Leadership that Elevates
A common loyalty to the nation is identified as the most important prerequisite for the successful governing of a multiethnic country. Fiji lacked this at independence as both the major ethnic groups in the country, the indigenous Fijians and the immigrant Indians, had their primary loyalty to their community and identified themselves first and foremost with their ethnic group rather than with the nation.
So observers of the Fiji scene in the 1960s were unsure of the direction it would take and they saw the future of the country as bleak. They agreed that the most important requirement for the survival of the country as a peaceful, multiracial nation was enlightened and selfless leadership. One writer even warned that if the leaders of the major ethnic groups did not act with foresight, putting the country before their community, then Fiji might become “something like a Cyprus in the South Pacific … Little hope remains for Fiji unless all racial groups …act now with vision, resolution and self-sacrifice to subordinate their narrow, sectarian interests to the interests of the country as a whole”, Watters concluded.
Fortunately, when Fiji became self governing and party politics started in earnest, the country enjoyed enlightened leadership from the leaders of both the major ethnic groups. Ratu Mara and A. D. Patel were both prepared to subordinate their narrow, sectarian interests to the interests of the country as a whole. This proved the ‘scaremongers’ wrong and it became clear that ‘the Federation Party leaders performed the Opposition role well’ (Norton, 2004, p.165).
Kevin Hince offers these criteria for assessing a leader. The important questions to ask, he says, are whether the person concerned wanted “personal power” or was he/she doing “community service”; was he/she a “positive force for development or a divisive, destructive agent; a leader of men or manipulator”. I F. Helu makes a similar distinction between leaders who follow the Socratic tradition of service and the Sophists. Socrates believed leaders should work for the good of the country unlike the Sophists who believed only in having personal power
Joshua Rabukawaqa, on the other hand, had elaborated the difference between an outstanding leader and a mediocre one. It could be judged from the kind of equality that the leader provided for the people, he said. “There are two kinds of equality. There is the equality that elevates and creates and the equality that levels and destroys. You give leadership to the one who has proved himself to the world to lead. He will elevate and create the others to enjoy the same status he has”.
Ratu Mara and Patel both wanted to elevate the people which they did while they were leaders. If Patel helped to elevate the sugarcane farmers by fighting for them against the might of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR) Ratu Mara made it a reality by agreeing, as Chief Minister, to the takeover of the sugar industry in 1969. CSR used to threaten to withdraw whenever decisions were made which were not favourable to them. The colonial government used to make concessions and persuade them to stay on. In 1969, however, the elected government of Fiji decided to let them go when CSR claimed that it could not operate under the terms of the Denning award.
Similarly during Ratu Mara’s time Fijian commoners were elevated in many ways. They were given the franchise which they did not have till 1963. All of them were also given access to higher education which during the colonial days used to be the privilege of a select few, mainly the chiefs and sons of chiefs. Providing higher education for everyone in the country was a policy that Patel had also been promoting throughout. With Patel’s death in 1969, however, the party he had founded and led to look after the welfare of the exploited people of all ethnic groups in the country, slowly turned into an ethnic Indian party with no longer a clear ideology, resulting in the failure of the Westminster system.
Ratu Mara and Patel were similar in many ways, although most would be shocked by this claim because during most of his political career Patel disagreed with Ratu Mara. I say they were similar because they both had a similar national outlook. They looked at the country as a whole and what was best for the country rather than at the needs of any particular community. They were also very proud of their cultures but at the same time respected other cultures.
Ratu Mara and A.D. Patel both seemed to have wanted personal prestige (more than anything else) but they were enlightened enough to understand that what would give them prestige was what they achieved for the community and the nation (and in the case of Ratu Mara, it stretched to the whole region).
They also had a similar educational background. They both were educated in England and had great respect for British education and British institutions like democracy and the rule of law. They both were capitalists but they were against exploitation. They both were also against colonialism, especially the exploitation of the non-whites by the white colonial powers, which was a common feature of colonialism. The main difference was that while Ratu Mara was against colonialism, he remained a loyal subject of the British crown, seeing it as an extension of the Fijian chiefly system as most Fijians did, whereas Patel could not see any difference between the British monarchy and British colonialism.
Ratu Mara and Patel had clear policies for their political parties. While formulating these policies they looked at what was good for the country as a whole rather than for just a particular community so the policies they put forward were for the benefit of the people of the country without any ethnic distinctions. They believed in integrating the people of the country.
The methods Ratu Mara and Patel advocated for bringing about integration, however, were different. While Ratu Mara believed in a slow change brought about mainly through education, Patel believed integration could only be achieved through a common electoral roll. This is where the difference came between the two leaders though their ultimate aims were similar. They both were “positive forces for development” rather than “destructive agents”.
A common loyalty to the nation is identified as the most important prerequisite for the successful governing of a multiethnic country. Fiji lacked this at independence as both the major ethnic groups in the country, the indigenous Fijians and the immigrant Indians, had their primary loyalty to...
