Firth Media

Tradition and Transformation in Fiji:

Written and Researched By: Jess Firth

Focus will be drawn to the relationship between economic and political influences that have impacted the emergence of new identities and the transformation of tradition with Fijian society. Firstly, an investigative approach is taken, glancing at how colonial contact has reshaped the political arena of Fiji and influenced the development of Fijian tradition and the national identity. Secondly, a brief insight into how the occurrence of the 1987 coup has influenced sociopolitical and economic structures in Fiji, as well as divulging how this engagement has divided ethnicities. Then insight development of tourism and its impact on tradition and cultural identity will be discussed.

(Economic and Political Engagements):

Colonial influence and its alignment with chiefly power:

When attempting to understand Fijian social alignment with political structures one must firstly take into account the fundamental historical occurrences of the past one hundred and fifty years. Prior to British colonization in 1874 Fiji was made up of tribal based social groups, socially governed or arranged under the provincial rule of chiefly power structures. First European contact was made in the mid 17^th century and continued largely through the activities of explorers and traders. Eventually in 1874 the British colonized the Fijian islands, this was followed by a period of internal strife much of which involved rivalries between Ma’afu and the powerful Bauan chief, Ratu Seru Cakobau. Bau was one of three eastern confederations, the others being Lau and Cakaudrove, which had come to dominate all of the small islands off the north and east coast of Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, as well as significant areas of the main islands themselves. (Lawson, 1996). “The strife, however, was not simply a matter between islanders, and European interests were very much involved in the political turmoil.” (Lawson, 1996:45). According to Lawson (1996) Europeans initial attempts to establish a colonial controlled government, lead by Cakobau, to have control over all the islands of Fiji failed due to a lack in sociopolitical unity between Fijians. As a result the British crown agreed to sign a deed of concession with twelve highly raked chiefs, including Cakobau, and Ma’afu. Fiji was thus brought under the mantel of British colonialism through the agency of eastern chiefs. And as it seems over history that it was these Fijians who where to benefit most from colonial rule and carried the hierarchical advantages through to the independence of the 1970’s and onwards. (Thomas, 2000). Therefore, the political governance of Fiji has been highly influenced and controlled by eastern chiefs, thus resulting in power structure being prodomantly held by eastern chiefs and over time being recognized by indigenous Fijians as a traditional element of their society.

“Chiefly authority and Fijian ‘tradition’ can often be treated synonymously because the former is so frequently taken to embody the latter. More specifically, however, the apotheosis of chiefliness has centered on the eastern provinces of the Fiji islands. Since before colonization by Great Britain in 1874, and throughout the colonial era until independence in 1970, as well as for most of the period since then, Fijian politics has been dominated by chiefs from these areas.” (Lawson, 1996:37).

These chiefly power structures are arguably central to upholding notions of national identity among the indigenous Fijians, due to this political order of chiefliness being deeply embedded in the people’s historical traditions. Also, Fijian chiefship may indeed be viewed by many scholars as being aristocratic elite who have promoted ethnic division and conflict to secure power and privilege for themselves and their common allies (Norton, 1999), but in stating this I believe chiefs have also acted as a regulatory function of potential negotiating between the divided ethnicities of Fiji. For example, “Under colonial rule the chiefs in administration and political leadership became rallying points of Fijian ethnic solidarity and the most powerful symbolic markers of cultural boundaries. But from this secure position as ethnic leaders, they were encouraged also to assume a function of as conciliators across the ethnic divide.”(Norton, 1999:22). This exemplifies the notion of chieflship being central to cultural representation of indigenous Fijians along with acting in an engagement of correspondence with India Fijian’s. Although, the relationship between both ethnicities has always been politically divided and still is, the function of chiefship’s in the political arena arguably has the potential to act as a positive mediator of cultural and social cohesion if they were to embrace the Indian Fijians as equals rather than counterparts of Fijian society, this could preserve relations and close the ethnic divide, thus strengthening political alliances and ultimately encouraging future economic growth due to social cohesiveness rather than conflict. Obviously, this is a highly ambiguous and optimistic statement considering historical circumstances that have socially and institutionally divided Indian and indigenous Fijians, such as, Indian’s introduction into Fiji originally as labour for the sugar cane industry by the British colonials, this being a point that many indigenous Fijian’s illuminate in their arguments of why Indian Fijian’s should not receive equal political power, due to them being of foreign origin and ethnicity.

The inclusion of chiefs in the islands political senate has also proved to be a central point of conflict between Indian Fijian’s and Indigenous Fijian’s (Firth, 2003), one could say it is indeed a contributing factor in the political feuding Fiji has experienced in the past and present. Chiefs historically have been socially positioned as upholders of Fijian ethnic identity, along with being instated with figure head status that is granted social support to represent and lead the Fijian people. The 1960’s was a time of change in the identity of the leading chiefs from paternalistic and often resenting of authorities overseeing Fijian local government to defenders of the Fijian ethnic collectivity in opposition to Indian Fijian’s. (Norton, 1999). For example, “The chiefs’ symbolic importance strengthened as political party rivalry aggravated ethnic conflict in the move to self-government. As ethnic leaders the chiefs were able to co-opt trade unionists and other potential challengers emerging with economic change.”

