The Pacific Way was an ideology that the first Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, introduced in the 1970s to promote regional solidarity. This was also used to bring together the different ethnic groups in Fiji, which had led their separate lives so far, as one nation.
Vague as the term was it did reflect a tradition of dialogue and discussion in politics, one scholar has noted. ‘Reciprocity’ and ‘consensus’ are also mentioned as features of the Pacific Way. Both these features were very much in evidence in the late 1960s and culminated in the 1970 Fiji constitution. In the late 1960s/early 1970s the leaders of the two major ethnic groups in Fiji, the indigenous Fijians and the immigrant Indians, continued to hold discussions on all important matters and come to an agreement for the benefit of the nation.
A Fijian scholar, Simione Durutalo who was with the Fiji Labour Party dismissed the ‘Pacific Way’ as a pseudo ideology “manufactured by white liberal intellectuals with the loyal help of their indigenous disciples”. Academics at the University of the South Pacific might have been influential in the development of the concept but to dismiss it as something manufactured by white intellectuals is not true.
Durutalo was wrong in his conclusion that it was “a pseudo ideology” because it also served a useful purpose in politics as it acknowledged dialogue and co-operation to accommodate the needs of the various ethnic groups. It was part of nation building and integration and Ratu Mara was successful until Butadroka started his Fijian nationalist movement.
Unfortunately, in later years, the term ‘the Pacific Way’ became debased and came to mean lack of punctuality, lack of organisation and putting things off to the last minute. In recent years it has come to mean much worse things as Satendra Nandan notes: “Destabilising a democratically elected government with a few guns is increasingly the Pacific Way”.
It has been pointed out that the “consensus” system as a mode of indigenous Fijian decision-making is perhaps the least understood institution in Fiji. “It stands in almost complete contrast to party politics as a social strategy, requiring prolonged discussions in a formal, face-to-face setting, punctuated with ceremony and protocol”. One of the most important features of this system is that, unlike in politics, personal accusations are avoided altogether as a vulgar breach of decorum.
It has been further noted that in Fiji, heightened inter-ethnic tensions during elections used to be caused by the intense criticism of many of the paramount chiefs. This was done by the opposition National Federation Party (NFP) whose leaders after the death of its founder leader, A. D. Patel, did not understand Fijian sensitivities and traditions. If the leaders had stuck to the issues and criticised the government on that basis rather than attacking the persons, a lot of ethnic tensions could have been avoided.
Even before independence, in April 1969, the Alliance Party magazine, the Fiji Nation, had pointed out that the crux of the independence question was a “representative balance” between Fijians and Indians. It continued: “It is inconceivable that the Fijian community will agree to an arrangement which would not assure them of being masters of their own destiny in their own country”.
To maintain the balance, Fijian political predominance was necessary since Indians dominated in education and business. It has been noted that except during heated disputes, such as those that followed the 1968 by-elections, Fijian hegemony was not asserted crudely.
In 1977 the balance was temporarily lost when the NFP had a narrow victory over the Alliance with the Fijian Nationalist Party splitting the Fijian votes, but this victory was accidental, not planned. The Indo-Fijian scholar, Professor Subramani, describes in a short story the rising anger in the Fijian mind when the chiefly-led Allaince Party lost the election, but before it could explode and lead to any violence, the Governor General, Ratu Sir George Cakobau, acted and appointed a minority government under Ratu Mara. In the next general elections, a few months later, the balance was restored with Fijians flocking back to the Alliance.
After the 1977 experience it became clear that all that was needed to topple the Alliance government was a small split in the Fijian votes. With a change in NFP’s leadership, the Indian leaders seemed to overlook the importance of maintaining the balance as they made concerted efforts to dislodge the Fijian dominated Alliance Party from power. This, according to the Indo-Fijian scholar Brij Lal (who was ousted last week from Fiji), suggested that they had not yet recognised the dire consequences that awaited the Indian community if the Indian dominated (in fact, almost exclusively Indian) NFP captured the government.
The NFP leaders did not heed the timely warning of Brij Lal that there would be trouble if the Alliance government was defeated and the balance was lost. Instead they went into another coalition in 1987 with the newly formed multiracial Fiji Labour Party to topple Ratu Mara’s Alliance government. It was a moment when “the centre could not hold” as the politics of balance governing the two communities fell apart. This destroyed the potential raised in the 1970s that “a just and fair multiracial democracy could be made to work in Fiji”, Brij Lal concluded.
A just and fair multiracial democracy could have been made to work in Fiji only if the Indian leaders had accepted Fijian hegemony (as A. D. Patel had who used to say that Fijians are “first among equals”) until the country became integrated with a common identity.
When Sitiveni Rabuka, the third ranking officer in the Fiji army, staged a coup in 1987 and overthrew the democratically elected government, ethnic Fijians rallied behind him in support almost to the last man. This was because although Fijians were prepared to share power with other groups they were not going “to relinquish it or to subordinate themselves to the will of others”.
At the time of independence the Fijians’ main desire was that “Fiji should be preserved as a Fijian country”, Ratu Mara noted in his Memoirs. In other words, they did not want Fiji to become “a little India of the Pacific” and they did not want to be marginalized in the country where they were the original settlers.
Whatever Rabuka’s real reasons might have been for carrying out the coups, it was the perception that there was a threat to their rights as the indigenous people that made the majority of the ethnic Fijians rally to his support. Today it is quite clear that the 1987 problem was caused by the loss of balance. If the Indian leaders had continued to follow the Fijian system of dialogue and accommodation, in other words the Pacific Way, then there would not have been a loss of balance.
Peter Thompson correctly noted: “In 1987 the Fijians were at a wild and critical crossroads. As an indigenous community they had both the power and the will to assert their position in Fiji”. And assert it they did.
(Padmini Gaunder’s book, ‘Education and Race Relations in Fiji’ is available for $15.00. Those interested may contact her at pgaunder@hotmail.com).