Identity Politics in Fiji

1

IDENTITY POLITCS IN FIJI: A

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE

PROPOSED IDENTITY CHANGE.

Eroni Racule

2011

[email protected]

2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The recent political events in Fiji have drawn various comments, interpretations and actions

from the differing set of actors and observers. The majority of these views see the taking over of

government as illegal hence do not agree or support the means by which it has taken place nor the

proposals that the current regime are putting forward. However, most if not all these sentiments do

point out that the root cause of these unfavourable political developments and instability lies

within the ethnically and racially divisive principles with which our social, and political

institutions were created; consequently their current modes of operation. These amongst other

factors have shaped the i-Taukei’s perceptions of the outsider and vice versa, fuelling the mistrust

that exists between the two major ethnic groups.

“The consciousness of the cultural self and the cultural other has become one of the most important political tools in

the societal life. Ethnic identity assertions have been blamed as the cause of much dissensions and violence”

(Pachuau 2009: 12).

Brij Lal echoed the same sentiments stating “….Fiji was a colony not of one people but of three

separate ethnic groups, each with its own distinctive understanding of its interest and aspirations in

the broader scheme of things, its own distinctive historical experience and economic

circumstances…” (Lal 2008: 15). One may argue that these are the remnants of our colonial past

where the administrative authorities saw fit to maintain the segregation of the two main ethnic

groups; fearful of the potential threat a joint effort could generate against their rule. Glimpse of this

multi-ethnic effort was evident in the trade union strike and violence of 1959, in protest of the oil

industry’s wage conditions. The event caused havoc to the industry and the state prompting the

3

Fijian leaders at that time to “…demand the loyalty of the Fijians towards the crown and warned

them against associating with other races…” (Lal 2008:1). As a result, the British, sensing the

potential threat that the Indians posed on their rule, and their growing demand for greater political

representation, colluded with i-Taukei elites in an effort to have them as an ally and neutralize the

Indian’s efforts for political equality. Thus the creation of various i-Taukei dominated institutions

such as the Great Council of Chiefs, the Fijian Affairs (later re-named as the i-Taukei Affairs

Board in 2008), the Fiji Military Forces and the racially biased Fiji Constitution as guarantors of

indigenous interests at the same time asserting the Indian’s status as second class citizens.

“Fijian ethno-nationalism has its roots partly in colonial policies of ethnic separation, and many scholars have viewed

the last decade of colonial rule as a tragically lost opportunity to build integrative institutions” (Norton 2002:135)

Other writers on Fiji interpret these moves as simply honouring the agreement made in the

Deed of Secession of 1874, where the interest of the i-Taukei has to be paramount. This was

advocated by certain Governor Generals and elite Fijian chiefs in government at that time.

Colonial officers saw it safe to maintain the privileged position of the i-Taukei in society sighting

the potential threats of violence if any attempts were made to remove this control from their hands

and hand it over to the Indo-Fijians.

'There is an element of racial arrogance in the Fijian makeup which must be reckoned with. He really does regard this

country as belonging to him ... The Fiji Intelligence Committee has placed first amongst possible internal security

threats, the withdrawal of loyalty by the Fijians in consequence of doubts as to whether the British Government is

adequately looking after their interests. I therefore regard it as axiomatic that we must carry the Fijians with us in any

changes that lie ahead'

(Sir Derek Jakeway, Governor of Fiji, May 1964, cited in Norton 2002: 133)

4

The Bainimarama government, through its People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress of

2008, has advocated the need to address this contentious issue by removing racist policies and

ideology from the various political, social and national frameworks. The government through the

Charter has proposed amongst other things, the removal of ethnic groupings of all Fiji citizens and

to replace it with a common national identity, Fijians, as one of the remedial measures proposed to

deal with the problem. Moreover, the indigenous population who strongly identify with this ethnic

identity will now have to share it with other ethnic groups who now call Fiji home.

This paper will examine this proposal and argue that the proposed common identity

“Fijian”, has certain moral significance amongst the i-Taukei and certain negative perceptions

associated with it by the Indo-Fijians; thus their reservations towards its adoption for all Fiji

citizens. However, the paper will argue that both ethnic groups should have a common moral

obligation to adopt it as a means of healing the political turmoil that has plagued the nation-state

for the last three decades.

