The tragedy of Fiji's multiculturalism Dr. Robert Wolfgramm Department of Sociology School of Political & Social Inquiry Faculty of Arts - Clayton Monash University, Melbourne

Fiji is a nation made up of many cultures. This arrangement, delivered by its colonial history, is called 'multiculturalism' (and sometimes 'multiracialism' or 'cultural pluralism'). On the face of it, it is something admirable - the toleration of racial differences, the right to practise cultural differences, respect for different institutional arrangements in education and religion, and respect for the right of access of non-Fijians to power. In terms of Fiji's two dominant racial groups - Fijians and Indians - multiculturalism has resulted in cultural, social and institutional pluralism. Two Fijis have developed along side each other - one Indian; the other indigenous. Both peoples are differentially defined in terms of ancestry, historical evolution and ideological outlook but have been living together since 1879.

While the colonial system that married these two distinct peoples had only its own needs in mind, it is fair to say that both Fijians and Indians have benefited handsomely from their 'marriage of convenience'. Indians were promised a place in the colony's growing economy and guaranteed cultural and racial security. Though relocated - forcibly and by deception in many cases - they would not be made to assimilate into Fijian society. Though married into the Pacific, they would, so to speak, be allowed separate living arrangements within that relationship. For their part, Fijians expected Indian economic drive and expertise to deliver a prosperous future for all. Fijians also believed the British had promised sovereign continuity of their traditional system within the framework of government. Some expected Indians to be repatriated to India once the colonial era ended; most never imagined that their Indian population would expect or be granted political equality in their adopted homeland, let alone claim a 'right' to government.

From the indigenous point of view, the Indian had a dream deal: they were free of burdensome caste restrictions, free of obligations to surrender their culture and identity, free to live as they had with their own institutions and customs protected by colonial democracy, free to live on borrowed soil which promised prosperity, and free to go about their business. Fiji's Indians might have suffered emotionally as a consequence of separation from their indigenous roots, but, from the Fijian point of view, they had actually been more than materially compensated for it - living conditions in Fiji were an opportunity to advance beyond what they had left behind in India, and most did.

When independence from Britain arrived in 1970, that arrangement was not challenged by the incoming indigenous Fijian leadership. Elsewhere it may have been. Other host societies may have required assimilation on the part of their 'guest' populations but not so in Fiji. Where other democratic nations required newcomers to become a part of the established fabric, to fit in to their new society by learning the language and adopting the customs, Fiji's Indians were able to luxuriate in their cultural independence. Fijian chiefs charitably maintained the pluralism and the social distance that went with it. Fijians retained the village as the centre of their life; Indians - constrained by their alienation from large-scale land ownership - adopted the towns as theirs. Village-based Fijians encountered Indians whenever they frequented the towns for trade or when they relocated to serve the needs of industry. Indians stayed largely on Viti Levu and Vanua Levu and encountered rural Fijians only as sugar or other agricultural leases were taken up by Indians and land was required for the same.

After independence, Fijians felt no need to challenge this inherited 'multiculturalism' since they were now used to it - soil provided by them was the source of national wealth generated by Indian enterprise. Wealth generated by Indians employed Fijians. The two distinct groups accommodated each other with apparent ease. A cultural pluralism which had been conceived and nurtured within the colonial period managed to achieve a maturation of sorts in the Ratu Mara era (1970-1987). Indian power was now appreciated in the Fijian economy and indigenous leaders were mindful of the rewards this brought to their people. Fiji was promoted as a model of multicultural stability - 'the way the world should be' (said tourist brochures).

But that slogan was a gloss, a lie: if multiculturalism of the sort just described was a success, Fiji would not be where it now is - in a dire situation. In reality, cracks in the model of cultural pluralism appeared soon after independence and they have reappeared in every decade since. The Fijian grassroots have always questioned the place of the Indian on their shores. Contrary to the supposition of racial harmony, and as early as 1972, Viliame Savu (from Ratu Mara's island of Nayau) set up his 'Fijian Independent Party' to proclaim the message of Fijian political exclusivity - a message distinctly at odds with Fiji's multicultural gospel. Agitator, Sakeasi Butadroka (from Adi Lala Mara's Rewa delta) formed the 'Fijian Nationalist Party' at the same time and with the same objective: to rally Fijians to the cause of indigenous supremacy and objecting to democratic multiracialism as a philosophy that would spell the end of Fijian culture and her people. In the 1980s, the 'Taukei movement' and a little-known colonel, Sitiveni Rabuka, championed the demise of Fijian multiculturalism through two coups. And, to help keep them on track in the 1990s, Francis Waqa Sokonibogi (from Rabuka's Cakaudrove province) established the 'Kudru Na Vanua'. The 'Vauna Independent Party' was later formed by Iliesa Duvuloco and others to continue the anti-multicultural agenda. This year, that push has climaxed in George Speight's accession.

