This replacement article ran instead of the piece on Rule of Law..
I have written in the past on the challenges we of Fiji
face when it comes to understanding ourselves as one nation. Today I share with
you what others think of citizenship.
In the recently published book, “Voices of the People:
Perceptions and Preconditions for Democratic Development in Fiji,” the results
of research conducted by the Institute for Research and Social Analysis of the
Pacific Theological College included a section on citizenship. The study
collected the views of Fijians from all sectors of society through 41 focus
group discussions involving 330 participants, and conducting 82 in-depth
interviews. It
found that identity is perhaps the most crucial element of citizenship.
Culture,
religion, production, and to some extent, the self, are composites of identity.
For the iTaukei, three institutions are paramount: lotu (church), Vanua (land)
and matanitu (government). These represent the three powers vested in the chiefs
– spiritual, economic and political. For Fijians of Indian descent, identity is
defined by birth, close family relationships and production (namely, success in
education, business and careers).
There are
significant differences between iTaukei and non-iTaukei views on identity; for
example, the ‘communitarian’ view of identity is much more pronounced among the
iTaukei than the Indo-Fijian participants and interviewees. However, there is
also a shared view with regards to identity: it is best defined in relation to
the narratives of others, which includes language, religion, history, customs
and family relations.
Simply put, the
shared conception of identity is best understood from a narrative point of
view, as most communities seem to describe their identity in relation to a
situated place with its multiplicity of narratives and texts.
The common name
‘Fijian’, which has been decreed by the current government to apply to all
citizens of the Republic of Fiji, is acceptable to most participants and interviewees;
birthright was the main reason given for this acceptance. While the
distinctiveness of ethnic identities at the village, community and national
levels were affirmed, there is a realization that a national identity is long
overdue. It is also believed that a common name may assist in eliminating
racial discrimination.
Helping citizens
to recognize that their ethnic and religious narratives, while particular, are
inter-twined, is essential to national unity and belonging. Learning one
another’s language and culture is essential to strengthening citizenship and
national identity. Some interviewees also believe that developmental benefits
could flow from allowing dual citizenship.
Most interviewees
believe that sport plays a key role in strengthening national identity. The
national anthem and the flag constitute other important elements in reinforcing
a national identity. It was suggested that these should be reviewed to
adequately reflect the reality of Fiji. Generally, most participants and interviewees
believe that race relations are much better now than in the past, but noted
that they become problematic whenever race is politicized by politicians in
their election campaigns; this occurs mostly in relation to urban areas, and,
more specifically, to the central division. Community education and rallying
citizens around Fiji’s national symbols are crucial to forging a common
identity.
While most
participants and interviewees are accepting of the common name ‘Fijian’, some
believe that acceptance should come about organically, through awareness and
dialogue, and not through a decree. Some feel that the change of name will not
make any difference, because ethnic and cultural differences remain. There are
concerns that the common name was introduced too fast without consultation and
agreement; rather, it is felt that there should be education in this regard, so
that the people accept and understand the rationale behind it.
There are also
some who disagree with the use of the term ‘Fijian’ as the common name for all
citizens. In addition, there was confusion surrounding understanding the
difference between the concept of citizenship, and that of belonging to a
cultural tradition; in particular, some thought that the term ‘Fijian’ was
usually used solely when referring to the iTaukei, so that it was felt that
classifying everyone as Fijian in relation to citizenship would be problematic
because of the differences in values, cultural practices and identity between
the iTaukei, Indo-Fijians, and other ethnic groups.
Such views not
only highlight the lack of awareness and consultation, but also the need for
education about Fiji’s common identity. Education plays an important role in
alleviating ethnic suspicion. Some interviewees regarded the implementation of
policies on the zoning of schools, and changing school names to reflect the
vision of a ‘Fiji for all’ as positive not only with regards to forging good
ethnic relations, a sense of belonging, and a common identity, but also with
regard to development in general.
Aside from the
conflicting views expressed on the common name and identity, some interviewees
stated that there is an emerging cosmopolitan identity. Three of the main
factors cited as contributing to this emerging identity were education, urbanization
and international exposure through travel, study and work. Changes in eating
habits, food and dress cultures, and the form of the English language used
today, particularly among the younger generation, were also seen to contribute
to this emerging identity.
In other words,
education about citizenship, and not just education for voters, is necessary.
In addition to
issues regarding participation in certain communities, there are also problems
for entire communities whose voices are not heard, and which do not have access
to the necessary mechanisms for actively participating in Fiji’s political
life. In particular, reference was made to the following groups: the Rabi,
Kioa, and the descendants of Solomon Islanders and Ni-Vanuatu.
Much will depend
on the identity the people of Fiji choose for themselves; their understanding
of freedoms and obligations, and the rule of law; and whether they wish to
limit Fiji’s form of politics to rights on the one hand, and welfare on the
other, or whether they will take a bold step towards defining its politics
according to moral engagement.
For now,
political education in schools and communities, and citizenship participation
and representation in politics, is crucial. Consensus on these issues will
greatly influence the kind of life the people of Fiji wish to live, the way
they relate to each other, to state and informal institutions, and to the
society they live and work in. Citizens’ forums could form crucial elements in
discussing the common good and issues of social justice.
The findings of
the study suggest that the kind of politics and vision that the people of Fiji
will eventually develop for themselves will not be about levelling the good of
cultures, religions and philosophical traditions; rather, it will be a vision
of the common good that takes difficult moral questions seriously, and brings
these to bear on economic, political and social policies.
“Simplicity, Serenity, Spontaneity”
ENDS
Rev. James Bhagwan
is currently a student of the Methodist Theological University’s International
Graduate School of Theology in Seoul, South Korea. He is a member of the
Institute of Research and Social Analysis’ Strategic Think-tank. Email: padrejames@gmail.com or visit http://thejournalofaspiritualwonderer.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment