FIJI POLITICS
BULLETINS AND BULLETS: THE MEDIA AND COUP RUMOURS

The war of words between the Fiji government and the military commander, Frank Bainimarama, last year, including the latest outbursts against the government by Bainimarama, were literally taken by the rumour-mongering foreign media to mean that a coup was around the corner.

By DR STEVEN RATUVA

Feedback to the Toktok page

WHY is everyone so eager to conclude that a coup is imminent in Fiji every time the military commander Frank Bainimarama makes an anti-government statement? Why is the international media so obsessed with coup speculation? Why are people like NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark so paranoid about being caught up in a Fiji coup? Why are countries like Australia, New Zealand and Britain so quick to prematurely send out travel advisories every time the media sensationalizes a political happening in Fiji?

During the last election both the Australian and New Zealand media talked about possible intervention in Fiji by Australian and New Zealand forces in case the election went wrong. The ridiculous reason suggested by the Sydney Morning Herald story, written by a journalistic novice who parachuted into Fiji for a day or two, was that the controversy over the voter registration could lead to civil unrest and possibly a coup. How simplistic and idiotic can some journalists become?
The war of words between the government and the military commander, Frank Bainimarama, last year, including the latest outbursts against the government by Bainimarama, were literally taken by the rumour-mongering foreign media to mean that a coup was around the corner.

Lately, The New Zealand Herald headlined on 19 October: “PM nervous at Fiji coup noises ahead of summit.” The concerned New Zealand Prime Minister helen Clark was quoted as saying: "I've asked for a look at the security around myself and the New Zealand delegation. I am concerned about the atmosphere in Fiji. I really don't want to be the target of it or caught up in it in any way." Target of a coup? Who wants to target her anyway?

A number of media outlets around the world expressed similar sentiments, albeit some more sensationally than others. However, the pattern was basically similar-there seemed to have been consensus of sorts that that a coup was imminent.

An executive of the Singapore-based Citibank rang me last week nervously asking about the possibility of a coup, especially in relation to questions raised by some of their clients regarding the $150 million Fiji government bond floated in the Asian financial market. She had to update investors on the media reports of a possible coup in Fiji since this would affect confidence as well as reduce the value of the Fiji government stock significantly.

She rang me twice just to satisfy the curiosity and raise the confidence of potential buyers of the Fiji stock. My advice to her in both instances was that it was unlikely that a coup would take place and everything was normal in Fiji and there was no reason why the Fiji bond should lose its value. She was satisfied with my political analysis, thanked me and hung up.

After doing a content analysis of recent media coverage, I noticed that none of the local media speculated about a possible coup. They merely reported the Bainimarama-government incident. Ironically, the same reports were used by the foreign media and political commentators who then invented the ridiculous conclusions that a coup in Fiji was about to happen.

Why is the foreign media eager to conclude that a coup is imminent every time a verbal exchange between the military commander and the government takes place or when we have elections or when something politically controversial happens? Is the media making a self-fulfilling prophesy, hoping that a coup would actually happen? Unfortunately every time they make these coup predictions they are wrong, very wrong indeed.

What are some possible factors which compel foreign journalists to be so coup excited?

Cultural prejudice
The first factor is deeply embedded in the journalists’ psyche and cultural perception of the world. One of the ethno-cultural stereotypes dominant in the perceptions of mainstream Australian and New Zealand media (and of course governments and some of their citizens) is that Fiji is part of the dreaded “arc of instability” stretching across Melanesia. The people in these countries, it is assumed, are of inferior cultural and intellectual dispositions and are often prone to corruption, bad governance and institutional chaos. They are too dumb to look after themselves well so they need Australian and New Zealand aid help teach them “good governance” and salvage them from earthly damnation. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, in media interview last week, gave a similar version of this doctrine.

Within this frame of thinking, Fijians are seen as violent and coup prone people, incapable of sorting out their own security problems thus every time there’s an exciting political event, there is a possibility that it would lead to a coup. Fijians, it is assumed, enjoy staging coups, the same way that Papua New Guineans enjoy fighting tribal wars and Solomon Islanders enjoy civil wars.

