Melanesian Politics and the risk of harboring Fiji (Part 2)

Background of Fijian and Samoan rivalry politics

The rivalry between Fiji and Samoa is not new. It becomes very clear in recent years following the Fiji’s military coup in 2006 that ousted a democratically elected government, which immediately pitches Samoa – a pro-democracy advocator – against Fiji – a military regime, ruled by a self-appointed Prime Minister. This enmity can be traced back to the era before the arrival of Christianity in the Eastern Pacific Islands region in the 1700s.

But before you read and make sense of my next article, let’s put into context the rivalry that trapped the Melanesian bloc in a rather messy feud that has nothing to do with it.

Fiji and Samoa are class actors of island politics

For decades, the Fiji-Samoa rivalry has been simmering under the radar in everything Pacific. It escalated in the 1960s following the unwinding presence of colonialism in the region. It left a power vacuum in regional Western-inspired political leadership that allowed both countries to step up their traditional rivalry in a contemporary way: “Fijian - Samoan Pride Competition”, which exists in politics, economic development, education, sports, tourism and regional bodies.

In the late 1970s, Fiji appeared to have the upper hand as it hosted headquarters and headed regional bodies. The ledger appeared to be equated in the late 1980s, when regional bodies such as the South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) and Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), were established and hosted outside of Fiji. But, even with the establishment of new regional bodies outside of Fiji and Samoa, both nations continued to play influential roles in the appointments of executive staff.

A classic example of the above case is the appointments of the heads of regional bodies in recent years. The Fiji-based SPS Forum Director General, Tuiloma Neroni Slade, and the Director of the Forum Fisheries Agencies (FFA) in Solomon Islands, Su’a Tanielu, are Samoans. On the other hand, the Director General of the South Pacific Community (SPC) in New Caledonia is a Solomon Islander, Dr Jimmy Rogers; while the Vice Chancellor of the Fiji-based University of the South Pacific (USP), is an Indo-Fijian.

In early 1990s, this traditional rivalry took a new twist due to the decision by Fiji to join the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), whose members are Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, while West Papua and New Caledonia gained observer status. It was a strategic positioning in Fiji’s quest to exert major influence on Melanesia as a power-bloc.

Fiji – the regional wizard

Geographically, Fiji is located at the crossroad of Polynesian and Melanesian subregions of the South Pacific. The racial makeup of Fiji’s indigenous population is split between Polynesians and Melanesians. The inclusion of Indians– as a third party– was of colonial making.

Fiji’s indigenous ethnic Polynesian population is a minority group. They are from the islands of Lau group, in the Eastern part of the country near Tonga, and Rotuma Island, on the Northern side. The indigenous Melanesian population of the country is spread across inland main islands of Viti Levu, Vanua Levu and the Western islands of Fiji, the Yasawa. Interestingly, since the colonial era until 1987, the political leadership in Fiji has been always under the Polynesian chiefly system.

The above system is different to Melanesia and its “Big Man” system, where leadership is achieved and legitimated through demonstrated abilities, accomplishments and accumulation of wealth. The Melanesian system is perceived as fluid and democratic.

On the contrary, the Polynesian system is hereditary, hierarchical and dictatorial. Leadership is only restricted to the children of chiefs. For decades, the intersection of these two contradictory systems complicated Fiji’s political system. It is a mixture of Western, Polynesian, Melanesian, Indian and the mixed race. 

To further complicate matters, Fiji is a Melanesian country, but practises a Polynesian leadership system. Prior to the coup of 1987, the political system of the country was highly structured and hierarchical, and only a chief could be appointed as Prime Minister and the Chairman of the Fiji Great Council of Chiefs. As a former British colony, the colonial administration adapted a Polynesian chiefly system.

Following Fiji’s independence in 1970, its political leadership was vested in the hands of a traditional Chief, the late Sir Ratu Kamasese Mara. The name “Kamasese” is Samoan according to late Mara’s own explanation, which begged the question on whether or not the late Sir Ratu Kamasese Mara possessed Samoan blood, besides his Tongan ancestry. This blood connection also partly explained the reason why, during the pre and post-colonial era in the Pacific Islands region, Fiji was always allied with Polynesia up until the late 1990s.

The damage to the Fiji’s Polynesian system was done in 1987, when a Melanesian commoner, then Fiji Military Commander, Sitiveni Rabuka, dismantled the traditional chiefly influence on democratically-inspired institutions. Few years later, Sitiveni quit his military position and became the first commoner prime minister of Fiji. His revolutionary action also led to his appointment ten years later as Chairman of the Fiji’s Great Council of Chief – a position that prior to 1997, only reserved for chiefly-blood descendants.

