One of the important lessons I learned
in Korea was that sometimes, one size does not fit all, especially when the
size is Korean and the “sizee” is…well… me. Jokes aside, I have been reflecting
on the diversity we have in Fiji – not just in terms of ethnicity, religion and
size and shape – but also diversity in terms of recognition or legitimacy of
authority over different spheres of life and society, culture, social
behaviour, ideology and worldviews.
Just over a year ago the research book,
“Voices of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development
in Fiji,” presented the perceptions and visions of the people of Fiji for future
democratic development, as well as their opinions as to the preconditions
required for this development. It also suggested what a Fijian model of
democracy may be like. The research by Boege, Casimira, Ernst and Szesnat covered
the following five key areas: (1) Democracy; (2) Rule of Law; (3) Leadership;
(4) Decision-Making; and (5) Citizenship. Apart from the quantative research
undertaken, qualitative research was built on the scholarly discourse on the
interface between democratic state institutions and non-state local societal
institutions of governance in the post-colonial societies of the Global South –
the so-called ‘hybrid political orders’.
According to the book’s Executive
Summary, in post-colonial states, including Fiji, state institutions are not
the only institutions which fulfil functions that, in the model Western state,
are clearly state obligations. Locally-rooted social entities, such as extended
families, clans, tribes, village communities, and traditional authorities (e.g.
village elders, chiefs, healers, ‘big men’ and religious leaders), determine
the everyday social reality of large parts of the population. Moreover, as seen
in Fiji, state institutions are to a certain extent ‘infiltrated’ and
overwhelmed by local, customary non-state ‘informal’ institutions and social
forces, which operate according to their own logic and rules.”
As a result, the report states that,
“governance is hybridized by the interactions between introduced liberal
democratic state institutions and local customary non-state institutions. In
hybrid political orders, diverse and competing authority structures, sets of
rules, logics of order and claims to power co-exist, overlap, and interact;
they combine elements both from introduced Western models of governance, and
local indigenous traditions of governance and politics. Further influences are
found in the forces of globalization and associated societal fragmentation. In
hybrid political orders, different types of legitimate authority - beyond the
rational-legal authority legitimized by liberal democratic procedures - can be
found, such as traditional and charismatic types of legitimacy. These co-exist,
compete and interact with rational-legal legitimacy, leading to the
hybridization of legitimate authority.”
The complexity of Fijian society lies in
its hybridity of pre-modern traditional society, modern capitalist society and
recently the impact of globalisation and postmodern transitional paradigm.
According to Kerry
R. Howe in, “Where the Waves Fall”, premodern
Fijian society and polity was hierarchical - a small number of chiefs ruling
the bulk of the indigenous i-Taukei
population , with a rich culture, an
efficient agricultural production system and a complex religious system which
supported the socio-political structure. Integral to Fijian social, political
and religious life was the vanua. Sekove
Degei writes that the “cultural aspects and connotations surrounding the vanua
were (and still are) related to the belief and value systems of the people” and
“relationships,” based on community, mutuality, and reciprocity which existed
among “people, and between the people and their physical environment”.
The beginning
of Fiji’s modern epoch can be placed with the arrival of Wesleyan missionaries
in 1835. These missionaries who had left the fledging industrial revolution of
nineteenth century England viewed the i-Taukei
as having a primitive way of life and set about to both Christianise and
“civilise” the indigenous population, condemning and encouraging “the abolition
of those activities and practices which they regarded as un-Christian and
un-Biblical,” introducing a set of laws based on their own society. At the same
time they maintained those cultural practices which they considered acceptable.
John Garrett notes that the missionary John Hunt’s, “readiness to follow the
local custom of kerekere in giving
away his own and his wife's possessions to Fijians.”
The hierarchical structure of political hegemony in
traditional i-Taukei society meant
that chiefs of each tribe had to convert before commoners could. However,
according to Garrett, “although they loyally followed
their chiefs, the people seemed to understand that a fundamental personal
decision was also involved in renouncing local and ancestral spirits in favour
of Christ. When they did follow, the feeling of the church so formed was
overwhelmingly communal. The unity of vanua,
(country), matanitu (chiefly
authority) and lotu, (the Christian
religion), took on an almost Trinitarian solemnity in the inner life of
Fijians…Traditional Wesleyans felt no strain over the emergence of a church
established within the framework of custom law; John Wesley and his early
followers defended and never officially forsook the established Church of
England, built on similar assumptions about the sacred and secular.”