1.2 Terminology

In Fiji’s context, the terms “race” and “ethnicity” has been loosely interpreted to mean the

same thing as the latter did not appear in the official labelling categories until the census of 1986.

Nor was the distinction preached in either the educational curricula or the various public

institutions that uses these terms for the purposes of classification. In this paper, the two terms will

be used concurrently when outlining its use in the context of Fiji. However, for the purposes of

anthropological discussion and analysis of the issues and theories, these two terms will be

distinguished. The term race will be defined as the geographical, biological and physical

characteristics of an individual which categorize and legitimize his membership into a racial

category; ethnicity will take on a much deeper meaning than mere categorization of biological

5

features to determine membership, it is the ideas associated with the identity and can be in the

form of “…a named human population with myths of common ancestry, shared historical

memories, one or more elements of a common culture, a link with a homeland and a sense of

solidarity” (Hutchinson and Smith 1996, cited in Chandra 2000:4). Based on the above definition,

Fiji has a variety of ethnic groups living under the same state but the two major groups, Indo-

Fijians and i-Taukei, make up the majority. These are two distinct ethnic groups have differing sets

of culture, language, religion, social structure and value system.

For the purpose of this paper, the term “Indo-Fijian” will refer to Fijians of Indian descent

and the term “i-Taukei” and “Fijian” will refer to the indigenous peoples of the land. The term

Fijian will be used instead of i-Taukei when discussing the importance of an identity; to emphasize

the moral significance of the term (as an identity) to the indigenous people. The term “nation” will

take on Anderson’s definition of an imagined community having a common will to coexist having

endured a common hardship together. The term will be extended to Smith’s ethnic and civic nation

in an attempt to prescribe a definition suitable for Fiji’s context.

The term Charter or People’s Charter will at times be used to refer to the People’s Charter

for Peace and Change of 2008.The term social cohesion will mean the attempt to bridge and

address the major differences that exist within our societies taking note of the difference that exists

and ensuring that everyone is in harmony with each other

1.3 Significance of the Study

The ethnic identity of an individual is the platform that enables him to express or lay claims

of membership to a closed group, who share the same underlying values on issues that clearly

demarcate their group from others such as a common culture, common religion, language and

ancestry. Also, this membership allows them to distinguish themselves from outsiders and thus

6

shape their attitudes and perceptions of non-members. According to Bornman “…The social and

political position of the in-group (or own group) in relation to relevant out-groups (or other groups)

consequently becomes psychologically significant and can be associated with various forms of

social and political behaviour” (Bornman 2010: 237).This was derived from Tejfel and Brown’s

(1979) Social Identity theory which states “the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to

enhance their self-image” (Tejfel and Brown 1979 cited in Bornman, 2010:240).

The study of the proposed change in national identity is very important as identity politics

has been the core initiator or the basis of most of the political instability that has taken place in Fiji

over the past three decades. Thus, there needs to be a critical analysis to determine the moral

significance and possible implications of this proposed change. In addition, does the current

situation and condition make it ethically and morally acceptable to warrants a change of identity.

As a postgraduate student of governance, I feel a moral obligation to examine the proposed

national identity stipulated in the People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress (2008) and to

determine the possible moral implications that this change can have on the ethnic groups involved.

Finally, since this is a very recent development here in Fiji, there is very little literature available

on the issue, thus the need to contribute to it.

1.4 Objectives

The paper will be guided by the question, what is the moral significance of an identity and under

what conditions is it morally and ethically accepted to replace an ethnic identity with a national

one.

This question will be divided into four main objectives and they are:

i) to highlight the significance of an identity to the group that owns it;

7

ii) to justify that the root cause of current and past political instability has been identity

politics, making it morally important to change the ethnic identities of the major ethnic

groups in Fiji as a means to an end;

iii) to evaluate the potential implications of this process; and

iv) to make recommendation on how this assimilation process could be achieved.

When contemplating an answer to these questions, one must not forget that the political processes

and events that shaped our nation have inter alia originated from the various issues surrounding

ethnic and racial relations.

