The Easter weekend of 2009 saw the military further entrench its control over Fiji. In reaction to a High Court ruling, which declared the military’s seizure of power and subsequent efforts to establish a government to be illegal (9 April), the regime moved, with the support of President Iloilo, to abrogate the 1997 Constitution, sack the country’s judiciary and suspend democratic elections until 2014 (Fijilive 11 April 2009). In the following days, the military acted with haste to quell potential sources of dissent. Media outlets were warned against publishing critical material that might negatively depict the situation. Subsequently, members of the discipline forces were placed in all media premises to ensure that no material inciting ‘disorder … or public alarm’ was published (Fijilive 12 April 2009). Later, the military went further, shutting down the local radio transmitter carrying broadcasts from Radio Australia and deporting a number of foreign journalists from Australia and New Zealand for their alleged critical reporting of these events. Amid intense speculation over the extent of the military’s media scrutiny, the advocacy community became nervous about the security of email communications and seemed to shy away from making any public comment on the court ruling and subsequent military actions. Regional electronic discussion sites that had, in the previous years, served as important venues for the transfer of information during political crises, and which had also carried statements of support for Pacific women caught up in such events, now ‘went dark’, with almost no discussion of the 2009 developments. Even those women activists who had articulated a strongly adversarial line against the regime in the past, and used these forums to make their positions known internationally, now recognised that such activity might place them in a situation of extreme vulnerability. Internationally, these events saw Fiji become further isolated and economically imperilled. In May 2009, Fiji was expelled from the Pacific Islands Forum. With the economy in severe downturn, the Reserve Bank moved to devalue the Fiji Dollar by 20 per cent (Fiji Times 16 April 2009) and introduced measures to halt the outflow of capital (Lal 2009). Such developments appeared to confirm the many dire predictions made by observers of Pacific affairs regarding Fiji’s future. There is no doubt that the current outlook for Fiji has few points of light, but women activists in Fiji have continued to meet these challenges philosophically. Certainly, there are those who have lamented the military’s decision to tear up yet another of Fiji’s constitutions, questioning how this act can assist its supposed ‘good governance’ agenda. Others have sought to justify the military’s action, arguing the regime had little alternative. Such differences of opinion have been evident in the wake of each of Fiji’s former coups. But, as this chapter and indeed this book demonstrate neither Fiji’s coups nor the differences they provoke within civil society prove fatal to the realm of gender advocacy. Fiji’s women activists are now well used to dealing with division, repression, expulsion and recession. They have continually shown their capacity to work within and around all that the ever volatile local and global political environment throws at them. Certainly, Fiji’s changed political circumstances suggest that, presently, there is only a remote possibility of the country returning to constitutional democracy. But for Fiji’s women activists, projects continue to run and questions about leadership, peacebuilding and definitions of feminism continue to receive close attention. The international community may wring its hands over Fiji’s repeated tendency to ‘disappoint’. It may also lament the apparent divisions emerging within civil society in the wake of the 2006 coup. For Fiji’s women activists, however, a ‘life goes on’ attitude seems currently to prevail (FWRM electronic posts to PACWIN April/May 2009; WAC 2009; Bhagwan Rolls cited ABC Radio National 15 April 2009). Continued despair and blaming is, for them, useless and provides no-one inside or indeed outside Fiji with a pathway forward. This perhaps explains why many of Fiji’s women activists have begun to place an increasing emphasis on the utility of constructive and non-adversarial engagement with the military regime. Some may judge this as an abandonment or betrayal of liberal political ideals. Others may describe it as evidence of civil society cooptation. But such views are mistaken. In Fiji, women activists’ determination to maintain a political presence has relied upon their ability to decide upon viable courses of action in an always-changing political environment. This capacity is, in many ways, their hallmark. It has allowed them to continue operating through periods of intense political upheaval and has not undermined their broad-based commitments to women’s advancement. For these reasons, we should not be surprised when the courses of action they decide upon demonstrate their determination to work within a complex local and global political environment. This has been a well-established pattern within the realm of women’s organising over the past forty years.
Posted on: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 22:31:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015