Modern day Fijians are still looking at the signs that the land could be telling us something. Even modern day Christians forget the responsibility each human being has over the land and all creatures and fish as Jehovah had wished.
As we wrap up this series we have to ask ourselves whether the GCC was an offspring of the colonialists' attempts to bring their own sense of order to replace the already sophisticated social order that our ancestors had established for themselves.
In that way were they beginning a suppression of the Fijian race that would culminate in today where Fijians are struggling to take hold of their heritage.
If the GCC has served its purpose properly, why are some Fijians still not happy, in a silent way, to-day with how development has trudged slowly leaving the rural Fijian way behind compared to rich farmers of old. The Rewa Rugby Union of old is a classic example of our bone of contention in this issue.
Most of the players who represented the team were from other provinces and involved vanua sides who had more affinity to Tailevu than Rewa. As the new rugby era of the late 1990s led by a number of Tailevu chiefs, including the late Koya na Ratu Mai Verata (one of the prominent chiefs of the old matanitu), members of the Vunivalu of Bau clan and other senior chiefs of the province Tailevu, formerly known as Rewa, started to scoop major rugby titles. The Waimanu rugby players, who used to represent Rewa, joined with Tailevu ruggers but then returned to their original roots and the present day Naitasiri rugby side as a result of unification initiated by the Qaranivalu of Naitasiri, Ratu Inoke Takiveikata.
Then Northland Tailevu (from Verata to the Wainibuka area) split from the Southern Tailevu teams and today they are being blessed with decent crowds and promising futures from budding rugby players. For these dominions, returning to their origins has opened the floodgates that once were closed.
Recently a Fijian prayer group travelled to Canada to conduct a cleansing pro-cess with indigenous tribes who were facing problems similar to what we are highlighting. The group visited the Rankin Inlet and Pangnirtung, Nunavut communities in July last year. The original inhabitants had a legitimate claim to the land. Thus they believed in the special relationship that Fijians refer to as the vanua (the land, sea and surroundings are one with humans).
The Canadian reconciliation involved the old settlers reconciling with the present day inhabitants who had settled the land later. They dug holes where they wrote down their wishes and poured oil over the prayers and offered bread (the body of Christ) and wine (his blood) in a holy sacrament. Deeply inflicted wounds involving the immigrant chiefs and the old guard were being treated and reconciled. The miracle came when a wildlife manager at Rankin Inlet reported that close to 15,000 caribou (considered a delicacy for the indigenous) appeared at the site of the cleansing ceremony. In this case it had been missing for such a long time from their midst.
So what can we do to address this matter in our own time of need. Similarly to how the Canadians reconciled with the custodians of the land, Fiji needs its own reconciliation.
The old matanitu needs to meet the present day establishment so that the harmonious existence of old and new takes place and the people who are supposed to come under the domain of another chief can mix freely with their rightful allies and chiefs.
Much of the new is well versed in modern day politics and are needed to help pave the way forward. A spiritual element needs to take precedence and Christian churches need to pray for the chiefs the people and the land.
The old GCC needs to be restructured and refined to include the ways of old.
What was a "kaucake syndrome" needs to be replaced with a "kau sobu tale mai syndrome". But until we resolve those unsettled issues and what many term as a gross miscalculation of administrative justice Fijians will continue to wander in circles in the wilderness. Today may be the only time we can address this.
Friday, March 30, 2007
GCC's lost aura_Robert Matau
The ever assuring voice of the Great Council of Chiefs has helped shape Fiji into what it is today. Without this august body we would not have modernisation in its present form, nor would we have adopted the Western concepts of governance and democracy.
In the absence of their voice through their current stand-off with the military, we take a look at the GCCs history and the consequences that shaped this institution up until recent times, in this three-part series.
SINCE that first shot was fired on May 14, 1987 in Fijis unknowing parliament, the fluidity of Fijian politics has never recovered from the so called coup culture.