1.5 Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

1.51 Introduction

The literature review is categorized into common themes and sub themes which will

highlight the supporting arguments that I will present to answer the objectives of this paper. It will

begin by focusing on the past and current political literature on Fiji, specifically focusing on the

coups and the processes and events surrounding the creation of our political and Fijian institutions.

The review will then focus on the concept of ethnic, racial and national identity with regards to

how they are created, emphasized, what determines who belongs and who doesn’t and the moral

implications surrounding the proposed change promoted by the Bainimarama Government. This

review will also act as my evidence based on the reasons given in the approach section of this

paper.

8

1.52 Proposed reasons behind the Coups of 1987, 2000 and 2006.

The perpetrators interpreted the first Military Coup of 1987 as a means to resist the Indo-

Fijian political dominance, with the view that the political control of the state should

predominantly remain with the i-Taukei. Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka justified his actions

by stating

“….God choose Fiji for the Fijians…it is the land that God has given them and is under threat from an emigrant race

that would ascend to a position of political power, to complete his control of Fiji….the removal of the coalition

government was necessary for the survival of the Fijian race, as simple as that” (Rabuka 1987, cited in Trnka

2009:23)

The rhetoric by George Speight and the supporters of the civilian coup of 2000 mirrored

Rabuka’s sentiments, citing the need to maintain indigenous control of government after Mahendra

Chaudary’s Labor Party and its coalition partners won the 1999 election; appointing the former as

the first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister of Fiji. This and the period following the 1987 coup, were

amongst the darkest periods in Fiji’s history where ethnic related crimes were committed against

Indo-Fijians by i-Taukei (both supporters of the coup and the mere opportunist elements) resulting

in the emergence for the first time ever, refugees who were victims of these violent crimes. In my

opinion, the perpetrators gained their moral authority from the nationalistic rhetoric emanating

from the only visible resemblance of the state existing at that time; the illegitimate power that had

taken over the government.

In a turn of events, the Military takeover of 2006 was a far cry from the indigenous

principles that perpetrators used to justify the takeover of 1987 and 2000.Tranka summed it up by

stating

9

“…Putting aside for the moment Bainimarama’s actions, which clearly do not uphold democratic principles, his

rhetorical calls for ‘equal rights’ constitute a unique and interesting turn in Fijian politics. In part this is because they

cross-cut but are also clearly distinguishable from the ways in which citizenship and political rights have been widely

articulated by many members of Fiji’s indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian populace, many of whose views on politics

and the state are intermeshed with deeply-held senses of ethnic, and often religious, differentiation between Fiji’s

major ethnic groups” (Trnka 2008:1)

Other commentators of the Fiji coups have cited the ulterior motives of certain Fijian elites as the

driving force behind it. In an interview with Radio Australia, Mahendra Chaudary stated “......

indigenous rights was used as a smokescreen to depose the coalition Government….” (Chaudary

2002 cited in Ramesh 2005:12). He amongst others were quick to point out that the coup of 2000

was a result of ruling Fijian elites being displaced from the political hierarchy of the state, thus

losing out on the privileges that come with it. Brij Lal (2009) echoed the same sentiments by

speculating that there were certain elite members of the i-Taukei community who had prior

knowledge of the two coups and may have provided behind the scenes advice to the coup makers

prior to and after its execution.

In my opinion, the i-Taukei as a race and ethnic group, have become accustomed to a

privileged position in the social and political order of the state and society; having being elevated

there by a combination of factors such as the preferential treatment of the colonial masters and the

ethnic divisive principles surrounding most of our institutions. When this is challenged, they resort

to illegal means as an option to maintain this status. Some may argue that as indigenous peoples,

they rightfully deserve to be privileged citizens of the state; however my argument here is that this

privileged status has been imagined and preached to the masses for the benefit of a few elite

individuals and ruling chiefly families, who have benefited from the so called status at the cost of

the whole nation-state.