(Norton, 1990). This assertive control the council of chiefs possesses can be viewed as a driving influential force over economic activities within Fiji, whether it is internal infrastructures or international trade. Furthermore, this poses as problematic in the context of the Indian Fijian’s who are not socially aligned with chiefly power structures, and are evidently economically superior in commercial farming, business, as well creating many economic opportunities for Fijians. (Murray, 2000). The catch is that little or no support is given by the chiefly order to the Indian Fijian’s, thus strengthening the ethnic divide further. Therefore, although chief’s have powerful political influence over the social governance of indigenous Fijian’s they lack the power over Indian Fijian’s economic endeavors in many respects, as well as showing little if any support for this ethnic group. This ethnic divide appears to be highly detrimental to economic stability of the nation as a large proportion of economic stability is contributed by the Indian Fijian’s who are poorly represented in the political arena of Fijian government. Currently, this lack of equal treatment by the political powers of the state is causing many Indian business owners to remove their businesses from Fiji, thus migrating to alternative nations and causing economic loss to the Fijian nation as a whole. (Norton, 1999).

The history of Coups and the relationship within Fiji’s plural society.

In 1987 Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka over threw the elected government that was lead by Fijian commoner, Dr Timoci Bavadra. Rabuka was a commoner but nonetheless a member of a high ranking eastern decent group. The reasons put forth for the motivations behind this coup was on the grounds that the constitution in place with the elected government were racially discriminatory, protecting Indian Fijians more so than indigenous Fijians, and in affect a new constitution was put in place. The main justification for the occurrence of this coup was to safeguard indigenous Fijian rights. According to Lawson (1996: 40) “Most academic commentators on these events have argued strongly against the notion that ethnic factors were the essential cause of the 1987 coups and, more specifically, against the idea that indigenous Fijians rights were at risk under the Bavadra government”. This particular sociopolitical upheaval could arguably be aligned with the fact that historically because eastern indigenous Fijians have dominated the power structures of the state (Miyazaki, 2005), and in turn have had the power to promote a sort of model of tradition for the whole of Fiji to embrace. In addition the power the easterners have had, and used to promote a model of tradition has indeed created a figurative point of identity amoung the Fijian people.(Thomas, 2000).

As a result of the 1987 there was the introduction of the 1990 constitution, which was indeed in favor more towards the political representation and social rights of indigenous Fijians rather than Indian Fijians. (Lawson, 1996). The broader social out come of this lead to the Indian Fijians political voice being silenced as their presents in the government was more of a guest like status. Without a political voice the social dived of class became much more visible, with little government support towards such facets as Indian Fijian industry, thus motivating many to migrate from Fiji. (Firth, 2003).

In accordance with Sahlins fundamental ideologies of the ‘invention of tradition’, non-western societies use tradition as a symbolic representation of a cultural identity, for such reasons as ones own social sustainability of power, and positional reaction to “foreign-imperial presence”. (1993:53). In this particular case though the upholding of chiefly tradition and its power is not a direct reaction to ‘foreign-imperial presence’, but to the internal presence of the other ethnic presence that makes up the Fijian culture in a holistic sense. Although, in stating this it seems ironic that the current political institutions were implemented by colonial presence and have now influenced the formation of ideologies the ‘invention of tradition’ that seem to be more inclusive of indigenous Fijians.

Furthermore, by applying the theoretical ideologies of Lawson (1996), Fiji presents its self as a plural society, in the way it is predominately constructed of two main ethnic groups that are each culturally distinct but nationally attempt to up hold a relatively homogenous identity. But as it seems in Fiji can not be easily categorized as a straight forward plural society due to the internal divide over agreement of one national identity; two main ethnic groups there are, but due to political representation being unbalanced, the question is do the Indian Fijians adopt the same notion of national identity indigenous Fijians? It is my opinion, probably not, mainly because of the lack of fair treatment by stately institutions, thus causing these people to possibly reject the chiefly order as being an iconic representation of traditional elements that enforce or promote national identity. But of course there does have to be some sort of national identity, whether it is collective it questionable.

Development of tourism and its impact on tradition and cultural identity

Another economic engagement that has influenced changes in national identity and the practice of ‘tradition’ amoung the Fijian people is the industry of tourism. Fiji currently boasts tourism to be its second largest income earner. (Murray, 2000). Many of Fijian people are indeed aligned with propelling the tourism industry; they are subjected to a multitude of culturally influential factors that are central to cultural and social change. Such as, committing to labour that services the tourism industry, building infrastructure that caters for tourists demands, and more importantly marketing and presenting a ‘traditional’ identity of Fiji and its people to appease the demands of many western travelers that demand the ‘exotic’. (Bossen, 2000).

