Fiji’s internal security dilemma: Examining the military
Mon May 08, 2006 3:10 pm
The army “morning walk” in Suva City a few days ago spawned speculations and rumours about a possible coup, a prelude to something more serious.
Perceptions were divided: the military saw it as a “normal” training program; some saw it as an act of reassurance that security was intact; and some saw it as an act of political intimidation.
These divisions in perceptions represent in a rather interesting way the political mood of the country as we move towards the May 2006 general election.
The security debate has taken center stage, displacing all the other issues relating to development, education, health, employment, economic growth etc. to the background. This is precisely what our dilemma is right now.
There has been a dramatic shift in the security dynamics of our country, driven primarily by the political orientation and political behaviour of the military.
Direct military “intervention” in politics in times of normalcy has not been a norm, what we are seeing now is something different.
A sociological assessment of the military psyche is important here to unearth some factors shaping its current behaviour.
Symptoms of post-coup traumatic syndrome
The 2000 coup left the country in a state of moral and psychological crisis. We all became victims of the coup, although some suffered more directly and more intensely than others.
Apart from the hostages and those who fell victims to semi-political looters and thugs, the police and the military absorbed most of the psychological stress because of their frontline position and their direct confrontation with the rebels.
The police in particular were very vulnerable because they were unarmed and in a situation of powerlessness, they saw themselves as mere tokens like police toys paraded on a self for decoration and constantly subject to attacks by the armed rebels.
A recent survey showed that many suffered trauma which they are still trying to come to terms with.
The soldiers, despite the fact that they were armed, were also vulnerable, especially when they had to be alert all the time and were subjected to threats and abuse by the rebels.
Many of the abuses were harsh and many may have felt the psychological impact in a profound way. Whilst most soldiers have been hardened by their international peace-keeping operations, in 2000 they had to face their own people, sometimes relatives, and they had to make difficult choices whether to stay with the army or join their relatives and friends on the other side.
The abuse by relatives, the anxiety and the confusion, mitigated by the will for self-preservation and the underlying guilt would have been traumatic indeed.
The mutiny of November 2 must have been the ultimate disgrace, the pinnacle of insult as their own “home” was abused and desecrated by rebel soldiers.
The Commander, Frank Bainimarama was clearly the target and this must have affected him psychologically in a serious way, just as it would affect anyone else.
The coup and mutiny made a lot of soldiers very bitter, vengeful, unsure of their future, suspicious of civilians, angry with ethno-nationalists and angry politicians who supported the ethno-nationalist ideology.
These were some of the symptoms of the post-coup trauma which as a nation we should have addressed with some urgency but we opted to look the other way and pretended that things were “normal”.
Many soldiers did not have any choice but to continue with life but in a rather confused and unsettled way.
Response to the post coup trauma
There are a number of reasons why we did not respond sensitively to the plight of our soldiers.
Firstly, we were too busy dealing with our own trauma and problems to notice others’ plight. Secondly, we all wanted to move on quickly without mopping up the dirt, as it were, in the form of addressing people’s concerns and grievances emanating from the coup.
Thirdly, we have this terrible cultural disposition of thinking that we are tough, macho men who do not need counseling and trauma healing because it is too “sissy” to do so and instead keep our problems within ourselves hoping that they will somehow go away.
Fourthly, Fiji does not have a pool of professional counselors and trauma therapists whom we can call upon to help rehabilitate our soldiers.
We have been busy training accountants and economists naively hoping that they will bring us wealth and very little focus on human-based professions such as professional counseling.
This is the time when we need professional counselors, but there is none around.
Like a bad dream, we are feeling the effects of all these. The SDL government’s sympathy towards the coup perpetrators has rekindled the military’s traumatic memories of 2000 coup and mutiny and this has the potential to induce negative reaction.
Both the government and the military are driven by the desire to triumph with both using different basis for legitimacy.