A common loyalty to the nation is identified as the most important prerequisite for the successful governing of a multiethnic country. Fiji lacked this at independence as both the major ethnic groups in the country, the indigenous Fijians and the immigrant Indians, had their primary loyalty to their community and identified themselves first and foremost with their ethnic group rather than with the nation.
So observers of the Fiji scene in the 1960s were unsure of the direction it would take and they saw the future of the country as bleak. They agreed that the most important requirement for the survival of the country as a peaceful, multiracial nation was enlightened and selfless leadership. One writer even warned that if the leaders of the major ethnic groups did not act with foresight, putting the country before their community, then Fiji might become “something like a Cyprus in the South Pacific … Little hope remains for Fiji unless all racial groups …act now with vision, resolution and self-sacrifice to subordinate their narrow, sectarian interests to the interests of the country as a whole”, Watters concluded.
Fortunately, when Fiji became self governing and party politics started in earnest, the country enjoyed enlightened leadership from the leaders of both the major ethnic groups. Ratu Mara and A. D. Patel were both prepared to subordinate their narrow, sectarian interests to the interests of the country as a whole. This proved the ‘scaremongers’ wrong and it became clear that ‘the Federation Party leaders performed the Opposition role well’ (Norton, 2004, p.165).
Kevin Hince offers these criteria for assessing a leader. The important questions to ask, he says, are whether the person concerned wanted “personal power” or was he/she doing “community service”; was he/she a “positive force for development or a divisive, destructive agent; a leader of men or manipulator”. I F. Helu makes a similar distinction between leaders who follow the Socratic tradition of service and the Sophists. Socrates believed leaders should work for the good of the country unlike the Sophists who believed only in having personal power
Joshua Rabukawaqa, on the other hand, had elaborated the difference between an outstanding leader and a mediocre one. It could be judged from the kind of equality that the leader provided for the people, he said. “There are two kinds of equality. There is the equality that elevates and creates and the equality that levels and destroys. You give leadership to the one who has proved himself to the world to lead. He will elevate and create the others to enjoy the same status he has”.
Ratu Mara and Patel both wanted to elevate the people which they did while they were leaders. If Patel helped to elevate the sugarcane farmers by fighting for them against the might of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company (CSR) Ratu Mara made it a reality by agreeing, as Chief Minister, to the takeover of the sugar industry in 1969. CSR used to threaten to withdraw whenever decisions were made which were not favourable to them. The colonial government used to make concessions and persuade them to stay on. In 1969, however, the elected government of Fiji decided to let them go when CSR claimed that it could not operate under the terms of the Denning award.
Similarly during Ratu Mara’s time Fijian commoners were elevated in many ways. They were given the franchise which they did not have till 1963. All of them were also given access to higher education which during the colonial days used to be the privilege of a select few, mainly the chiefs and sons of chiefs. Providing higher education for everyone in the country was a policy that Patel had also been promoting throughout. With Patel’s death in 1969, however, the party he had founded and led to look after the welfare of the exploited people of all ethnic groups in the country, slowly turned into an ethnic Indian party with no longer a clear ideology, resulting in the failure of the Westminster system.
Ratu Mara and Patel were similar in many ways, although most would be shocked by this claim because during most of his political career Patel disagreed with Ratu Mara. I say they were similar because they both had a similar national outlook. They looked at the country as a whole and what was best for the country rather than at the needs of any particular community. They were also very proud of their cultures but at the same time respected other cultures.
Ratu Mara and A.D. Patel both seemed to have wanted personal prestige (more than anything else) but they were enlightened enough to understand that what would give them prestige was what they achieved for the community and the nation (and in the case of Ratu Mara, it stretched to the whole region).
They also had a similar educational background. They both were educated in England and had great respect for British education and British institutions like democracy and the rule of law. They both were capitalists but they were against exploitation. They both were also against colonialism, especially the exploitation of the non-whites by the white colonial powers, which was a common feature of colonialism. The main difference was that while Ratu Mara was against colonialism, he remained a loyal subject of the British crown, seeing it as an extension of the Fijian chiefly system as most Fijians did, whereas Patel could not see any difference between the British monarchy and British colonialism.
Ratu Mara and Patel had clear policies for their political parties. While formulating these policies they looked at what was good for the country as a whole rather than for just a particular community so the policies they put forward were for the benefit of the people of the country without any ethnic distinctions. They believed in integrating the people of the country.
The methods Ratu Mara and Patel advocated for bringing about integration, however, were different. While Ratu Mara believed in a slow change brought about mainly through education, Patel believed integration could only be achieved through a common electoral roll. This is where the difference came between the two leaders though their ultimate aims were similar. They both were “positive forces for development” rather than “destructive agents”.
Leave a Comment