Fijian multiculturalism, once touted as a model for global harmony, has steadily come apart over the past three decades because the concept has been a living lie. The tragedy of Fiji's multiculturalism is that it has really been a form of racial segregation - Pacific-style. Underneath the 'live and let live' posturing and the facade of easy-going accommodation, lies the reality that, if Fijians have never wanted to grant the Indian access to vanua ownership, Indians on their part, have never wanted to assimilate to what they regard as a culturally inferior group of people.

Fiji's ideology of multiculturalism has effectively masked a racial stand-off. Post-independence Fijians have never acted to make the Indian in their own image. They have not insisted that Indians learn the Fijian language, know the rudiments of Fijian history or adopt protocol aspects of Fijian culture in integrated schools. Each race has learned to 'tolerate' the other, not through the hard work of integration and assimilation, but by default - by keeping their cultural distance from one another across a cynical divide lent legitimacy by calling it 'multiculturalism'. The price of this racial gulf is now seen in the resistance of grassroots Fijians to an Indian prime minister on one hand, and he (as an Indian) expecting, on the other, to be granted the same right of equality that pertains to minorities in other liberal democracies.

The failure of Fijian multiculturalism to bridge this distance can be seen in the point that the majority of Indians have shown only a functional inclination and understanding of their country of birth - that is, most only know and learn what is minimally required to enable them to function in Fiji as citizens rather than as 'Fijianised citizens'. Nationalist Fijians feel slighted that their traditions have been ignored, that Indians have only predatory intentions in being in Fiji, that is, to take over the vanua or to use Fiji as a stepping stone for further advancement in the international economic pecking order. Fijians originally accepted the fact of Indian cultural autonomy on the expectation that the girmit would eventually return to India. However, when it became clear that this was not going to happen, the Indian failure to embrace Fijianisation engendered resentment, particularly at the village level. Nationalists continue to believe Indians have never been genuinely committed to the welfare of the indigenous people.

But it has to be admitted that the opposite is also true: Fijians know little about Indian culture. Most Fijian villages (where two-thirds of Fijians live) have never hosted an Indian guest. Moreover, by the exclusion of non-Fijians from acquiring land other than that which is available as freehold, Fijians may be said to lack concern for non-indigenous peoples such as Indians. Nationalists reject this by arguing that the very fact of Fijian hospitality demonstrates the charitable character of indigenous people. Moreover, Fijians are not living in India - it is the Indian who is living in Fiji and who, therefore, should be more inclined to becoming accustomed with Fijian culture than their own.

Hence, Fiji's social segregation may politely be called 'multiculturalism' as though equality and respect for each other is typical, but the experience belies this. There is little meaningful social interaction between Fijians and Indians apart from interpersonal contact in occupational and recreational settings which predominate in urban areas. Genuine multiculturalism reaches neither the village heartland nor the urban ghetto. And the consequences, as we now see, are regrettable for both races. When Indians expect Fijians to respect their 'equal rights' as promised by democracy, Fijians put their nationalist foot down. In response, Indians continue to exodus in numbers, feeling puzzled at why they are unwanted by the vanua. And Fijians, first as a result of Rabuka, and now George Speight, are left as political beggars, outcasts still lagging behind the Indian in socio-economic indicators, with their vanua boycotted by investors and an unwanted destination for tourists.

To go forward, Fiji needs new policies of social integration and cultural assimilation to bring all of her people to a substantial realisation that they are in deed and thought, and not just in rhetoric, 'one nation, one people' (as President Iloilo put it in his recent presidential acceptance speech). Fiji needs to take note of other places where multiculturalism has been established, such as Australia. There, it has come after decades of an assimilation policy which required sacrifices on the part of incoming peoples. These admittedly had a near-genocidal effect on its Aboriginal minority and severely discriminated against non-British European immigrants. And it was only after Australian leaders recognised the changing ethnic base of their electorates (due to post WWII mass immigration) that the political heart and will was found to relax the dominant Anglocentrism of their 'white Australia policy'. But the point is, Australian multiculturalism was introduced into a social fabric which had already been knitted together in the hearts and practices of the majority of the people. Australia's assimilation was undoubtedly Anglo-phile and brutal, but the initial effect was to create a foundation, a socially solid base of similarly constituted people sharing a common outlook in regard to their plight and what was necessary to maintain identity. Once this had been achieved, cultural differentiation could be tolerated without tearing the nation apart. Once a certain social density had been realised, once newcomers had been exposed to a certain dominant 'Aussie' consciousness, the risk of multiculturalism could be taken.

