I AGREE with most of the criticisms made of the new flag designs: Childish, logo-like, meaningless (stars for example), and the notes guiding us on the meaning of symbols, colours, and triangular pieces (“going forward”) are spurious if not ludicrous. Your interpretation over mine, Sir. Nevertheless the “noble banner blue” remains intact and before waxing lyrical over the current flat we should bear in mind some things, taking the lead here from a famous sociolinguist (de Saussure).
Most importantly, a flag overall is a nation’s sign, and comprises two elements: the signifier(s) and signified. The current flag, for example, comprises a Union Jack in the upper left corner of a blue banner and a small, somewhat obscure, coat of arms.
The Union Jack and coat of arms are the signifiers and what they signify lies entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Broadly speaking there are going be two beholders: Fijians and non-Fijians, and when the flag is hoisted alongside other flags in actual fact we have no idea what our signifiers mean to them, if anything at all.
Come to that we have no idea what they mean to Fijians.
To one Fijian, the Union Jack and coat of arms might mean one thing, to another it could means something else entirely.
Generally speaking, however, it is the flag as a whole which carries meaning, national pride and identity, not the parts.
Now here’s the second point: there’s no intrinsic connection between the signifier and signified. Whether it’s a turtle, drua, palm tree, stars, flower, or snowman for that matter it’s what people read into it, if anything at all, that matters.
So we shouldn’t get too heated up with these new designs. The longer a flag (sign) exists the more likely it is people will grow attached to it irrespective of its signifier elements.
In fact, most national flags comprise nothing more than two or three vertical or horizontal colours, which is enough in total to trigger emotion: love of nation.
For that is what flags are all about, though we should not be cavalier about a new one
As I said, over time people will grow attached to the new flag whatever its design.
Moreover, there is a strong argument for getting rid of the Union Jack, part logical, part practical.
In 1987 Fiji declared itself a republic and in the words of the late Sir Vijay Singh, “tens of thousands of ethnic Fijians who had always outdone others in proclaiming their loyalty and affection for The Queen celebrated the disloyalty, and the council of chiefs made the coup leader its life member” (Speaking Out, 2006, p.334).
We cannot undo history, and more crucially it would be hypocritical to draw now on the rhetoric of crown.
I believe the British crown means little to Fijians, the Commonwealth is a frail old beast, and Fiji certainly means little to Britons.
I believe we should also bear in mind that while Britons hold The Queen in great respect, the same cannot be said of their feelings for the rest of the royals.
Indeed, perhaps the strongest reason for maintaining a monarchy at vast expense is the impact its removal would have on the British tourist industry and our universal love of pageantry.
Fijians should also realise the Union flag won’t persist if Scotland withdraws from the Union at a second referendum.
Then the cost of further change should be considered.
