.
Thus the Rabuka initiatives to help bring Fijians into business were doomed because of an absence of capacity among its recipients. What it did do was: create a heightened expectation of direct monetary assistance from government, loosen control on government resources, remove fear of the rule of law, centralize the role and power of the bureaucrat and release the coup genie. Fiji was indeed in for an era of Aladdin-type magic. Keep tuned for more.
Subhash Appana is an academic and political commentator. The opinions contained in this article are entirely his and not necessarily shared by any organizations he may be associated with both in Fiji and abroad. Email subhasha@ais.ac.nz
Leave a Comment