Editorial: Turia's sympathy is misplaced

OPINION: The lip service done to the principles of democracy by Fiji's self-appointed leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, and his various mouthpieces, cannot be faulted. Regrettably the practice can.

According to the commodore, the elections promised by March this year cannot now take place till 2014 because he wants first to reform the electoral system to make it less divisive. What that really means is the commodore and his cronies have sniffed the political winds and ascertained that, if an election is held, they will lose power and, more than likely, face criminal charges.

He is not, however, without sympathy from other South Pacific leaders who chafe at notions of accountability and transparency or, it appears, the Maori Party. Co-leader Tariana Turia said at the weekend that she knew Commodore Bainimarama's intention "was good" and contrasted New Zealand's treatment of Fiji with its treatment of China, just as she once contrasted this country's treatment of Zimbabwe and China. "We've got ourselves all locked up in this notion of democracy but we don't expect it of other trading partners," she said.

She has a point. China has a far worse human rights record than Fiji and little is said about it at an official level. But that is not an excuse to turn a blind eye to abuses closer to home or to imply that democracy is a Western curiosity.

Lest Mrs Turia has forgotten, the "notion of democracy" to which she refers so slightingly is the notion that has allowed her party to gain a position of influence in government and her to serve as a government minister. It is the notion that ensures women an equal say in the selection of governments and offers the weak some protection from the strong. It is a notion underpinned by simple principles, nowhere better expressed than in the American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yes, democracy has its faults. But its unique virtue is that democratically elected governments are answerable to the people. Those who belittle it as a form of government should say who they would deny equal rights to.

The Bainimarama regime is a blot on the reputation of the Pacific. It should be judged by its actions, not its words. Those actions have been to seize power at the point of a gun, to intimidate and beat its political opponents, to suspend the rule of law, sack judges and muzzle the news media.

They are not the actions of a leadership that has the best interests of its fellow citizens at heart. They are the actions of despots who, having painted themselves into a corner, prefer to take their country down a path to ruin rather than put their fate in the hands of the people. It is the same path as that taken by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe.

Commodore Bainimarama does not deserve Mrs Turia's sympathy. The people who do are those who have been denied the right to vote, to meet and to express their views, and who are now subject to a capricious military regime.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First

Murray   #1   01:51 pm May 05 2009

The editorial is nice to read and it has a bit of a "lest we forget" ring to it.

The situation does bring to mind the complexities of global interaction and the necessary continuing balancing and trade-offs between ideals and exigencies.

Ideals encourage us to be as assertive as we are able to be, and there lies the catch. We are foolish to "cut off our nose to spite our face".

I would have thought that the first question that would have come to the mind of the Prime Minister would be,

"Is this to be a Government sponsored representation? Is there to be any Government approval, or funding?"

When Paul Henry put it to the Prime Minister yesterday that there would not be taxpayer funding the Prime Minister was equivocal - he didn't "think so".

Today we are told the trip is off. Mr Key said yesterday (it must have been subsequent to the Breakfast interview) that Dr Sharples had decided it would be best for New Zealand if he did not go.

Why has Dr Sharples decided differently? Doesn't the matter deserve more clarity? Was the matter of taxpayer funding a deciding factor?

The editorial states,

"They are not the actions of a leadership that has the best interests of its fellow citizens at heart ..... prefer to take their country down a path to ruin ...." and Murray McCully says, if they want to do this sort of thing "and wreck their economy, there is nothing we can do about it".

The Foreign Minister's words do not suggest that New Zealand "will be as assertive as we are able to be". In fact, his words suggest that we do not have any ideals.

It all brings to my mind Mr David Shearer's substantiation of his attitude to the United Nations hiring security forces.

Ideals have to be compromised by the reality of what is pragmatic, but our pragmatism has to more than the clanging gong of hollow men.

Ad Feedback