10

1.53 The Significance of an Identity

An individual’s identity is the entity that allows him to gain access or membership to a

closed group. According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, an identity is the

“characteristics, feelings or beliefs that distinguish people from the others” (Oxford advanced

Learner’s Dictionary: computer program). There are different categories of identity but the

increasing significance of social identities such as ethnicity, nationality and religion has come to

the center of political deliberations. It has been a major contributor to the past and current global

conflicts. Most literature on ethnic, racial and cultural identity outlined the need for a person to

conform or fulfil certain pre-existing physical and social characteristics in order to belong to that

specific category.

1.54 Moral Importance and Significance of Indo-Fijian and Fijian Ethnic Identity

Scholars have described the construction of an ethnic identity as a complex process

involving a series of intersecting social frameworks. “Typically, ethnic identity is an affiliative

construct, where an individual is viewed by themselves and by others as belonging to a particular

group” (Trimble and Dickson 2010: online). Membership to the group is internally constructed by

the individual and the group by identifying with common cultural, social, physical characteristics

and ideology that is unique to the group; therefore enabling them to make the distinction with the

others. This is consistent with the Social Identity Theory developed by Tejfel and Brown in 1979

which states that “…the in-group will discriminate against the out-group to enhance their self-

image….” (Tejfel and Brown 1979 cited in McLeod, 2008: online).

The moral significance of the Fijian ethnic identity cannot be over emphasized as the

mental constructs associated with it has been entrenched into our entire political, social, spiritual

11

and educational systems; aided by our colonial masters’ favorable policies. Firstly, this identity is

significant as it lays claims of membership to the indigenous peoples (first nations) group

consequently their claims to land ownership, perceived political control of the state, first settlers of

the land, a unique culture, language, tradition and value system which is characterized as Fijian in

nature. In addition, this identity is also associated with Christianity; thus the construction of the

perception that others are heathens.

In my view there has been a gradual shift in some aspects of this identity due to the current

trends and themes of globalization filtering down to the nation-state and society; where democratic

values are more aligned towards individual rights, hence the reduction of collective or group rights

and consequently group identities. Locally, the latest perception that the Fijian, as supporters and

perpetrators of the coup and have been misled or were used as objects for the benefit of a few elite

members of the ethnic group; has tarnished this identity to one that supports lawlessness in the

name of indigenous rights.

The Indian identity took on the Indo-Fijian name as situations and circumstances changed in

their adopted home, Fiji.

“While the colonial authorities attempted to reduce indentured laborers into workhorses, the laborers themselves

responded to their new surroundings by fostering the development of new kinds of familial, religious, and other forms

of social life. One aspect of this was the creation of an identity as a Fijian Indian or Indo-Fijian. The Indo-Fijians who

found themselves thrust together on Fiji’s sugar plantations were, and continue to be, a very diverse group” (Trnka

2009:3)

The Indo-Fijian ethnic identity constructed primarily by Trnka’s (2009) plantation experience also

has its set of unique characteristics which presupposes membership. Apart from the unique culture,

tradition, religion and value systems, there is a common understanding of having shared a common

12

association to the struggles and hardships face by their ancestors in the indentured labor system. In

addition, the current literature has added two new dimensions to this unique identity hence

increasing its moral importance to group members. Firstly, they have closely associated their

identity with the ethos of hard work and perseverance, sighting their significant contribution to

Fiji’s largest revenue earner (sugar industry) and the commercial and economic sector of the

country (while the Fijians were still in their subsistence and communal status) as basis for these

claims. Secondly, their identity has also been closely associated with pain and suffering endured

through the political crisis of 1987 and 2000, thus their negative perceptions of the Fijian identity.

1.55 Instruments that have aided to the moral significance of ethnic identity particularly

“Fijian” as an Indigenous Identity.

In Fiji, these identities particularly ethnicity and race have gained more prominence than

expected through the provisions of the various political, state and social institutions. Fiji’s

constitutional arrangement has been primarily blamed for the ethnic divisive principles with which

the two major ethnic and racial groups have interacted and constructed ideas about each other. The

classification of identities and the provisions for political representation within the past and the

abrogated 1997 constitution were based along ethnic lines. This is evident through the Communal

Voting System, a system prescribed by the colonial administrators prior to independence in

collaboration with the chiefly Fijian elites, as a means to maintain their political control of the

state. Hence voter registration and the formation of political parties were conducted along the same

lines. Furthermore, the 1997 constitution classifies all citizens as Fiji Islanders, but distinguishes

each ethnic group along racial lines and thus the labeling; Fijian, Indian, Chinese, Rotuman,

Banaban and Europeans.

