Democracy: an imagined amalgamation?

Democracy has a heavy burden of an exclusive representation of the West. Indeed, we all know that the first democratic system was in Europe in Athens, and since then globalised to many other countries. It is however a misconception, I believe that is held largely by the West, that the globalisation of democracy is also has an amalgamating effect.

What many people don’t seem to realise is that there are actually different modes of democracy. For example, to me it seems ludicrous that countries like Colombia and Venezuela can call themselves democracies. Hugo Chavez, Venezuela’s President, has made it possible by law that one call hold presidency for an infinite number of terms, he also owns the largest share of local media. Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos’s family has long been the owners of Colombia’s largest and most popular newspaper company, El Tiempo. These factors are problematic for me to be its potential affect in manipulating public opinion. It’s no secret that corruption is extremely high in these countries – one does not need to ponder whether there is a relationship between the two.

My point brings me to a country closer to home: Fiji.Since the coup led by Voreqe (Frank) Bainimarama in 2006, New Zealand has held a firm stance on condemning Fiji and beckoning them to ‘return’ to democracy. New Zealand’s aggression here is partly fuelled by our egalitarian values and partly because if we hear military coup, we know that is wrong and someone needs to speak up against it. My problem is the huge international pressure for Fiji to return to its previous political modal, almost to assume Fiji had pre-existing values of egalitarianism in the same way as New Zealand did – always. The reality is that Fiji has always been built on a constitution which based on race. This issue is the very core of the reason for all four coups in Fiji to date. Some may argue that it is necessary to protect the interest of Indigenous Fijians. Bainimarama is trying to undo these ideological discourses in Fiji – so that it may encompass more egalitiarian values. There is something called the Pacific Way which emphasises community deliberation as opposed to official bureaucracy.

New Zealand democracy simply would not work in Fiji. The same would go for Fiji’s ‘democracy’ (prior-coup) would not work in New Zealand. The New Zealand’s media’s attack on Fiji insinuates a strong relationship with its democratic past – forgetting that lack of intervention then, has subdued a racial discourse disadvantaging particularly Indians and Asians, as the norm.