The biggest danger to Fiji’s security and stability remains the possibility of another coup “when the circumstances are right”, warns a leading Fiji academic.

University of Canterbury’s Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies director Professor Steven Ratuva said this while speaking at the recent National Federation Party’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations in Rakiraki.

“Elections don’t solve problems — in fact in the case of Fiji, coups start after an election,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji ‘coup culture’ reports

“So elections is a means to achieving towards something. In the last few weeks we have heard rumours about coups.

“What is this thing about rumours and coups in Fiji?

“It has developed a particular consciousness where it has been seen as a potential alternative to political change.

“In the case of Fiji, because of that consciousness that is built in us, which has been there and has been deep, that whenever there is an election, people just start feeling the consciousness of the potential for a coup to happen.

“How can we talk about the consciousness of coups and the way we see coups as something that we still see, it’s there, lurking around.

“The effects may linger and when the circumstances are right, they might come out again and that is one of the biggest dangers in terms of Fiji’s security and stability in the country.”

Anish Chand is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

“Our people are fed up with coups”  — this is the message from renowned Fijian academic Professor Steven Ratuva as he reiterated the statement shared by Minister for Home Affairs Pio Tikoduadua earlier this week.

Professor Ratuva, director of Canterbury University’s Centre for Pacific Studies in New Zealand, said coups had no place in modern politics and Fiji was no exception.

“It corrupts and destroys the very principles on which constitutional democracy is built, it is destructive to the economy, disrupts social relationships and wellbeing and creates a cycle of instability in the long run,” he said.

• READ MORE: ‘Get used to the political culture of coalition’, says Ratuva
• Fijians desire peace; no more coups – Tikoduadua
• Other Steven Ratuva reports

“A coup is like the covid epidemic with a long tail and unfortunately, we are still in the shadows of the long tails of the previous coups because the impacts are still with us, even as years pass.

“Up to a point, people will reach the coup-fatigue threshold and Fiji would have reached it long ago, as people are just fed up [with] coups and simply hearing rumours associated with coups, it is psychologically traumatising to say the least.”

Professor Ratuva said the whole nation had collectively been traumatised by the series of coups in the past since 1987 and it was time to “put a stop to this scourge”.

He added that the military, as a professional security institution, was often subjected to external political interests and pressures to serve narrow political and personal ends.

Military for ‘nation-building’
He also commended the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) Commander Ro Jone Kalouniwai for his conduct during this time.

“The military must be an independent institution for national security and nation-building, not a tool for illegal state capture by some,” Professor Ratuva said.

“Fiji’s military commander is a highly educated officer with an internationally reputable status and his calm and intelligent response to destabilising rumours, gives the nation a sense of assurance and comfort.

“He and the military will need support by all political parties and citizens generally to maintain stability in these challenging times.”

Shayal Devi is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva has added yet another first to his long list of accomplishments, becoming the University of Canterbury’s first Te Amorangi, or pro-vice-chancellor Pacific.

The university’s Tumu Whakarae vice-chancellor Professor Cheryl de la Rey has confirmed the appointment of Dr Ratuva, director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, to UC’s senior leadership team, a UC News statement said.

“It is an honour to have an outstanding scholar appointed to this new role, solidifying our commitment to increasing visibility and outcomes for our Pasifika students and staff,” Professor De la Rey said.

• READ MORE: Articles by Distinguished Professor Steven Ratuva on Asia Pacific Report

Distinguished Professor Ratuva’s appointment was made in alignment with the university’s Pasifika Strategy, which was endorsed by the UC Council in 2018.

The strategy aspires to ensure Pasifika students realise a strong sense of belonging and are supported to develop academic goals of success, with the richness of their cultural heritage enhanced, valued and nurtured.

In recent years, Distinguished Professor Ratuva’s work has been recognised with a UC Research Medal (2019) — the university’s highest honour — and the Royal Society of New Zealand-Te Apārangi’s Metge Medal (2020), the country’s highest award in social science research excellence.

Dr Ratuva, originally from the Suva-based University of the South Pacific, was the first Pacific person and foreign national to win both of the esteemed and highly contested awards.

In 2021, he became the first Pacific person to be named a distinguished professor.

“It is gratifying to designate a Pacific representative of such calibre to the university’s senior leadership team, and I look forward to working alongside Distinguished Professor Ratuva on the strategy for Pacific development, and its implementation,” Professor De la Rey said.

