The recent revelation by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama to replace the symbol on our flag makes for very interesting reading (FT 4/2/15). It is a throwback to our primary school days where one learned the meaning of a flag as a symbol (according to the Oxford Dictionary).
To date, Fiji has two flags, the Union Jack and the current flag. The Union Jack was for when Fiji was a British colony until 1970. The existing flag took over from that point in time to the threshold of the 21st century. It has survived a good 45 years and seems to have stood the test of time.
At Albert Park October 10, 1970, the former was lowered for one last time as the new flag was hoisted. The Union Jack gave way to the new flag entrusting the future of the then new born nation onto the new symbol. It took over with hope and aspiration in the parting of ways. The lingering question then and now is symbol for what?
For that, Bainimarama says our flag is a colonial symbol and belongs to the British. With it, says Bainimarama, is our colonial shield. Our PM goes further by saying that “it is time to have a national symbol … That has indigenous and truly Fijian symbol and reflects our present state as a nation”. Our PM continues “it is time to dispense with the colonial symbol”.
Allow me to analyse this issue from a different dimension in brief.
Firstly, a historical exploration of the events leading up to 1970 is paramount.
In 1876, the then Great Council of Chiefs was set up spearheaded by Sir Arthur Gordon. More so, the philosophy of the GCC then was also attributed to the British Consulate, William Pritchard. Pritchard was also said to have initiated the meeting of chiefs in Levuka on December 14, 1859 which paved the way for the Deed of Cession.
In 1874, the Native Land Commission was set up to look into the illegal and massive sales of land. The governor hailed the evolution of the NLC “The records of the NLC will be a permanent memorial”. And it seemed then a monument for land ownership had been discovered in the formation of the NLC.
The year 1940 saw the establishment of the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB)). In other words, in the formation of the NLTB, the iTaukei relinquished direct control of their land to the NLTB. Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna praised such relinquishment as “an unmatched act of goodwill and co-operation”.
Another milestone was achieved in the creation of the Vola ni Kawa Bula concept (VKB — separate registration of indigenous people).
In sum, traditional thinkers argue that four historical necessities stand as beacons of colonial government namely; GCC, NLC, VKB and NLTB.
In 2002, Dr Spike Boydell — in a national land workshop held at USP — captured the same necessity clearly. “The reality is that the iTaukei, the vanua, the indigenous Fijians have a land vested in them. They are the land … .”
Jioji Kotobalavu (FT: 7. 2. 15) also echoes the same sentiment ” …it was protected by the British administration up to Fiji’s Independence in 1970 … Fiji today is one of the very few countries where the indigenous community still owns 90 per cent of their land unlike Australia and New Zealand where no one has prior ownership of the land”.
Those moves were seen as the colonial response to govern the indigenous people.
Secondly, the societal developments prior to 1970 were also interesting. The chiefs were co-opted into the colonial administration as a point of reference in deliberating matters that were of significant importance to the iTaukei. For that, the GCC and the Fijian administration soon became the new mode of social control.
The white settlers were of the view that chiefs should control their own people, and the whites should govern themselves and develop the resources of the land.
The reproduction and institutionalisation of ethnic identity of the iTaukei was fundamental to the British colonial policy makers. It was well employed as a basis of constructing and articulating the founding of a new orthodoxy. No doubt, chiefs and the vanua played an important role in the establishment of this new orthodoxy.
The era of the girmitiya — beginning in the late 1800s and ending in 1916 cannot escape the radar of a historical interpretation of Fiji’s history. These are colonial happenings and events that leave their mark on Fiji’s changing landscape.
When our PM says it is a colonial symbol and belongs to the British, one should not be too hasty to read into the face value of his statement. Contrary to that, one should pause and ponder both, the positive aspects of it or how it can be improved or redefined before it can become a corrective in our attempt to design a new flag.
The proposal seems to be a hard pill to swallow. I think we should become real in our deliberations. For that flag, as a symbol, allows space for change.