13

“Fiji and Trinidad are similar in terms of their colonial and postcolonial historical experiences, yet their

political outcomes are different. The argument put forth is that constitutional reforms that were adopted

by Fiji were unsuccessful because of systemic conditions specific to the country. Sustained by structural

features such as land rights and chiefly jurisdiction, and more intangible factors such as cultural identity

and nationalism, ethnic identity is the lens through which most public discourse occurs. By contrast,

Trinidad does not have these corresponding institutional structures and the existence of public spaces

for the contestation of ethnic identities together with the construction of hybrid identities at the local and

national levels have contributed towards political stability” (Brydon,2009:online)

The Great Council of Chiefs and the Fiji Military Forces “…have gained prominence over

the past two decades as institutions of indigenous Fijian power with capacities for extra-

constitutional management of crisis arising after the electoral defeat of Fijian-dominated

government…” (Norton 2009:97). Consequently, their inscription into the national political

framework has raised the moral significance of the Fijian identity to the extent that it has acquired

a perceived sense of privileged citizens of the state.

The formation of a separate Fijian Administration (system) to govern all indigenous affairs

which was to be later reformed, becoming the powerful Fijian Affairs Board in 1944, was seen as

another state institution aiding the significance of the indigenous Fijian identity. The proposal by

the Burns Commission1 to reform it “….was opposed by the Fijians because they saw their identity

and aspirations tied up with it…” (Lal 2008:14).

1. The Burns Commission was a Commission of Enquiry into the Natural Resources and Population Trends of

the Colony of Fiji chaired by Sir Alan Burns which reported its findings to the Government of Fiji in March

1960 in Legislative Council Paper No. 1, 1960. (Wikipedia)

14

Apart from the powerful and obvious Fijian institutions mentioned above, there were others

that had a supporting role in legitimizing the moral significance of ethnic identities. The formal

educational curriculum contributed to this ideology, preaching its significance and clearly

demarcating them and of course, the informal education occurring within our various societies

have also contributed immensely; as stipulated in the Social Identity theory. Furthermore,

Anderson’s census, map and the museum have also played their respective roles in this process.

1.66 Nationality as a Common Identity for all Citizens

The debates on the definition of a nation have been ongoing ever since its inception as a

separate entity from the state. It is an “imagined” (Anderson 1983) concept put together by a

handful of social and political scientist who then made others believe in it by taping on the pre-

existing commonalities that exists between them. These includes sharing a common language,

culture and having experienced a historical event together. Renan (1882) expanded on this by

describing the nation as peoples having “...the possession in common, of a rich heritage of

memories…the desire to live together, and the will to continue to make the most of the joint

inheritance” (Renan 1882, in Dahbour and Ishay 1995:153). His criteria for membership rested on

common cultural themes underlined by a deep moral and spiritual consciousness. Other writers on

the topic such as Anthony Smith (1987) described the nation as having an “ethnic and civil”

framework to it (Smith 1987 cited in Pandey and Geschiere 2003). Kymlicka (1995) highlighted

the existence of “multinational and polyethnic states” (11); the former refers to the existence of

more than one nation within a state and the later excludes immigrant’s claim to be a nation within

a state based on the fact their homeland is elsewhere, hence a polyethnic state.

15

1.70 Theoretical Framework

For the purpose of this paper, my assertion about how a group constructs perceptions of the

other is based on Tejfel and Brown’s (1979) Social Identity theory. It states that the group

constructs certain perceptions of the other or outsiders, based on their in-group philosophy and

their actions towards the outsiders are partially determined by these mental constructions. The

situation here in Fiji is such that the two major ethnic groups have constructed such stereotypes of

the other. When this identity ceases to exist or is changed (as proposed by the Government through

the Charter), there are two possible implications; ethical boundaries can change over time and

mental barriers will cease to exist thus making everyone belong to a common national group.