• University of Canterbury’s Pasifika Strategy

New Zealand-based Fijian academic Professor Steven Ratuva says that if the coalition government is strong, resilient and lasts, “this will reflect well as a future model for coalitions in Fiji”.

“It’s a learning process for a new government and a new democracy and we expect teething problems in the beginning and hopefully we settle down quickly and move on,” said the director of the University of Canterbury’s Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.

However, he said that if it collapses, it would “signal a rather dark future of political instability for the country”.

• READ MORE: Other Fiji politics reports

Professor Ratuva said failure would “send out a negative message to investors, tourists and the rest of the world”.

“Thus it is imperative to make sure that the coalition works and for this the politicians need to be politically smart, strategic, humble and empathetic in their dealings and approaches with each other for the sake of the country, beyond the narrow political party agenda,” he said.

Professor Ratuva was referring to recent claims by Sodelpa general secretary Lenaitasi Duru that senior party members were unhappy with the lack of Sodelpa appointees to government statutory boards by the coalition government.

However, Sodelpa leader Viliame Gavoka said the party remained committed to the deal it struck with the People’s Alliance (PA) and National Federation Party (NFP) that resulted in the formation of the coalition Government.

‘Vast majority’ in support
He said the “vast majority” of the Fijian people wanted the coalition government to prevail.

Professor Ratuva said Sodelpa would need to innovatively address its internal issues as a party while ensuring that the coalition government worked for the sake of the country.

“Fiji’s current coalition experiment has great implications for the future of Fiji’s democracy because governments in the foreseeable future under our constitutionally-prescribed proportional representation (PR) system will most likely be in the form of coalitions,” he said.

He said a large number of countries which used the PR system had coalition governments.

“Thus we have to make sure that this coalition works by being strategic and smart about having a watertight agreement between the coalition partners as well as making everyone happy through give and take compromises.

“This is challenging, especially when you still have fractures and differences within Sodelpa, an important partner.

Need for innovation
“Sodelpa will need to innovatively address its internal issues as a party while ensuring that the coalition works for the sake of the country.”

The PR system was introduced by the Bainimarama-led regime which overthrew the democratically elected Laisenia Qarase government in December 2006.

The 51 members of Parliament after the 2014 General Election were elected from a single nationwide constituency by open list proportional representation with an electoral threshold of five percent.

The seats were allocated using the d’Hondt method.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times journalist. Republished with permission.

The incumbent FijiFirst government’s appeal was beginning to wane and voters deserted the party “because of what they saw as their authoritarian, non-inclusive, controlling and vindictive style of leadership”, says a leading Fijian academic with an international reputation.

Professor Steven Ratuva, director of the New Zealand-based University of Canterbury’s Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, said: “The writing was on the wall for the Voreqe Bainimarama-led party for some time”.

“People could hardly openly complain and criticise the government as one would expect in a democracy, fearing the consequences,” he said.

• READ MORE:  ‘PM at first sitting’ – Fiji’s former elections chief explains how
• Fijian Aucklanders see promise and hope with Rabuka as likely PM
• ‘Nothing to concede’, says FijiFirst in wake of contested election
• Reports of ‘anomalies’ in Sodelpa vote to go with opposition parties
• New chapter for Fiji – Rabuka to lead coalition
• Other Fiji elections reports

A coalition of the People’s Alliance Party and National Federation Party with 26 seats combined with Sodelpa’s crucial three seats claims that it has a majority in the expanded 55-seat Parliament for Sitiveni Rabuka to lead as Prime Minister.

Referring to the internal issues erupting within the kingmaker Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa), Professor Ratuva said it was time to respect the wishes of voters rather than the “hunger for power” and grievances of individual political players.

He said the Sodelpa split which led to the formation of the People’s Alliance was unfortunate “with lots of bruised souls and egos who harboured very deep resentment and clamour for vengeance”.

The issue was a complex mixture of “traditional vanua politics, personality power struggle and liumuri (backstabbing)” that was now unashamedly being played out in public.

Many members of Auckland’s Fiji community say they are “delighted and relieved” by last week’s general election result.

Coup leader turned prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama seems set to lose his position after 16 years in office — eight years as dictator and the other half as elected prime minister.

An opposition coalition formed by the People’s Alliance, National Federation, and Sodelpa parties will replace FijiFirst as the country’s new government, led by another former coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka — now returning to the role as a democratically chosen leader.