Assimilation is thus a requisite condition for national unity and there is nothing exceptional about this. History shows that every group of people possesses ideologies, practices and symbols which similarly aid the production of social solidarity, social coagulation. Some policies focus on producing a sense of 'us', a celebration of what 'we' are; others reinforce a xenophobic sense of 'them', a fear of the stranger. Many of these, like the early Australian model, have been disgracefully racist. The well-known example is that of Adolf Hitler and his Nazis who preyed upon the distinctiveness of Jews in Europe to help unify the German people and foster the myth of a white Aryan 'super-race' to rule the world from Berlin. Less well-known is Chinese racism which since the 19th century, has depicted non-Chinese as 'ugly devils' and 'hairy ghosts'. In order to insulate Chinese women from other men, the belief was spread that a non-Chinese man possesses four testicles. Modern Chinese philosopher, Kang Youwei, preached 'datongshu' - his policy for creating one Chinese world whereby Africans and other 'dark skinned' peoples were best killed off. According to Youwei, those who could not be eliminated should be forcefully sterilised or have their skin whitened. We could go back further and also mention Greek racism and take note of the fact that the now widely respected term 'ethnic' originally meant (in Homeric Greek times) a swarm or throng of mongrelised (ie. not Greek) peoples. Greeks regarded 'ethnic' people as 'barbarians' in the way Christian culture used to regard 'barbarians' as 'infidels'.

Clearly, Fijian assimilation should never indulge coercion or racist scapegoating as a means for plaiting together a socially cohesive population. This could never be justified but it could be argued that racism (and the coups which have confirmed it) has arisen in Fiji precisely because the nation's leaders have never required assimilation on the part of non-Fijian peoples. Unlike the Australian experience, Fiji has therefore lacked the basis and necessary condition from which a healthy multiculturalism could grow. That is to say, it began as a divided society in colonial times and it remains a divided society today. It is divided exactly because Fijians have placed no obligation on non-Fijians to become integrated into their collective identity. They have left it as an individual choice. This is admirable and works at inter-personal levels - note the respect granted to Fiji-phile Paula Geraghty for example - but it is insufficient at the national level.

The minimum condition for national unity is not segregated differentiation of peoples, but a dominant consciousness. Without this, Fiji will always be open to internal division and international exploitation. It is of interest that, in their study of 73 European peoples, Krejci and Velimsky (1981) found 24 to be bonded by a strong 'ethnic' consciousness. They found only seven peoples had a clear 'national' (ie. a territorial and political rather than racial) consciousness. More importantly, they found only two peoples lacking a 'national' consciousness: Jews and Gypsies - precisely those peoples who have historically been prejudicially targeted and discriminated against by Europeans and therefore prevented from developing strong nationalist ties. Fiji's Indians risk becoming the Jews and Gypsies of the Pacific, not through any fault of their own, but by default - by their lack of integration into what has been their home for most of the 20th Century.

The present task for Fiji is what it has been since independence in 1970: to work on a national consciousness and for Indians particularly, to accept an obligation to become more Fijian in their outlook. There can be no compulsion, no intimidation about this assimilation - it must be a voluntary decision. From a common-sense perspective, Indians who want to call Fiji 'home' can no longer afford to hide their rights behind the veneer of democracy and multiculturalism as though these offer protection from the excesses of Fijian nationalism.

The coups are proof that, however well-meaning their intentions in regard to respecting Fijian sovereignty, however innocent their motives in seeking political domination through party-democracy, Indian successes on those fronts will always leave Fijians feeling uneasy and resentful. Therefore, it hardly needs repeating therefore that the Indian population must integrate with Fijian custom and assimilate to the Fijian chiefly system. Conversely, it is in their interest to invite Fijians into their clubs, associations, lifestyle and organisations.

It is decidedly not in their interest to form race-based political parties. Multiculturalism grants this, but it is an option that should never have been taken. Indian interests should never have been lumped into a race-based party. That has only guaranteed the suspicion on part of the Fijian of backroom plotting and scheming against them. Fiji needs assimilated political parties based on widely shared ideals, not race. These should have been prescribed in past constitutions. The Enlightenment 'right to fraternity' - ie. free association of similars - is poison in an atmosphere already tempered by racial separation and distrust. Limits must be set as to the application of this right (much as the US Supreme Court did in the 1950s in order to break up segregation in the southern states). Otherwise, the persistence of race-based parties will continue to confirm the social distance between two groups of people who take sides over issues as though they were armies fighting an undeclared war.

Indians cannot afford to sit back and wait to be invited into Fijian society nor can they afford the luxury of waiting for Fijians to take an interest in their world-view - they must seize the initiative (if it is not too late) by loosening their social circles. This is not a zero-sum situation where assimilation to things Fijian will require or result in the necessary loss of one's original identity. Rather, it is an opportunity to develop and acquire an extra identity and one which makes political and pragmatic sense. Failing this, that is, if Indians do not want acculturation and accept its price, and if Fijians do not expect it or want it from them, then a political settlement in the form of a treaty must be undertaken. Such a rapprochement would explicitly spell out what each can expect from the other; what limits will be placed on each group in relation to the other, and what the terms of accommodation should be. Whatever the case - treaty or assimilation - Fiji desperately needs something that will give content to the facade of multiculturalism that now pertains; something that will prevent race relations in Fiji from becoming something worse than the tragedy it already is.

Robert Wolfgramm (THSESWS Political Correspondent/Analyst)

WEBMASTER 

T H E   K I N G D O M    O F    T O N G A

Copyright ©:  Loseli Ma'ukie Hafoka 2000.