Secondly, there can be attempts by the group to resist accepting the new identity based on the

Primordial Theory of identity, if provisions are not provided by the nation-state to give the

replaced identity due recognition outside the political arena. This will be argued in a later section

of this paper, where I propose the formation of a civic nation and the ethnic nation to be given due

recognition and participation outside the political framework.

The political consequences surrounding identity politics in Fiji can be interpreted as rooted

in the Primordialist school of thought where “…identity is seen as a set of fixed characteristics of

individuals or a group that is rooted in biology and an extensive history of practices and traditions

that make one’s identity inalterable” (Lake and Rothschild 1998 cited in Tiemessen 2005:4). This

is particularly evident in both the i-Taukei and the Indo-Fijian’s claims to their respective identities

thus may be unwilling to give it up and accommodate the demands of the new one. On the other

hand, the Instrumentalism theoretical approach, where ethnicity is defined within the political

process, can be interpreted as the underlying ideology behind the political manipulation of

ethnicity as a tool to legitimize the political coups.

16

2.0 DISCUSSION

From the literature review/evidence presented above, it is obvious that in Fiji, political and

social discourse is most often than not conducted through ethnic lenses. Despite the multiethnic

political capacity of the 1997 constitution, the two major ethnic groups have always viewed each

other with reservations and suspicion stemming from decades of political and social segregation.

This has been a major setback to Fiji’s socio-economic development when compared to the

advancements made by similar post-colonial states with Indian migrants, such as Mauritius and

Trinidad. The so called coup culture that is now prevalent in Fiji, has come about in the name of

preserving indigenous rights. The evidence presented above suggests that the i-Taukei (as an

ethnic group) have grown accustomed to a perceived notion of privileged citizens of the state. This

assertion has been shaped by several factors; particularly the colonial administrator’s divide and

rule policies that were adopted by the post colonial administration and the formation of various

indigenous institutions. These ideologies consequently filtered down to society and have been the

major contributor in the formulation of pre existing stereotypes of the other, and consequently the

politicization of identity.

The Bainimarama government has advocated the need to remove the racist framework

entrenched in the social and political institutions of the nation-state by proposing several items

through its People’s Charter. One of which is to unify the people under a common national

identity; removing the ethnic labeling from our political systems and guarantee equality for all

citizens. The current rhetoric by the government advocates loyalty and patriotism to the nation-

state rather than the cultural nation, where a common nationality is to be constructed with

membership from differing sets of cultures and traditions as in Smith’s (1987) civic nation. The

proposal was prescribed to deal with the predicament of having several different ethnic identities

17

within the political system of a state, merging them into one with the assumption that this will shift

the loyalty of the differing ethnic groups from theirs towards a civic nation. Membership to the

civic nation to be characterized by having “…a common desire for more inclusiveness, unity,

mutual respect, social cohesion and equal citizenship” (People’s Charter for Change, Peace and

Progress 2008:5). In addition, members of this civic nation should be able to identify collectively

with the sufferings of the Indo-Fijian during the coup and the i-Taukei cause and participation as,

manipulation by the elite few. Furthermore, there needs to be a collective association with these

events as “detrimental to our socioeconomic development” and thus, the collective will to move

forward and progress together.

I propose that the nation-state, should then guarantee the existence of this civic nation by

providing equal opportunities for all groups within it and allowing them to freely express their

political desires within the state institution provided it does not encroach on the cherished values of

the other members. However, the fundamental rights for continued participation in the cultural

nation (for different ethnic groups within this imagined nation) should be addressed and given due

recognition in institutions outside the political framework such as the educational, social and

religious sites. This partially guarantees the recognition of their group rights which should always

remain subjective to the collective rights of the civic nation and its citizens. Nevertheless, the

rights of indigenous peoples to critical issues such as land ownership should be guaranteed by the

civic nation based on the fact that efforts made to acquire it unethically impedes on their cherished

values. Moreover, they should be empowered to become equal partners in development and

manage their resources effectively.