• READ MORE:  Reports of ‘anomalies’ in Sodelpa vote to go with opposition parties
• New chapter for Fiji – Rabuka to lead coalition
• Other Fiji elections reports

Yesterday was a day of celebration for some members of the local community — some of whom migrated to New Zealand because of Bainimarama’s leadership.

“The [previous government] was hopeless, I’ll tell you what,” said the owner of an Auckland shop.

“All sorts of media freedom, union movements, all these things were taken away. I hope the new government can bring back that freedom.”

‘We need democracy’
The new government gave him hope for Fiji’s future, the shop owner said.

“We need democracy to take its course, and I think this is the time,” he said.

“[The coalition] will make a good Cabinet and they will have a better way of running the government, a government that listens to the people.”

But others were more sceptical. An owner of a Fiji restaurant said the coalition had a lot to prove.

“Let’s see what happens, there are big promises being made,” he said. “A three-member coalition, that’s worrying for us, who’s going to be making those big decisions?”

‘True democracy’ opportunity
University of Canterbury sociologist Professor Steven Ratuva said the new leadership had an opportunity to bring back true democracy.

“Although we’ve had democratic elections, the style of leadership hasn’t been very democratic.

“It’s a great opportunity to see whether it’s possible to reconfigure the governance process towards a more democratic system.”

The excitement within the community was palpable, Ratuva said.

“It’s very significant,” he said. “Bainimarama’s government has been around since the coup in 2006. It’s a [statement] against his style of governance, which has been seen to be authoritarian and vindictive.”

The new coalition, however, was in a precarious spot just hours earlier.

Only 16 of Sodelpa’s 30-member management board voted for the alliance, splitting the party down the middle.

Internal disagreements resurfaced within Sodelpa, less than 24 hours after it announced it was forming a coalition government.

“It was very, very close,” Dr Ratuva said. “Which means that the faction in Sodelpa that supported FijiFirst, they’re probably not finished yet, they’re probably thinking up something.”

Dr Ratuva said the election was not a done deal, and more would be seen in the coming days.

When the election was finalised, he said, the real work would begin.

“The new coalition will have to do a lot of reform, in terms of reimagining and reframing the new governance process in Fiji for the future,” he said.

“It’s a coalition of three parties, they will have to draw together all those intellectual, political, professional resources to rebuild from there.

“We’ll see what happens in a year, but there’s a lot of promise.”

Ardern in ‘wait-and-see’ approach
Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she was taking a wait-and-see approach over the Fiji election, but the foreign minister had already congratulated the new government.

Ardern said she would wait until “the dust settled” before contacting Rabuka.

When asked whether the result could cause civil unrest, Ardern said she was not concerned and that New Zealand’s role was simply to observe and support Fiji.

Foreign Minister Nanaia Mahuta sent a tweet congratulating Rabuka on forming a coalition.

New Zealand looked forward to “working together to continue strengthening our warm relationship”, Mahuta said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

The West and China continue to exert influence over the Pacific region. But discussions of Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are increasingly patronising, framing them as vulnerable, and omitting their agency.

In the battle for geopolitical influence and supremacy in the Pacific, the two most visible antagonists, the Anglo-West and China, are often the only two sides which matter to the mainstream media and political discourse.

The third side, the Pacific Big Ocean States (BOSs), are often forgotten, or relegated to the margin. In a subconscious way, this hierarchy of significance has roots in the colonial discourse which continued to undermine Pacific agency in various ways to this day.

• READ MORE: The United States – the Pacific bully
• Other reports on China in the Pacific

As an example, the recent whirlwind visit to the region by China’s Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, caused media outcry and desperate diplomatic visitations — the political ripples spread far and wide provoking narratives of indignation, anxiety, and outright anger among the Anglo-Western states.

China responded by using tactical diplomatic language to tone down and conceal its own global expansionist agenda under the Belt and Road initiative. Both sides tried their best to project their humane and empathetic imagery towards the Pacific people while concealing their respective geopolitical, ideological, and strategic interests.

This is exactly what diplomacy is all about: putting on different masks when the circumstances require.

As it turned out, the BOSs “won” the diplomatic battle. They rejected China’s hegemonic and all-consuming plan to form a multilateral regional bloc in the form of the “China-Pacific Countries Common Development Vision,” as well as pushed back on the Anglo-Western insistence on keeping away from Chinese offerings.