It has become the main catalyst to legitimise the overthrow of any tyranny of democracy in Fijian politics. Caught in this vice-like grip is the Great Council of Chiefs, the last bastion of the Fijian race. For many years Fiji has looked up to the Great Council of Chiefs for answers to a wide range of its problems in its darkest hours. And many times they have bailed out a nation on the brink of collapse with their wisdom and aura. That is why it has been revered and tagged with the label, august institution. However, the 2006 coup and the leadership problems that continue to plague Fiji, have given fuel to the growing number of critics who are losing confidence in this institution.
The continuous silence on the part of the chiefs has also fuelled rumours that the GCC may have been too politicised, and, that what the public now hears is only the voice of the institution called the GCC making decisions but without the full mandate of all chiefs. This school of thought is also bold enough to claim that the GCCs aura and manna have been lost.
Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimaramas public swipe at the GCC, though considered harsh by many, has also given fuel to that same school of thought.
The erosion of chiefly rule, stemming from the 1987 coup, was sensed and opposed strongly by the late Josevata Kamikamica.
He said the chiefly body should be apoliticial, with reference to the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei Party the first political party to receive the backing of the chiefly body.
Mr Bainimaramas slating the GCC was blasphemy in the eyes of any Fijian. But could it be that he knew certain truths within the roots of all things chiefly that gave him the ammunition to conduct the so called clean up campaign, starting with the GCC?
In the absence of the chiefly voice maybe it is an opportune time to review the roles of this institution, its origins and what its initial functions were.
To do this we have to go back into history to fully understand the initial establishment and purpose of the GCC. The Great Council of Chiefs was a brainchild of William Pritchard, the British Consulate who initiated the first ever general meeting of chiefs in Levuka on December 14, 1859 to pave the way for the cessation process of Fiji to the British Crown. Like the 1997 Constitution, the old Matanitu could understand what its true purpose and benefits were.
Their ignorance of understanding the issues was interpreted by the Colonialists as a major threat to their chosen leading chiefs led by Ratu Seru Cakobau the then Vunivalu of what was to be regarded by many, as the leading military and naval power in Fiji, supported by white historians. He was under threat from the Americans to pay up the debts for the burning of the US Counsels residence in Nukulau on July 4, 1846, which plagued Cakobau for the next 20 years. Pressed from all corners to avoid the same fate that Veidovi of Rewa in 1840 faced for his crimes against visiting American ships when he was shipped out of Fiji in chains by Commodore Wilkes to America to answer for his crimes, Cakobau needed a way out. At the same time, Cakobau, who became fascinated by the Hawaiian monarchial system through his secretary Samuel A St.John, assumed the title Tui Viti. He was sending out the message that he held absolute power throughout the divided yet pocket and strongly entrenched matanitu that made up Fiji.
Each matanitu operated under a sophisticated and civilised system of its own chiefdoms your chief did not recognise the other, hence the adage "manu dui tagi" (you only rule in your own land) common to the chiefs of Kadavu. Even more true to this debate were the Colo states that now come under Naitasiri.
Each small state had their own chief and there was no recognised paramount chief in their eyes.
The opportunity to consolidate his position through the first of many coups (with the overthrow of the principle chief of Bau the Roko Tui Bau) during his own lifetime and his continued skirmishes, armoured with muskets and fierce warriors was a war itself against the ancient Fijian chiefly hierarchy. A hierarchy that had stood the test of time over 15 generations before his time.
In the eyes of the old matanitu or old guard if you may, the uprising Bau matanitu was a junior state yet it had the gall to challenge the old ways.
To achieve his goals, Cakobau subjected the seniority of many other matanitu and gave prominence to the lesser matanitu that gave him their support forming the provinces to be their leader. Many of these old Kingdoms were at war with the emerging power for a long time including Roko Tui Dreketi of Rewa, Ratu mai Verata, Takala-I-Gau of Lomaiviti, Tui Cakau of Taveuni, Gonesau of Ra and Lau under the Tongan prince Enele Maafu.
(Next we look at the assessment of the British advance party to check Ratu Serus claims as Tui Viti)
In the absence of their voice through their current stand-off with the military, we take a look at the GCCs history and the consequences that shaped this institution up until recent times, in this three-part series.
SINCE that first shot was fired on May 14, 1987 in Fijis unknowing parliament, the fluidity of Fijian politics has never recovered from the so called coup culture.