Since the colonial days, Fiji’s racial and ethnic identity have been complicated by her Melanesian roots, Polynesian chiefly system, Western-inspired political institutions and Indo-Fijians ownership of the national economy and business sector. For decades the above dynamics and population composition have prevented Fiji from openly declaring its Melanesian connection.

Historical context of modern Pacific Islands region

Politically, Samoa became one of the first Pacific Island nations to gain political independence in 1962 and followed by Fiji in 1970. This political history of the Pacific Islands region initially gave Samoa, Fiji and Tonga, a constitutional monarch, an upper hand in regional politics.

It disadvantaged the Melanesian countries of Papua New Guinea, which gained political independence in 1976 shortly followed by the Solomon Islands in 1978, before Vanuatu completed the process in 1980. The above brief history has partly explained the slow progression in Melanesian politics and leadership in the region

One other contributing factors in the failure of Melanesian leaders to make an immediate impact in regional leadership was leaders of the newly independent countries of the Melanesian bloc were young graduates of colleges in PNG, New Zealand and Solomon Islands with few years’ experience in national politics, let alone regional and international politics. Additionally, not one received university education. Michael Somare, the PNG’s post independent Prime Minister, was a journalist with the country’s National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) prior to entering politics. Peter Kenilorea, now Sir Peter, of the Solomon Islands, was a college graduate from New Zealand and only joined the British colonial administration in late 1960s and few years later, he became the country’s Prime Minister.

The then Prime Minister of Vanuatu, late Father Walter Lini, was a graduate of the British colonial owned secondary schools in the Solomon Islands, King George VI National Secondary School. Following his secondary education, the young Lini attended a seminary, where he graduated as a priest. In all, pioneer political leaders of the Melanesian bloc were young with limited experiences in regional and international politics. Despite their limited experience, they negotiated the political future of their countries.

During the 1970s, Polynesia was given a free reign in regional politics. One of the advantages that aided Polynesian dominance of regional politics and leadership since the 1970s was the traditional chiefly system of the Polynesia where leaders are identified at earlier stages and given early exposer and grooming to leadership positions. While in the context of Melanesia, leaders were educated by Christian churches and fought their ways through colonial administrations’ red-tapes to realise their political leadership aspirations. It led to a bitter dislike amongst Melanesian leaders and the educated elite of former colonial rulers.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, when young elected leaders of the Melanesian region began the process of learning to walk the walk and talk the talk of regional and international politics, leaders of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, were shaping regional politics. It disadvantaged Melanesian nations in influencing and shaping regional political and economic interests.

But the dominance by the Polynesian nations of regional leadership and politics over the past two to three decades has simply united Melanesian nations. Unlike the Polynesian nations of the region, which have no common link, except a history of traditional rivalry, the Melanesians are socially and culturally linked by a common language of Pijin, which is spoken at grassroots level and known in PNG as Tok Pisin, Bislama in Vanuatu and Pijin in Solomon Islands.

This sense of unity in Melanesia bonds people easily and partly played a role in the formation of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) in 1994. The organisation has since developed into a major trading bloc and over the past two decades, despite political and economic instability, gradually shifted the powerbase of regional politics from the Eastern Pacific Islands region of Polynesia, to the Western subregion of Melanesia.

Despite the political instability in Melanesia over the past ten years (1980s – 2011), the MSG has become a highly influential regional body.  Collectively, Melanesia has a number of things working in her favour. It has the biggest landmass with huge natural resources of the three subregions of the Pacific Islands subregions of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. It is also has the highest population of near 9 million with a single market bloc in the Pacific Islands region. In recent years, the Melanesian bloc has also forced our traditional donors, especially Australia and New Zealand, to reassess their aid distribution in the region, despite new attached conditions.

The new found fame of Melanesian countries has partially contributed to the Fiji’s dictator, Frank Bainimarama, consistent refusal to buckle under political, economic and social sanctions from Australian, New Zealand, European Union, and the United States since 2006.  It also perpetuated the rivalry of the Melanesia and Polynesia subregions; and since 2010; the Fijian dictator snubbed the Prime Ministers of Samoa, Australia and New Zealand over their concerns about his failure to honour his promises to return Fiji to democratic rule.