Bilateral agreements
In the end, Pacific leaders signed bilateral agreements with China, based on specific developmental, economic, and wellbeing needs of individual states.

Bilateral agreements are common in international relations. The United States, Australia, and Aotearoa New Zealand all have bilateral economic agreements with China as part of their economic lifeline as modern states. Likewise, BOSs are also seeking economic agreements for their survival and why should they be discouraged from engaging with China or any other country in this regard?

There is a subtle ring of patronisation and paternalism here. The Anglo-Western states see the Pacific as their “natural” habitat which should not be shared with anyone else because that’s where they sent explorers, missionaries, and settlers, had colonies, fought against the Japanese invaders,  tested their nuclear bombs, built military bases, and exerted significant cultural influence.

During the Cold War, the Pacific was often described as the “American Lake” because it was literally littered with US military and naval bases.

Despite decolonisation in the region, this feeling of false imperial grandeur still persists in various subconscious forms. For instance, being lectured on the evils of China by the Anglo-West is almost like saying that the BOSs are not smart, strong, and sophisticated enough to stand up to China’s manipulative intents.

Aid, which is used to counter Chinese influence, often ends up benefiting the donor countries such as Australia and New Zealand because the contractors are largely from those countries.

On the other hand, China’s low quality infrastructure and debt-creating loans seem to suggest the rather patronising “beggars cannot be choosers” attitude. Chinese influence is far more cunningly subtle through its “soft power” long term approach compared to the rather abrupt short term approach of the Anglo-Saxon powers.

Common colonial experiences
China has strategically invoked the South-South discourse to engage with BOSs hoping that they will see each other as “developing” countries who share common colonial experiences of Western colonialism.

Whether the BOSs buy this ideological bait is another question. By and large, BOSs still see China as a highly industrialised state with lots of goodies to dangle and benefit from, and not so much as a fellow “poor” Global South brethren.

One of the ironies of history is that colonialism, apart from creating a culture of subservience, has also deeply embedded a strong pro-Anglo-Western cultural orientation amongst the BOSs, despite moments of political and ideological resistance. Most Pacific people speak English, go through Anglo-Western education, are readily exposed to Anglo-Western cultural influences such as music, Hollywood movies, and other forms of ideological hegemony, and have close connections with their neighbours such as Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, where they migrate for various reasons.

These factors have created a deep sense of connection with the Anglo-Western world, a reality which China will never be able to replicate, or even challenge, in the next 20 years, despite its extensive “soft power” machinations.

The BOSs’ engagement with China is more economic and diplomatic and less cultural, although this has been on the increase through scholarship offerings and the establishment of Confucius institutions, among other strategies. BOSs frame their engagement with China on the basis of need rather than ideological alignment as is often assumed and misrepresented by their Anglo-Western neighbours. They are able to play the diplomatic and geopolitical game in subtle and smart ways that keep the big powers guessing and sometimes worried.

The reality is that while individual BOSs may sign bilateral agreements with China, none of them will allow itself to become China’s patron state, the same way that the US has been creating buffer and client states around the world. This is because, as they probably know, the cost of assimilation into China’s sphere of influence will be massive and they have a lot to lose.

Some BOSs have adopted a “Look North Policy” and in recent years Pacific students have travelled  to China for studies, Pacific businesses have sold their products to the Chinese market, and states have engaged in bilateral or multilateral deals with the Asian power. This should be seen as part of the diplomatic diversification process rather than a colonising project.

Just another partner
The reality is that China will always become just another partner and not the alternative to the Anglo-Western connection. Most Pacific people will opt to migrate to New Zealand, US, or Australia, rather than China.

This is where the anxiety and fear of the Anglo-Western countries about a Chinese “takeover” is not just misplaced, but utterly irrational. It does not consider the agency of the BOSs to wisely, strategically, and imaginatively navigate their way through the treacherous geopolitical waters. The overreaction by the Anglo-Western bloc about potential Chinese influence sends out a rather unsavoury message about “bullying” and “colonial attitude.”

This is reinforced by insults such as that by former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison that the Pacific is Australia’s “backyard” or the racist insinuation by Heather du Plessis-Allan (a right-wing New Zealand journalist) that Pacific people are “leeches,” or the unkind and patronising labelling by some Australian academics and policy thinkers of the Pacific as an “Arc of Instability.”

Residues of neo-colonial perception are consciously and subconsciously entrenched in the Anglo-Western perception of the BOSs. This has a long history. The Pacific Island Labourers Act 1901, an offshoot of the White Australian policy, was designed to remove Pacific people from Australia.