It has become the main catalyst to legitimise the overthrow of any tyranny of democracy in Fijian politics. Caught in this vice-like grip is the Great Council of Chiefs, the last bastion of the Fijian race. For many years Fiji has looked up to the Great Council of Chiefs for answers to a wide range of its problems in its darkest hours. And many times they have bailed out a nation on the brink of collapse with their wisdom and aura. That is why it has been revered and tagged with the label, august institution. However, the 2006 coup and the leadership problems that continue to plague Fiji, have given fuel to the growing number of critics who are losing confidence in this institution.
The continuous silence on the part of the chiefs has also fuelled rumours that the GCC may have been too politicised, and, that what the public now hears is only the voice of the institution called the GCC making decisions but without the full mandate of all chiefs. This school of thought is also bold enough to claim that the GCCs aura and manna have been lost.
Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimaramas public swipe at the GCC, though considered harsh by many, has also given fuel to that same school of thought.
The erosion of chiefly rule, stemming from the 1987 coup, was sensed and opposed strongly by the late Josevata Kamikamica.
He said the chiefly body should be apoliticial, with reference to the Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei Party the first political party to receive the backing of the chiefly body.
Mr Bainimaramas slating the GCC was blasphemy in the eyes of any Fijian. But could it be that he knew certain truths within the roots of all things chiefly that gave him the ammunition to conduct the so called clean up campaign, starting with the GCC?
In the absence of the chiefly voice maybe it is an opportune time to review the roles of this institution, its origins and what its initial functions were.
To do this we have to go back into history to fully understand the initial establishment and purpose of the GCC. The Great Council of Chiefs was a brainchild of William Pritchard, the British Consulate who initiated the first ever general meeting of chiefs in Levuka on December 14, 1859 to pave the way for the cessation process of Fiji to the British Crown. Like the 1997 Constitution, the old Matanitu could understand what its true purpose and benefits were.
Their ignorance of understanding the issues was interpreted by the Colonialists as a major threat to their chosen leading chiefs led by Ratu Seru Cakobau the then Vunivalu of what was to be regarded by many, as the leading military and naval power in Fiji, supported by white historians. He was under threat from the Americans to pay up the debts for the burning of the US Counsels residence in Nukulau on July 4, 1846, which plagued Cakobau for the next 20 years. Pressed from all corners to avoid the same fate that Veidovi of Rewa in 1840 faced for his crimes against visiting American ships when he was shipped out of Fiji in chains by Commodore Wilkes to America to answer for his crimes, Cakobau needed a way out. At the same time, Cakobau, who became fascinated by the Hawaiian monarchial system through his secretary Samuel A St.John, assumed the title Tui Viti. He was sending out the message that he held absolute power throughout the divided yet pocket and strongly entrenched matanitu that made up Fiji.
Each matanitu operated under a sophisticated and civilised system of its own chiefdoms your chief did not recognise the other, hence the adage "manu dui tagi" (you only rule in your own land) common to the chiefs of Kadavu. Even more true to this debate were the Colo states that now come under Naitasiri.
Each small state had their own chief and there was no recognised paramount chief in their eyes.
The opportunity to consolidate his position through the first of many coups (with the overthrow of the principle chief of Bau the Roko Tui Bau) during his own lifetime and his continued skirmishes, armoured with muskets and fierce warriors was a war itself against the ancient Fijian chiefly hierarchy. A hierarchy that had stood the test of time over 15 generations before his time.
In the eyes of the old matanitu or old guard if you may, the uprising Bau matanitu was a junior state yet it had the gall to challenge the old ways.
To achieve his goals, Cakobau subjected the seniority of many other matanitu and gave prominence to the lesser matanitu that gave him their support forming the provinces to be their leader. Many of these old Kingdoms were at war with the emerging power for a long time including Roko Tui Dreketi of Rewa, Ratu mai Verata, Takala-I-Gau of Lomaiviti, Tui Cakau of Taveuni, Gonesau of Ra and Lau under the Tongan prince Enele Maafu.
(Next we look at the assessment of the British advance party to check Ratu Serus claims as Tui Viti)
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