Arguably, for Fijian’s this process of engagement with tourism is highly influential in re-shaping certain aspects of tradition and ultimately national identity, being due to the need to package the culture and its environment as an economic aesthetic that captivates tourists. Bossen illuminates this further by stating, “Tourism development has important and complex effect on the formulation of identity. As a potential threat to the authenticity or integrity of local cultures, tourism’s relation to cultural, ethnic, and national identities has been and remains controversial.” (Bossen, 2000:123). With the presents of tourism and its demands of entertainment and a gaze for an exotic culture comes the manifestation of ‘staged authenticity’. This development of staged authenticity for economic benefits of appeasing the tourism industry is arguably a central proponent in reforming traditional values and essentially the Fijian national identity. These changes of traditional practice are indeed reactionary to the economic engagements with tourism, causing ripples of cultural transformation to occur. Furthermore, such facets as ‘staged authenticity’ are central to the creation of new identities and of course the reinvention of customary or tradition cultural practices. (Bossen, 2000). For example, the development of the ‘Hibiscus Festival’, which is staged annually in Suva, has interwoven international tourism and national identity in such a way that cultural and national identities are reinforced in counterpoint with wider political social changes. (Bossen, 2000).

Established in 1956, the Hibiscus Festival was started up by the Suva branch of the Junior Chamber of Commerce (JCC) as an attempt to prolong the tourist season, turning the low season into the high season. (Firth, 2003) Inspired by the Aloha Festival in Hawaii the Hibiscus Festival was implemented and promoted as an event that displayed authentic cultural customary practices for the display of tourists. By the 1960’s the festival program lasted eight days and included a night of traditional performances allocated to each of the two main ethnic groups, the Indian Fijian’s and indigenous Fijian’s, giving both groups a chance to present customary practices such as dance to the tourists. The climatic point of the festival was crowning of the Miss Hibiscus contestant, the women said to be the most beautiful Fijian woman. This construction of events the Hibiscus Festival puts forth is indeed not originally part of Fijian’s traditional practices, but it is arguably an example of the boundaries of tradition being realigned and adapted for the economic benefits of tourism. Further, in attempting to situate these engagements of social and cultural change in the broader context of its impact on national identity one must acknowledge such theoretical ideologies espoused on the matter. For example, “The discourse of tradition is a political discourse, for the content of tradition is frequently contested. It represents a symbolic resource that can either support or undermine particular configuration of power. Anthropologists who write about tradition enter this political arena, for they cannot comment on discourse of tradition without simultaneously adding their own voice.”(Turner, 1997:14). So as it seems that firstly in the context of the Fijian Hibiscus festival there is functional reasoning of economic attraction through adapting traditional practices as a response to an engagement with tourism, proving to be economically beneficial. Secondly, the question is, has tourism affected and changed the internal discourse of Fijian tradition; I believe it has, as the economic incentives of tourism has promoted Fijian’s to adapt their own traditions into a marketable and consumable product for tourist. In doing this they have not necessarily lost their internal traditional identity, but instead they have used it as a form of economic engagement, taking from their own notions national identity and further developing it for purposes of a cultural aesthetic to be viewed by the ‘west’. Furthermore, when attempting to analyse tradition and its symbolic relationship to any cultures identity it proves problematic, as the articulation and interpretation of traditional elements are firstly subject ethnocentricities of the observer, and are institutionally exposed to perpetual change as a reaction to socio-environmental circumstances. Therefore, tourism has indeed been a proponent for changing socioeconomic practices and ultimately shifting traditional customary practices into an economic arena. Through this application of staging culture for the economic benefits of tourism there has been a ripple affect of change in some traditional elements of Fijian culture in reaction to its contact with tourism. Also, form an academic perspective, to attempt to analyse and articulate tradition and its realities of application in a society such as Fijian is problematic as one is always bound by interpretive bias of there own voice.

In conclusion, the engagement between political institutions, economic realities, social and cultural arrangements are highly complex and indeed interrelated. Historically the establishment of government with the chiefly order has had an effect of creating a precedence of social conformity and adoption of this as a traditional trait within Fiji, also influencing an iconic traditional element that has further shaped ideas of national identity within Fijian society. This also illuminates the problematic realities of an ethnic divide between Indian Fijians and indigenous Fijians, with their being an absence of political representation of this ethnic group, thus having broader economic and social implications. Also, the functionality of the 1987 coup retaining the political power and social well being of indigenous Fijians presents its self as evident, and ultimately suggests a divide in ethnic ideology which again influences economic and social practices between and within the two groups. Finally, Tourism has been highly influential over economic developments within Fiji. The engagement between tourism and the Fijian people have indeed lead to changes occurring within traditional structures, such as the ‘staged authentic’ culture being presented to the tourism industry for economic benefits. Therefore, Fiji appears to be evolving socially and culturally through the internal political conflicts of the state and as a reaction to historical colonial impacts, along with reshaping aspects of tradition as a result of the economic incentive and demand of the tourism industry.