In New Zealand, the Dawn Raid era of the mid-1970s and early 1980s saw the arrest, harassment, and removal of Pacific peoples who were unwanted in New Zealand. The then  Australian Immigration Minister Jim Forbes said in May 1971 that “Pacific Islanders are unsophisticated and unsuited to settlement in Australia.”

Pacific people have always been treated as dispensable entities who need to be kept out, only invited in to support their economy as cheap dispensable labour. This philosophy and practice, which started during the Australian labour trade in the 1800s and in New Zealand in the 1950s and 60s, continues today in both countries under the seasonal labour scheme.

Times have changed and it’s important for our bigger members of the Vuvale (family)  to engage with their Pacific neighbours as equal partners, not subordinate and unsophisticated backyard children. The BOS’s agency needs full recognition as capable of making their own mind and plotting their trajectory towards the future they desire.

The old order where colonial paternalism, imperial patronage, racialised narratives, and belittling perceptions shaped relationships no longer have any place. The Anglo-Western countries in the region are good at ticking the UN Sustainable Development boxes such as equity, diversity, and inclusion (SDG10), but they hardly  practice these in meaningful ways.

No matter how well these subtle manoeuvres are diplomatically concealed, these still cannot escape the gaze of Pacific BOSs because they live with it all the time.  Time for a dramatic attitudinal transformation.

Steven Ratuva is a professor and interdisciplinary scholar and director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, Aotearoa New Zealand. This article was first published by the Australian Institute of International Affairs under a Creative Commons Licence and is republished with the author’s permission.

An Aotearoa New Zealand-based Fijian professor of Pacific studies says the increase in the frequency of natural disasters and land erosions, and rising ocean temperatures means new terminology is now needed to reflect how drastic the environmental challenges have become.

Professor Steven Ratuva, who is the co-leader for a New Zealand-government supported research project called Protect Pacific, said the term “climate change” doesn’t fully address the impacts seen throughout the Pacific and elsewhere globally.

Dr Ratuva, director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, said it was time to shift away from saying climate change.

• READ MORE: Other climate crisis reports

“The word climate change has been around for some time, people have been using it over and over again,” he said.

“Of course climate changes, it’s naturally induced seen through weather, but the situation now shows it’s not just changing, but we’re reaching a level of a crisis — the increasing number of category five cyclones, the droughts, the erosion, heating of the ocean, the coral reefs dying in the Pacific, and the impact on people’s lives.

“All these things are happening at a very fast pace.

“So the words climate change do not address the dramatic changes taking place so we need another new way of framing it so the term climate crisis is being used now because we are right in the middle of it.”

Protect Pacific is a research project looking at climate crisis across the Pacific region and is led in partnership with the University of Canterbury, the University of the South Pacific and the New Zealand government.

At the recent Oceans Conference in Palau, New Zealand Minister Aupito William Sio announced that his government will allocate US$3 million to the project which Dr Ratuva said would mostly go towards research to be carried out across 16 Pacific islands.

The research project would be mainly led by the Pacific, for the Pacific and Dr Ratuva said it was an opportunity for the Pacific to finally participate in a study that took into account their lived experiences.

However, he added that the Pacific’s heavy dependence on aid had meant the region had had to look elsewhere for climate expertise rather than relying on their own indigenous knowlege.

Dr Ratuva said aid had not allowed the Pacific to express their independence fully.

“The pattern of economic development, the pattern of governance, the pattern of doing things, has always been reliant on aid donors — they define what has to be done with the money.

“Often the Pacific climate policies are driven by the international narratives from the United Nations, from the various aid donors so it’s important that the evidence should be generated within the Pacific using our own expertise.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

“Of course climate changes […] but we’re reaching a level of a crisis – the increasing number of category five cyclones, the droughts, the erosion, heating of the ocean, the coral reefs dying in the Pacific, and the impact on people’s lives.” https://t.co/RqeBq44RkG

— RNZ Pacific (@RNZPacific) May 6, 2022

Campaigning is underway for the general election in Fiji later this year and early predictions are pointing to a shift in allegiances.

No date has been set yet for the general election in Fiji.

The ruling FijiFirst Party led by Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama scraped through at the last election four years ago with the slimmest of margins.

