Soldiers, chiefs and church: unstable democracy in Fiji
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512111418775 |
| Author | Stephen McCarthy |
| Date | 01 November 2011 |
| Published date | 01 November 2011 |
International Political Science Review
32(5) 563 –578
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512111418775
ips.sagepub.com
Soldiers, chiefs and church: unstable
democracy in Fiji
Stephen McCarthy
Abstract
The qualities of democracy in Fiji are strongly influenced by ethnic divisions and indigenous sources of
power and legitimacy in society. Periods of constitutional democracy interrupted by successive coups
garnering conflicting support suggest that a more stable Fijian democracy requires a delicate balance of tribal,
religious, ethnic and military interests. Successful democratic and governance reform requires the inclusive
deliberation of all major groups in civil and political society, and not merely one that purports to represent
all. Only by improving the qualities of democracy in Fiji will Fijian politics emerge from its cycle of coups and
offer a more stable form of government.
Keywords
democratic qualities, ethnic divisions, Fiji, indigenous power, military
Introduction
Locating Fiji on the scale of democratic politics is a challenge, given the many interruptions to
democratic rule in the country’s history. Fiji has been classified by some as an example of a ‘stabilized
hybrid regime’ and perhaps even a ‘limited democracy’ (Morlino, 2009a: 284, 287). These regimes,
further, are said to display an authoritarian past or a traditional one (Morlino, 2009a: 293). In addi-
tion, Fiji has also been labelled by some as a ‘communal democracy’ – a mixture of Westminster
and indigenous traditions – and, like Malaysia, there exist strong ethnic divisions inherent in its
society and politics (Ratuva, 2005). Indeed, one of the major causes of political instability in Fiji
has been the ethnic divide between native Fijians and Indo-Fijian immigrants which had been
promoted by the British since their colonization of the islands in 1874.1 Indians were encouraged
to immigrate and work the sugar plantations while native Fijian labour was discouraged and their
culture respected. Following consultations between the British Governor and local chiefs over the
governing of indigenous Fijians, the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) was estab-
lished in 1876. Ethnic divisions in society, therefore, along with the institutionalization of influence
by one ethno-cultural body over future governments, would characterize the nature of Fijian politics
following independence in 1970.
Corresponding author:
Stephen McCarthy, Griffith University, Brisbane 4111, Australia
Email: s.mccarthy@griffith.edu.au
418775IPS
Article
564 International Political Science Review 32(5)
Fiji has experienced four coups since independence (three military, one civilian), the most
recent occurring in late 2006. This has led many commentators to argue that Fiji has adopted a coup
culture as an inevitable consequence of the polarity caused by ethnic divisions in Fijian society and
politics. Others have labelled Fiji as a fragile, weak, or failed state, which for various reasons may
be neither helpful nor appropriate (Fraenkel, 2006a; Lawson, 2003; Ratuva, 2008; Reilly, 2000;
Rotberg, 2004). Failed state indicators, for example, are too broad to allow a meaningful and objec-
tive assessment of political development and ‘state-building’ proposals generally ignore cultural
and traditional factors. Furthermore, it may not be appropriate to extrapolate findings drawn from
the literature on failed states in Africa, for example, to the Asia-Pacific region (Fraenkel, 2004a).
It is possible, however, to argue that, given the nature of its internal political instability, Fiji can be
regarded as an unstable democracy when considered over an extended period of time. Similarities
can be found throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Lipset (1959), for example, singled out Thailand
as a case where the social stability of the nation, even with its occasional coups, stood out in sharp
contrast to the situation in the neighbouring former colonial nations of Southeast Asia. Thailand’s
recent political history also includes a military coup in 2006 followed by military rule for over a
year and continued political instability since. Fiji, in other words, is more like Thailand and less
like Burma where military rule has been entrenched, either directly or indirectly, since 1962.
Like Thailand in Southeast Asia, Fiji was also once seen as a jewel of democracy in the South
Pacific and, because of its central location and relatively well-developed infrastructure, Fiji became
the host and headquarters to many regional, international, and inter-governmental organizations
serving the Pacific. These include the South Pacific Forum–Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
based in Suva, part of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, the South Pacific Applied
Geoscience Commission, the International Labor Organization, the World Health Organization,
and numerous departments of the United Nations. Fiji is also an important centre for education in
the South Pacific – the University of the South Pacific based in Suva is the Pacific’s principal mul-
tiethnic tertiary institution servicing the entire region. In addition, Fiji is of theoretical and analyti-
cal importance for the comparative study of democratic qualities in the Asia-Pacific region. Fiji’s
customs and traditions are reflected in the formal and informal powers granted to unelected elites
in a manner that resonates well across several Asian and Pacific nations that possess a strong
monarchical or tribal heritage – including Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Tonga and Vanuatu. The
changing role of Fiji’s military in politics and society is also reflected in the history and the present
circumstances of numerous Asian democracies – especially Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
In addition, Fiji’s ethnic divisions not only provide a prime resource for the study of democracy in
ethnically divided states but also draw strong parallels across several Asian countries – particularly
Malaysia and Singapore. Because of Fiji’s central importance in the Pacific region, therefore, it is
a justifiable inclusion in our comparative study of the Asia-Pacific and for drawing useful lessons
for the entire region.
Given that Fiji has essentially been under military rule since the coup of 2006, albeit under the
auspices of an ‘interim government’, it is difficult to classify the country as any form of democ-
racy at present. By expanding our coverage to include the period of democratic politics that
existed prior to the coup, Leonardo Morlino’s framework might suggest that Fiji encountered a
gradual deterioration from inefficient democracy to minimal democracy although this can never
truly convey the reality of military rule (Morlino, 2009b). Minimal democracies are said to be
devoid of all dimensions that can improve a democratic regime – the rule of law, accountability,
responsiveness, freedom and equality – and tools of subversion are often used (Morlino, 2009b).
Fiji approximates an inefficient democracy prior to the coup although there are some important
differences. Inefficient democracies like Fiji are said to be based on a majority system; they host
To continue reading
Request your trial