With the
ceding of Fiji to Great Britain in 1874, the unity of the vanua, matinitu and lotu
became the three-legged stool on which modern Fijian society would now
stand. According to Ilaitia Tuwere, “the vanua absorbed the lotu
such that one became indistinguishable from the other”. He adds that “without
the vanua and the lotu, the
Fijian way of life would not have its present form.” This was exploited by the
British colonial government, who created a Council of Chiefs through which to
govern the i-Taukei. It also served
to entrench the position of the emerging Methodist Church in the
socio-political structure of Fiji. Conversely, according to Steve Ratuva, indigenous
Fijian culture and politics have helped shape some of the doctrines and
practices of the churches. This relationship has made not only Christianity,
but particularly Methodism, an inseparable component of the Fijian
socio-cultural milieu. Christianity has provided the ideological base on which
various forms of cultural and political practices are justified.
British
colonialism’s use of the three-legged stool had economic and social
repercussions on the emerging modern Fiji. Karen Brison notes that rural i-Taukei were molded by a British
colonial philosophy “stressing the importance of preserving i-Taukei communal tradition in order to
prevent deracinated people from flooding urban areas that offered employment
only to a few.” She writes that ‘the British had set up a system of ethnic
niches in which Indian indentured servants were brought to work on sugar
plantations while the indigenous population was encouraged to stay in a
traditional state in rural villages.”
However, since independence in 1970, such
restrictive policies were no longer in place and in the process of
urbanisation, the traditional structure of the three-legged stool began to lose
its “Trinitarian solemnity”. Increasing access to education and resulting
employment opportunities led to a new “educated”, “white collar” class within
the i-Taukei social structure. The modern concepts
of immediate or “nuclear” family began to erode the extended family/clan
structure in the urbanised context, while individualism and status based on
earning power, began to eat away at the communal structure and provide a new
sense of identity. However in the rural and traditional setting the
three-legged stool, however twisted the legs may have become stood firm. Thus a
hybrid culture developed in which i-Taukei must have one foot in each world.
However, the advent of globalisation has further
challenged the hybridity of Fijian society. The shift from communal and
relational identity to individualistic and materialistic is more pronounced
than ever before. The influx of new religious movements which are Pentecostal
in ecclesiology has weakened the influence of the Methodist church and other
mainline churches (Catholic, Anglican, Seventh Day Adventist). Globalised media
has introduced new symbols, cultures and lifestyles. The immediacy and
accessibility of communication and sources of information has led to new ideas
and new ways of thinking about culture, democracy, human rights and an emphasis
on secularism, which had been resisted by conservative structures of cultural,
traditional and religious values. Fijians are no longer just members of ethnic,
social or traditional groups, they are now part of the global community.
Finally the postmodern paradigm is also influenced
by the rise of civil society, non-governmental and community groups. Some have
emerged from within the church, such as Soqosoqo Vakamarama (indigenous Women’s
Association), Stri Sewa Sabha (Indo-Fijian Women Social Welfare Society) the
Young Women’s Christian Association and the Ecumenical Centre for Research,
Education and Advocacy, which was originally part of the Fiji Council of
Churches, and those of other religious organisations. Others have been part of
the changing paradigm such as the Fiji Women’s Rights Movement and the Fiji
Women’s Crisis Centre. Yet others have emerged as a response to the changing
socio-political landscape such as the Citizen’s Constitutional Forum, Dialogue
Fiji, and the NGO Coalition on Human Rights.
As we continue to pass through the
threshold of this new and significant year, looking for “true democracy for Fiji”
or a “truly Fijian democracy”, national unity and cohesiveness of Fijian
society, cultural and religious liberty and respect and tolerance for and among
all Fijians; it is important to remember the complex hybridity of Fijian
society. Such social hybridity extends in the sociological sense to the
discussion of religion and secular society – premodern society is religious,
modern society is secular, yet the post-modern/emerging society is in fact
broadly ecumenical in both a Christian and multi-faith dialogical sense.
In this regard one size may indeed not
fit all. Even the saying that “that the strongest chain is only as strong as
the weakest link” may be pause for some thought. The chain may be made stronger
by removing the weakest link, but that makes the chain smaller. The weakest
link, if strengthened (empowered), may prove to be a strong and crucial link in
the chain, rather than merely a brick in the wall to be removed.
“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”
NOTE:
This article contains elements from “Voices
of the People: Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in
Fiji,” published by the Pacific Theological College’s Institute for Research
and Social Analysis, and “Sailing To The Island Of Hope: A Wesleyan Ethical
Framework For 21st Century Fiji,” Rev. Bhagwan’s Master of Theology in
Christian Ethics Thesis. The opinions expressed in this article do not
necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper or any organisation that Rev.
Bhagwan is associated with.
No comments:
Post a Comment