• LISTEN TO RNZ PACIFIC WAVES: Dr Ratuva talks to Koroi Hawkins about the Fiji election
• Other reports on Fiji elections

Professor Steven Ratuva, director of the Macmillan Brown Centre of Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, said FijiFirst’s popularity was polling more than 60 percent in the 2014 election.

He said in 2018 that they were closer to 50 percent, and now the polls are indicating popularity levels as low as 22 percent.

“So that alone, if you do another poll and another one, if it talks about the same thing and even if you have a margin of error of about 10 or 20, that means it’s going to be a major shift in the political gravity, and there might be a change of government.

No consistent polling
Unfortunately, we don’t have consistent polling in Fiji, this is when they should be doing it, the major papers like The Fiji Times, the Fiji Sun,” he said.

“It’s important for the people of Fiji at this particular point in the election to be engaged in the democratic process of providing their views as to who should be there, before the actual election itself.

“And it’s good for political parties as well, whether you are in power or whether you are in opposition,” Professor Ratuva said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Forming post-election alliances through formal agreement is an effective way of drawing in a broader and more culturally diverse group of voters into a bigger support bloc, says a New Zealand-based political sociologist.

Professor Steven Ratuva, director of the Macmillan Brown Pacific Studies Centre at Canterbury University, said this while responding to the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed recently by the opposition National Federation Party and the People’s Alliance party which was formed last year and led by Sitiveni Rabuka.

The two parties have undertaken to work together in the lead-up to the 2022 Fiji general election.

• READ MORE: Fiji’s Biman Prasad calls out ‘dire straits’ Bainimarama government
• Prasad confident ‘fed up’ Fijians will make a change in this year’s election
• Other Fiji election reports

Professor Ratuva said politics everywhere had to do with power contestation, and the removal or weakening of those in power was usually one of the most fundamental factors of this “power game”.

Meanwhile, Rabuka says his party will win the election.

“The question I would like to ask Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama is, has he ever played competitive sports,” Rabuka said during a news conference.

“Nobody goes into the field thinking that they are going to lose; we are going in thinking the way he is thinking, we are going in to win.”

Rabuka, whose MoU witj the NFP sets out the guidelines on how the two parties would work together towards the election, confirmed that the two parties would be fighting the polls on their own.

However, he said they would be working together on a number of issues during the election.

When quizzed by the media on how he intended to make the partnership with NFP work under the electoral process, Rabuka said “it is not a coalition, it’s an MoU”.

NFP leader Professor Biman Prasad said their partnership was to get rid of the mess the FijiFirst government had created in the country.

Luke Nacei is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

He has worked as an academic in five different countries and now Dr Steven Ratuva has been made a distinguished professor – the first Pacific person to ever hold this highest professorial title.

The Fiji-born University of Canterbury political sociologist and director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies has been recognised for his pioneering research in a range of fields, including ethnicity, security and politics.

Dr Ratuva has been promoted to the highest role in academia and wants to inspire other Pacific students and scholars to break down the “political and cultural” hurdles that often stand in their way.

• READ MORE: Steven Ratuva becomes world’s first Pacific distinguished professor

“I want to show them that nothing is impossible, you can reach the top,” he said.

“There is always the perception that Pacific people are not as smart, just good in rugby and not so much academia.

“It’s a myth that we need to break through.”

Dr Ratuva said he was honoured to receive the appointment.

First time for a Pacific scholar
“It’s the first time a Pacific scholar has received the title, anywhere in the world,” he said.

“There’s a lot of research around the world about how minorities internalise the perception about them. It’s about breaking through those psychological and cultural perceptions.”

Dr Ratuva joined the University of Canterbury in 2015 but has also worked at universities in Fiji, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.

“I grew up in an environment where education was very much encouraged and promoted. In my family alone, there are about 15 degrees altogether.”

Dr Ratuva worked for the Suva-based University of the South Pacific (USP) before joining highly respected think tank the Institute of Development Studies, based at the University of Sussex, in southern England.

“It’s the leading development institute in the world. It’s ranked above Oxford and Harvard, they compete for second position,” he said.

The father of two is a prolific author and in the last two years alone he has written and edited five books, including a three-volume global project on ethnicity, the largest and most comprehensive on the subject.

Connecting the boxes
“A lot of those issues are interconnected; politics, economics, culture,” he said.

“Often in academia we break them up into little boxes. In my work, I try to connect those boxes.”