Firstly, the flag has the coat of arms, agricultural products and the Union flag of the UK. That is a shift and addition to the Union Jack which was lowered on October 10, 1970.
So, the Union Jack symbolises British rule. The appearance of the Union Jack was reduced in its size or font in the current flag, let alone its influence. It was shifted to the top left hand side. Added on to it was the coat of arms and our agricultural products. A part of the Union Jack still survives in our flag.
Symbols have chemistry and currency.
Firstly, we participate in that to which it points. The Union Jack points to how those before us participated in the design and formation of society or the new orthodoxy. We did participate with the British then. It includes names and events that I have mentioned — the past architect of Fiji’s society.
Secondly, the 1970 flag symbolises the birth of our new nation. We did participate in it as spearheaded by Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and Mr AD Patel (to name two prominent figures). It does open up new levels of reality in a multiracial and multicultural Fiji.
The event of 1987 was a part of that reality. In the area of literature, that drama was called by critics as tragedy in that Fiji for the first time tasted the coup medicine. It culminated in the complete abrogation of the 1970 Constitution. Thus, it makes way for the 1997 Constitution.
Again, the events of 2000 and 2006 are very much part of that same reality. Those realities could have otherwise slipped away from us. Yes, we have, as a nation, uncovered the true image of such reality. Therein lays the strength of symbol — opening uncharted and grey areas.
Germany has given the world brilliant thinkers. Among them is a strong opponent of Adolf Hitler namely, Paul Tillich.
In the area of symbolism, Tillich said: “Symbols grow and die. They grow when the situation is ripe and die when the situation changes. It dies (sic) when it can no longer produce response in the group where they originally found expression.”
Religious symbols are no exception.
For example, the cross of Christ stands at the centre of Christian faith. It is still a living symbol. It is still responded to by groups called Christians by way of values, meanings, virtues, categories and principles of life.
However, Christianity is also part of the shift and impasse which are very much part of society and the Christian churches fight to remain effective in contemporary society.
This is also true of political symbols.
The swastika is forbidden in Germany as was the Berlin wall — which was a symbol of separation between the then East and West Germany.
The wall has crumbled and the iron curtain of Communism in Russia (former USSR) has given way to the formation of small states in Russia. Definitely, the situation has changed and such symbols fail to evoke a formidable response from people.
According to this view, groups of people where such a symbol had a very strong appeal, have moved on or have changed allegiance. The ground on which they stood in past years has been torn asunder. Yes, they have found a substitute symbol befitting their context.
In addition, the situation too has changed dramatically in all its dimension. Based on that, we will not kill a symbol but it will surely die a natural death. It will feel alien and out of touch as it recedes into the background.
If you like, I love to use the words outlived and outgrown. So, it is an automatic discarding. Such symbols orbit away from the centre of gravity in an evolving society.
Yes, we not only depend on agricultural produce to bolster our economy. We have invented new areas to add on or to replace it. Our industries are growing, our tourism sector is doing exceptionally well, corporatisation and privatisation are part of the new social order, and the force of globalisation or a globalised economy is unstoppable.
The sugar and the pine industries are trying to compete in this era of doing business in a new way.
The question is how can the 1970 flag capture the real life situation we are now facing in Fiji so remain a living symbol in a Fiji that is evolving and transiting at a considerable pace. For that, the call or invitation by our PM to design a new flag might not be a bad one. That is our challenge now.
On the other hand, let me lean towards the sentiment shared by Tessa Mackenzie (FT 4/2/15). In it, she laments the attempt by the State to change the flag she helped design. She was really disappointed.
In The Fiji Times (5/2/15), she talks about in detail the meaning behind the symbols and the three agricultural products. She is not alone in her view as the Times poll shows the majority disagrees with the move to change the flag.
Surprisingly, the age categories of those who disagrees ranges from 18-30. So we will be wrong in our calculation to equate our younger generation with supporters of new ideas and philosophy. No! It is a guessing game, a wild goose chase and a cloudy political forecast.
