As military dictators go Bainimarama ain’t that bad

Sam says:

04:21pm | 30/09/09

Tracey,

Re: Gaddafi “and murdering thousands of his own people – relegated him to second”... What are you refering to? The bloodless coup in 1969? care to provide a link or back up your “murder” claim with some evidence? I’m curious, because it sounds like libel to me, and having grown up in Lybia, I can tell you the guy is adored by his people to the extent that democracy would simply serve no purpose. Gaddafi-bashing month is it?

Tracey says:

01:03pm | 26/08/09

Jeremy,
I appreciate your opinion. But for the record, I didn’t speak to people ‘the regime wanted me to speak to’. My conclusions were drawn from chatting to many, many locals in the course of travelling through the country. There were no official ‘interviews’ lined up by government representatives. I was quite surprised by the ‘word on the street’. That’s why I wrote the piece. It seems, in Australia, we only hear one side of the story.

Verata says:

12:27am | 26/08/09

Mark: Right, agreed, and little argument on your statements. But some worries on your conclusions, which seem to suggest that what came before justifies any action to create the new. A bit of Jesuit thinking, there.
Does ANY of that justify a coup? No.
Let’s add in the deaths in custody, considered abuse of human rights (rather than the casual versions you describe) and the insistent misdirection of cause and future intent, and we’re being fatuous in ignoring the actual intent of Bainimarama.
Like many kind, blind, people, you’re being swayed by the version of history and the rosy future Bainimarama depicts.
What you’re ignoring is the manner in which he took control (with its associated violence and intimidation, and court-verified murders).
Why is this so unclear?
Regardless of the circumstances (and they were NOT dire, as any casual observer would understand), this is a military takeover, an abuse of human rights, and now an abrogation of the law.
This is NOT a lavender-coloured correction of some perceived misbalance in race politics, but a fully illegal, violent attempt to avoid justice. That justice was the fast-approaching charges of murder Bainimarama was to face over his actions following the 2000 mutiny.
No, Fijian politics was not perfect, and the Constitution fell short, too. But the previous Government’s racist policies had not been made law, which meant they had also not been subjected to constitutional review by the High Court, which means, ultimately, that Bainimarama took power on perception, rather than reality.
It does not justify this dictator.
And the “Doctrine of Necessity” Bainimarama invoked to take power specifically refers to the military taking power to protect the State from some overbearing, illegitimate force. That force was the military. Is it only me that sees the Monty Pythonesque perfection in an institution taking power to protect the country from the institution taking power? Actually, no ... the great majority of Fijians are aware of this - both indigenous, and the unfortunately-labelled (by the abrogated Constitution) Indo-Fijians, who are no less Fijian citizens for that.
This is not a simple issue, but it’s not helped by apologists suggesting that a wrong justifies much greater wrongs.

Mark says:

09:32pm | 25/08/09

The so-called democracy that Bainimarama overthrew was actually a version of apartheid that would have been condemned if the Fijians had been white.
The army was overwhelmingly Fijian. The landowners were overwhelmingly Fijian. The Indians were the ones who were actually productive and made the land worth something. That was why they were transported there in the first place. They also were the middle managers and the professional class. The more Indians in an area, the smarter the Fijians got.
The tribal chiefs kept grabbing all the money and did not share it. When the Fijians said where is the money, they said that the Indians had robbed/grabbed it all.
Even when the so-called democracy was in place, all the important positions had a Fijian in charge. But they knew the game. They had a much lower paid Indian as an assistant. he/she did the work.
I haven’t been there for a while, but I can still recall seeing thirty Fijians and one Indian building a road. The Fijians were all standing around on their shovels. The Indian was driving the bulldozer.

Verata says:

05:41pm | 25/08/09

Twaddle. Disturbingly apologist. Serious interviews would reveal the number of indigenous Fijians (who actually now make up about 65% of the population, btw) who oppose Bainimarama and his regime is close to 80%.
People have died in this coup, beaten by soldiers and police.
People have been bashed, and continue to be intimidated.
People have been deported.
All media (including the Fiji Times, a stablemate in the News Ltd fold of this blog) still have censors in their newsrooms.
Get to Ba? Lautoka? Suva? Seen the poverty? Seen the despair? Nope, it’s not good form for tourists to see the tough side of Fiji, the results of Bainimarama’s actions.
This is not journalism, this is surface voyeurism.
Jeremy’s right ... the people want an election. But Bainimarama won’t have one, and not because the system’s buggered, but because he’d lose.
All the rest of your arguments, Tracey, fall short of serious consideration, based as they are on the ridiculous premise that “as military dictators go, Bainimarama’s not that bad”.
He’s a dictator . He’s a murderer, and he’s using window dressing to impress you.
This is sad journalism.

Jeremy says:

03:19pm | 25/08/09

Yeah, sure. And they just have to control the media and have the military lock up people who express a different opinion because otherwise there’d be too much love being expressed.

What kind of journalist writes a puff-piece after only speaking to the people the regime wants her to speak to? “Most Fijians want to play follow-the-leader”? Funny that he won’t call an election then, eh?

AJ says:

03:15pm | 25/08/09

Is there an imperative for Australia to intervene (threat to Australian interests/citizens, major humanitarian catastrophe, regional destabilisation)?  The answer is no.

Even if there were, would intervention help, in light of the popular support of Bainimarama and general disdain for foreign intervention?  The answer is no.

So why’re we sticking our noses in, again?

Peter Tavare says:

02:37pm | 25/08/09

Well said Tracey, Australia’s attitude to Fiji is like the brother who bashes his younger sister because he’s scared to take on boys of his own size or bigger. Having been involved with Fiji for a number of years you only learn by talking to the locals about their very individual and perplexing situation. The nation is split virtually 50/50 in terms of indigenous Fijians and Indians and that makes a conclusive election almost impossible. But at least they have had elections, which is not the case in China, Vietnam etc, which are hardly thriving democracies. The reality for most locals and all travellers is that Fiji is an exceptionally friendly, hospitable and peaceful place. To have raised the travel warnings last year simply was punitive behaviour by schoolyard bullies who had little appreciation or understanding of the situation. Yes, we would love elections to take place and yes, we would prefer the army not to be involved, but anyone who has been in Nadi during a “coup” will know that George Street in Sydney on Saturday night is far more dangerous. Despite all the Australian and Kiwi huffing and puffing, people know that the only real danger in Fiji is to be poisoned by kava or skulled by a falling coconut. There will always be challenges with Fiji’s set up, but where else is there such genuine warmth? ‘“Bula!” doesn?t solve all the problems, but it certainly helps. Íf Frank is a dictator, then he’s certainly a fairly benevolent one. Cheers, Peter

Micko says:

10:37am | 25/08/09

Self interest, cronyism and scam-mongering can flourish in an autocracy as well as it can in a democracy.  That said: it is not for Australia to dictate how other countries organise themselves and often history shows that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside.

It took Europe more than a thousand years to “re-discover” democracy after it was first taken up by the Greeks and Romans.  Indeed Rome reached its greatest heights as an Empire, not as a republic.  It should not be assumed that every country is at the same stage of historical development.  Singapore is an example of a country which has flourished as a dictatorship and Papua New Guinea is an example for a democracy in crisis.  There are no clear rules.

Nevertheless, with noted exceptions, there is an undeniable correlation between the uptake of democracy and the wealth and wellbeing of the population.  But the question of the path to democracy is one that is unique to each nation.