Over the years these naïve and racist thoughts have been whipped up by some conservative Australian journalists and academics and the imageries have become not only permanent but have been used as basis for foreign policies. The United States under Bush uses similar conceptual tools to approach Islamic countries.

Because of the nature of their profession (that is to put something sensational together quickly to sell to readers), journalists are among the first to fall prey to these prejudiced generalisations. Sometimes these prejudices, framed under the guise of objectivity and freedom of expression, are veiled and subtle and sometimes they are very explicit.

The association between Fiji and coups has become a permanent mental picture which is uncritically accepted by many mainstream journalists. Worse still it is often used to inform political developments in Fiji so that any slight political controversy in Fiji is assumed to lead naturally to a coup. Fijians are portrayed as friendly on the surface and coup-lovers at heart.

Lack of analytical skills
Another significant issue is the lack of analytical depth of journalists, especially when dealing with sensitive political issues. What foreign journalists do is take reports by local journalists and then enthusiastically convert them into coup predictions. Five out of five times they get it all wrong.

Simply reporting and interpreting surface issues without understanding the deeper political dynamics and allowing stereotypes and prejudices to take over analytical reasoning can be dangerous. This distorts issues and often paints a very negative picture of Fiji. Every time I read a report in The Sydney Morning Herald or The New Zealand Herald or other papers I shudder with deep anger, knowing that half the stuff they write about Fiji politics are sensationalist rhetoric of dubious intellectual value.

Obsession with negativity
There is also a common psychological factor relating to obsession with looking for bad things in something with a good image. Fiji’s image as a romantic paradise is one of the most sought after brand names in the world. This was confirmed recently by a global market survey.

While the image of paradise is good for tourism, it is a boring subject for popular readership so weaving in a negative story such as a coup makes things more interesting.

Like the “Fiji” brand name, the “Coup in Fiji” news also sells. The media sells distorted stories about us and consequently diminish our international reputation as a safe tourist destination and a reliable place for investment.

Ethics of journalism
The dominant culture within journalism is to sensationalise issues as a way of selling their story. Making wild claims such as a coup in Fiji does a lot to heighten readers’ excitement and makes news more marketable.

However, there is an underlying ethical consideration to this approach. Does the media really need to destroy the reputation of a country, turn away tourists, scare off investors, undermine national development and make an entire population uneasy just to gain a few extra dollars ahead of competitors through deceptive generalizations, veiled under the rhetoric of “media freedom”?

Playing to the journalist tune
As we judge journalists, let’s not forget that we too are to shoulder some of the blame. The political behavior manifested by some of us simply reinforces the stereotypes held by many foreign journalists. Most foreign journalists (like consultants and aid officials) are not trained in social anthropology and are often not very culturally aware in their world views. The same templates they are brought up with at home are often the same templates they use to judge us. This phenomenon is what sociologists refer to as ethnocentrism.

We are all ethnocentric in our own ways but for journalists who sell and publicize their ideas and views widely, the damage they cause through their writings can be profound. That’s why it’s important for us to sort out our political problems constructively in ways which do not attract the eagle eyed attention of those hoards of sensation-seeking coup enthusiasts.

Lots of foreign journalists are in Nadi now to cover the Pacific Islands Forum meeting and I can imagine some of them weaving through the cane fields or snorkeling around the Sheraton Hotel pool looking for “clues” of a possible coup to spice up their stories.

Imagine this headline in The NZ Herald next week: ”Super woman Helen Clark bravely avoids Fiji coup targeted at her.” Or what about this in next Sunday’s The Sydney Morning Herald: “Arrest of Australian conman Peter Forster to start street riots and military coup in Fiji”. Do you think I’m joking? Mind you, this is perfectly possible.

* Dr Steven Ratuva is a senior fellow in governance at the Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance at the University of the South Pacific. These are his personal views.