Again, the scale seems to be tilting to either side. Times reporter Atasa Moceituba interviewed 10 chiefs. Eight of them oppose the move while two support it.
The president of the Sabha, Sarju Prasad, also supported the move. There is a clear division in Fiji on the issue.
A new flag is not an overnight issue but a gradual one.
In terms of the connection to the British monarchy, the removal of the Queen’s Birthday, Prince Charle’s Birthday and the head of the queen from our currency have now been accepted.
Ratu Sukuna’s Day too was removed.
Our silence then could be interpreted as an acceptance. We took it lying down. Again, it implied acceptance.
I want to argue that the road to the new flag started from thereon.
Former PM Sitiveni Rabuka said “the people of Fiji has given the mandate to Bainimarama to lead”. As he’s the person in the driver’s seat, we cannot keep on telling Bainimarama where to go and where not to go.
We have given him the power to lead us into the next four years. We have done that to our former leaders including Rabuka.
We have accepted free education, free milk for our young kids, free water, an increase in Social Welfare grants, free bus fare for our kids to schools and etc.
We don’t always have our way all the time. Life is not tailored that way.
We need to learn the art of agreeing to disagree. We can hear people’s views if we at times like this, suspend ours and remain flexible. It does allow space to hear opinion expressed by others.
The art of accommodation comes in at that point. Still, it does not imply that Fiji First can do whatever they want to do during their tenure in office as when absolute power corrupts it corrupts absolutely.
Three years from now to the next election is not a long time and equilibrium is very important. The alternative step that lies close to the mandate to lead is a call for a referendum. The weight of a referendum is ethical and moral rather than legal.
After all, the onus is on the Government to take it up or push it aside. It does not necessitate anything illegal — now and into the future, as we need to move on in our national life. Clearly, unless the government is able to smoothly negotiate a passage between these schools of thought, we cannot arrive at an amicable solution in designing our new flag.
I love watching two sports, yacht racing and tight rope walking.
In terms of yacht racing, the captain or master has to calculate the direction and the strength of the wind. The calculation includes the current of the waves which determines the speed of the yacht as the crew tries to return to base. This also involves balance.
Likewise tight rope walking where the turf under your feet is a thin rope. You have nothing to grasp but thin air. You will have to traverse that thin rope using a stick to calculate your balance. You can either fall to the left or right if you fail to calculate your balance properly.
Some have fallen to the left, some to the right, and some have reached the other side. It is part of tight rope walking.
Lo and behold; spectators will watch as you reach the other side if you fail to calculate your balance.
Moreover, your yacht will be lagging behind if you fail to calculate the direction of the wind, current and strength of the wind if you fail to swerve and sail back in time.
Accordingly, the Government has to do its calculation between schools of thoughts appearing in the media. That is, proponents and opponents.
However, it needs to be said that our history does not start in the last nine years. No! Our root lies deep in history prior to colonial leadership, during the colonial era and the post-colonial era. We cannot cut ourselves completely adrift from those historical forces as Russia remains a living testimony to such moves.
In my letter to the editor last year in response to Wallace, I quoted Barth who writes that “we cannot dwell on the past nor throw the past carelessly away and move blindly to the future”.
Again, Barth’s comment invites a calculation of balance and the artistic design of a future direction. It cuts in between the past and the future.
The determining line is situated in between the views that have been shared through your newspaper, some of the analysis that I have tried to put forth and the decision by the Government to strike a balance between history, present and our future.
It is to be captured in the design of our new flag. Other issues of national importance can be treated in similar manner. Therein lays the current impasse and solution for us all.
Our PM has tested the waters many times before and succeeded. He’s a master of calculating his balance which sees him through many hurdles. A balancing scale is needed in times like this as the issue of a new flag points a way to unity in discourse.
* Savenaca Vuetanavanua is a PhD student at Pacific Theological College. The views expressed are his and do not represent those of this newspaper nor of any organisation or person with whom the author is associated.