Last year, Dr Ratuva was elected as a fellow of the Royal Society Te Apārangi and has won the society’s Mertge Medal for New Zealand social science research excellence.

He is currently co-leading a University of Canterbury and USP joint project on climate crisis, covering 16 Pacific countries.

Dr Ratuva is one of four Canterbury academics recently awarded the role of distinguished professors. The others are Maggie Lee Huckabee, Charles Semple and Michael Hall.

This article was first published by Stuff and is republished with permission.

The University of Canterbury and the University of the South Pacific are partnering in a unique research project that will explore the impact of climate change in the Pacific, and the role indigenous ecological knowledge can play to help communities to adapt.

A statement from the USP said the project would address a lack of research into community resilience and response mechanisms, and how indigenous knowledge could work with Western scientific approaches to inform a range of responses — from government policies to community plans.

It stated the research would support Pacific academics and take a Pasifika approach to research, including talanoa and culturally relevant methodologies.

• READ MORE: Talanoa journalism and climate change – ‘Pacific way’ journalism education and media research culture

It would also capture indigenous approaches and local responses to changes in climate being experienced.

In the statement, University of Canterbury team leader Professor Steven Ratuva said the “trans-disciplinary innovation is needed to explore the multi-layered impacts of the climate crisis on the environment and people in the Pacific and beyond”.

“The project is a unique opportunity to weave science, social science, humanities and indigenous ecological knowledge in creative and transformative ways,” said Professor Ratuva, who is director of the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.

USP’s professor of Ocean and Climate Change and director of the Pacific Centre of Environment (PaCE-SD), Dr Elisabeth Holland, said the project responded to increasingly urgent calls from Pacific leaders and peoples to address the climate crisis.

‘First of its kind’
“It is truly a first of its kind of synthesis of research on both climate change and the ocean in the Pacific,” she said.

“This ‘by the Pacific for the Pacific’ project provides the opportunity to amplify community voices in the ongoing national and international discussions.”

According to the statement, the research will contribute to the global understanding of climate change in the Pacific region, contributing to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Global Stocktake in 2023.

It will also provide valuable information to Pacific governments and civil society groups and Pasifika peoples.

It will highlight Pacific solutions to Pacific experiences, sharing these experiences across the region and the world.

The project is funded by the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Timoci Vula is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

A new Fiji magazine published by a New Zealand-based media collective made its debut this weekend to mark Fiji’s 50th Independence Day anniversary.

The first monthly edition of Fiji Dynamics was launched yesterday, 10th October 2020 – Fiji Day.

The editorial team is made up of senior Fiji journalists and media personalities who now live and work in Aotearoa-New Zealand.

• READ MORE: Children recreate the Deed of Cession to mark 50 years of freedom – The Fiji Times
• Graham Davis: Happy 5oth Independence Day, Fiji

Fiji Dynamics aims to help inspire and further enhance the rich diversity of New Zealand’s multicultural communities.

One of the organisers, Rachael Mario, from the Whānau Community Centre, is delighted at having a place for community groups to share their stories.

“By promoting our views, identity and culture, ths magazine will unite our communities, and help inspire our youth,” she said.

“The new magazine reflects and defines the Fiji community. With this being Fiji’s 50th anniversary of independence, and also Fijian Language week, it makes this even more special.”

One of the articles published in this inaugural edition, was this reflection below by Professor Steven Ratuva, director of the Macmillan Brown Pacific Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury:

REFLECTIONS FOR THE PAST 50 YEARS: FIJI’S CHALLENGES AND HOPES

By Professor Steven Ratuva

I vividly remember that memorable day, 10 October 2970, as a young village boy attending Yale Dustrict School in Kadavu, when the British flag was lowered for the last time and the new sky blue Fijian flag with its colourful design was hoisted amid the cheers and tears.

It was a moment of youthful hope and optimism, and now 50 years later, I am reminiscing and reflecting on a journey so full of intrigue and challenges as well as resilience and hope.

Governments and constitutions have come and gone, either through democratic elections or illegal use of force, but Fiji as a collective of ordinary people living their ordinary lives, remain the cornerstone of hope in a country scarred by ethno-political tension, economic inequality, contestation of power by competing groups and abuse of authority by leaders.

Since independence, Fiji underwent a multicultural experiment under Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, which saw two main contending forces, communal nationalism (ethnic and cultural groups demanding attention) and civic nationalism (unity and common identity) competing for supremacy in syncretic and complex ways.