The challenge lies with the acceptance of this new national identity (Fijian) by the other

who had had negative perceptions about it. How could they be integrated into the civic nation

under a new identity and at the same time maintaining their connection to the ethnic nation? I feel

18

that assimilation would be possible since the group is being inscribed into a civic nation where the

political process guarantees their acceptance and existence in the group.

3.0 CONCLUSION.

To conclude, the social identity of people has moral significance and any attempts made to

change it should be treated with the outermost care and consideration. In Fiji, the Fijian and Indo-

Fijian identities have existed for over a century and have been entrenched in our social and

political frameworks thus the huge challenge in accepting the proposed change. However, the

existence of identity politics and its detrimental effects on Fiji makes it morally necessary to

change it so that the chief underlying factor (identity politics) behind the political instability is

eliminated.

Apart from the recommendations stipulated in the discussion section of this paper, the

proposed civic nation should conduct a public reconciliation process; where the past events

particularly the coups are publically condemned and forgiveness is sort from the Indo-Fijian

community at the national level. The challenge therefore lies with the i-Taukei’s willingness to

share their identity with the others as it is associated with certain ethnic constructs. Therein lies

Anderson’s argument of an imagined community, as this identity was created by the British and

over time has been imagined and claimed by the indigenous people to be their own. The term is a

foreign construction of an indigenous term converting Viti (indigenous name of the ethnic nation)

to Fiji and hence Fijian.

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflection on the origin and spread of

nationalism. London: Verso.

Bornman, Elirie. 2010. Emerging Patterns of Social Identification in Post apartheid South

Africa. Journal of Social Issues. [online] 66 ( 2): 237-254. Available at:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01643.x

Brydon, Diana. 2009. Updates in global democracy. [online] available at:

http://dianabrydon.wordpress.com./2011/07/09/updates-in-group-building-global-democracy-4/

Chandra, Kanchan. 2006. What is ethnic identity and does it matter. New York: New York

University.

Fiji Government, 2008. People’s Charter for Change Peace and Progress.

Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multi cultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford:

Claredon Press.

Lal, Brij V. 2008. A Time Bomb lies Buried: Fiji’s road to independence 1960-197. Canberra

ACT: The Australian University Press.

Mcleod, Saul. A. 2008. Simply Psychology; Social Identity Theory. [online] Available at:

http://www.simplypsychology.org/social-identity-theory.html.

Norton, Robert.2009. The changing role of the Great council of Chiefs. In Fraenkel, J., Firth S

and Lal Brij.V, eds. The 2006 Military takeover in Fiji: A coup to end all coups. Canberra

ACT: ANU E Press.

Norton, Robert. 2002. Accommodating Indigenous Privilege: Britain's Dilemma in

Decolonizing Fiji. Journal of Pacific History [online] 37 (2): 133-1156. Available at: JSTOR.

Pachuau, Lalsangkima. 2009 Ethnic Identity and the Gospel of Reconciliation. [online]

Mission Studies Journal: 26 (2): 49–63. Available at:

20

http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com/deliver/connect/brill/01689789/v26n1/s6.pdf?expires=132

1247492&id=

Pandey, Gayendra and Geschiere, Peter. 2003. The forging of nationhood. New Delhi: Lordson

Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Ramesh, Sanjay. 2002. Destruction of Democracy in Fiji [online] Available at:

http://archives.pireport.org/archive/2002/september/09-06-21.html

Renan. Ernest. 1882. What is a nation? In Dahbour, O and Ishay, M.R.eds. 1995. Nationalism

Reader.New York: Humanity Books.

Tiemessen, Alana. 2006. From Genocide to Jihad: Islam and Ethnicity in Post-Genocide

Rwanda. In: paper presented at the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Political Science

Association (CPSA). London 2-5 June, 2005. Department of Political Science: University of

British Columbia.

Trimble, Joseph. E and Dickso, Ryan. 2010. Ethnic Identity. [online] Available at:

http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/trimble/research_themes/ethnicity_identity.htm

Trnka, Sussana. 2009. From the Ground Up: Ethnographic Analyses of Ethnic Identity,

Violence, and the State in Fiji. In: Paper presented during the Pacific Island Political Studies

Association Conference. Auckland, New Zealand 23-25 May 2009. New York: Cornell

University Press.