The government says, and rightly so, that it is the legitimately elected political institution of the day and the military disputes that by saying that the government’s legitimacy has been eroded by its sympathy for the 2000 coup perpetrators.
To drive its point, the military has directly involved itself in politics through its “truth and justice” campaign and at some point threatened to invoke the “doctrine of necessity”, a term often used to justify extra-legality.
Much of what we are witnessing is partly spawned by the anger, bitterness and other psychologically traumatic experiences of 2000.
We failed to notice the early symptoms and now when the crisis is before us, we are pointing figures at everyone else but ourselves.
What should have been done?
It’s difficult to go back and rewind the clock but it’s always good to learn from our mistakes. Where did we go wrong?
Firstly those in key leadership positions (this includes the PM, Military Commander, Minister for Home Affairs, Leader of the Labour Party etc.) should have gone through counseling and therapeutic healing in total confidentiality to help sort out their frustrations, bitterness and anxiety. Ofcourse this is not to suggest that these people were “sick” or mentally malfunctioning.
Not at all. This is based on the recognition that every human being who has gone through a crisis needs some therapeutic and rehabilitative healing to come to terms with life after the crisis.
It’s a way of helping to refocus and reprogram oneself, especially in terms of transforming sentiments from the bitter and confrontational stance to a more mutual and friendly approach.
We are all humans and are all fallible and we all need professional help when the going gets tough.
It’s fashionable nowadays for world leaders, corporate heads, military leaders, celebrities, even ordinary workers citizens to have access to therapeutic counseling all the time.
In some countries it is compulsory for military officers and ordinary soldiers coming back from overseas duties or after been involved in local crisis to go through therapeutic counseling as part of de-briefing.
Over the years our soldiers returning from peacekeeping duties have never gone through this process in a professional and comprehensive way. Their traumatic experiences continued to accumulate over the years and in some cases leading to domestic and social problems.
The coup simple made things worse for many of them.
The cobwebs of the coup in the form of bitterness and frustration are still entangling our consciousness with potentially devastating consequences and so it’s imperative that we face up to these ands cleanse them in a more professional way.
Psychologists will tell us that if personal trauma is not dealt with, things are bound to get worse as tension and frustration accumulate unchecked without any positive outlet.
This should be a warning to all of us.
Secondly, there should be a parliamentary process in place to regulate our security institutions.
Many countries have parliamentary security oversight systems to ensure greater democratic accountability of the military to parliament as the democratic representative of the people.
This is important in post-colonial states where the government is often too partisan and driven by specific ideological agenda and sometimes there is bound to be tension between the government and military when crisis situations emerge.
Thirdly, a woman should have been a Minister for Home Affairs. This sounds funny but there is a serious sociological aspect to this.
One should understand the dynamics of the Fijian male-macho psyche. Fijian men are groomed from an early age to be confrontational, tough and uncompromising to ensure upholding of one’s status as a tagane dina (real man).
To back down is to be labeled “lamulamu” or coward. One of the age-old solutions to absorb and cool down this uncompromising Fijian machoistic streak is the soft, tenderly touch of female intervention.
As mothers women are more tuned towards peace-building.
The Minister for Home Affair’s confrontation with the military commander was underpinned by this macho mentality and this simply exacerbated the already volatile situation.
What government should have done was identify a smart and resilient woman, perhaps like Taufa Vakatale, get her into Senate and make her Minister for Home Affairs.
Ms Vakatale’s charm and motherliness would have softened Bainimarama’s macho disposition thus making compromise and mutuality between government and the military possible.
These are just a few humble suggestions. I do not pretend that they provide the ultimate solution to our security dilemma.
There are other factors responsible for the tension, some relating to politics and governance which I’ve talked about in previous articles.
Lest we forget, the socio-psychological dimension is less obvious, subtle but unfortunately deeply embedded.
We tend to talk about who is right and who is wrong and not who needs help and why. It’s time we open this line of debate.
|