There were moments of contractions and accommodation taking place simultaneously and by and large there was a sense of equilibrium until the first coup in 1987 when communal nationalism expressed itself in a seriously violent way with the help of the military.

This was repeated in 2000. While the 2006 coup was meant to reverse the trend using the fallacious “clean-up” narrative, it merely entrenched an ethno-business and political patronage under the tutelage of an all-powerful despotic clique.

The neoliberal reforms which followed have led to the dysfunction of the civil service, accumulation of crippling debt, nepotism and the formation of an ethnic clique system operating under the guise of “merit” and “de-ethnicisation”, which undermines the spirit of multiculturalism, equity and diversity.

Despite these setbacks, the sense of shared resilience and collective benevolence of the people is a reason why we have not had an ethnic civil war as we have seen in Rwanda, Solomon Islands, Bosnia and Sudan.

• Read the full article at Fiji Dynamics

Fiji’s 2018 General Election is going to be a close contest between the ruling FijiFirst and the opposition parties, according to a leading New Zealand-based Fiji academic.

Professor Steven Ratuva, political sociologist and director of the MacMillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies at the University of Canterbury, says the election will be “won and lost” over the undecided, currently a third of the eligible voters.

Dr Ratuva made the comment in response to a Tebbutt-Times poll conducted on February 5-8 with 1000 randomly sampled people who were eligible voters.

According to the results of the poll on the public’s voting intention, a staggering 34 percent said they were not sure who to vote for, 8 percent declined to answer the question and half a percent said they did not intend to vote.

Thirty-two percent said they would vote for FijiFirst, 22 percent for Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA), 3 percent for National Federation Party (NFP) and 1 percent for Fiji Labour Party (FLP).

When looking only at the percentages for those who selected a party (removing the undecided voters), 56 percent selected FijiFirst, 38 percent SODELPA, 5 percent NFP, 1 percent FLP, 0.2 per cent Unity Fiji Party, and 0.1 per cent independent.

Slender lead
Dr Ratuva said of those who expressed their party preferences, FijiFirst had a slender lead of 6 percent with a total of 32 percent (or equivalent to 16 seats) compared with 26 percent (or 13 seats) by all the other opposition parties combined.

“The interesting factor here is the large number of undecided voters totalling 34 percent (or 21 seats).

“This is where the election will be won and lost. So very hypothetically, 21 seats are up for grabs,” said Dr Ratuva.

He said FijiFirst would need at least 18 percent and above of these undecided voters to get over the 50 percent barrier and win the election while the opposition parties needed 24 percent.

“These results show that there have been a lot of movement’s since the last election in terms of people’s preferences as a result of changing perceptions of issues, perceptions of parties, experience of changing circumstances and how they respond to these.

“Whichever way the votes shift, we can be certain that the election might be very close. The next three political party-based polls will begin to provide a much clearer picture of where things are moving as campaigns begin in earnest and the elections come closer.”

Analysing the results, University of the South Pacific economist Dr Neelesh Gounder said the support for FijiFirst had reached an all-time low since the 2014 election, when it had received almost 60 percent of all the votes cast.

Bainimarama’s popularity rises
“While Bainimarama’s popularity has increased by 20 percent in February 2018 compared with February 2017, FijiFirst party as the preferred choice has decreased by 5 percent during the same period (from 37 percent in February 2017 to 32 percent in February 2018),” Dr Gounder said.

He said comparing poll results of preferred party with preferred PM, there was now a clear “delink” between the two.

“It seems there is no clear link between Bainimarama’s popularity as the PM and FijiFirst party as the preferred party.

“On the other hand, both opposition parties SODELPA and NFP have gained in terms of the choice for preferred party.

“SODELPA, in particular, has strengthened its position with a 9 percent increase in preferred party choice (from 13 percent in February 2017 to 22 percent in February 2018).

“Support for NFP has increased from 1 percent to 3 percent.”

He said also interesting was the percent of undecided voters.

“Despite the reduction in undecided voters, 34 percent [from 40 percent] is large and can play a significant role in which party or parties form government after the 2018 election. The challenge for SODELPA and NFP is the continuation of the momentum towards attracting undecided voters towards their party and candidates,” Dr Gounder said.

“For FijiFirst, given how this scenario has evolved since 2014, it might be beneficial to have elections sooner than later. This strategy might avoid FijiFirst 2014 voters who are now undecided from moving to the opposition.”

• Reaction from political parties