No abstract

Institutional developments in Pacific Islands regionalism have been dramatic in recent years. These include the changing role through partnerships' approach in addressing climate change and sustainable development issues. This new dynamism is driven by the discontent of a growing number of island states with the established regional order, defined by prevailing institutions, power and ideas, and by a desire to assert greater control over their own futures. Against the backdrop of an increasingly dynamic geopolitical and geoeconomic landscape, Pacific Island states are using alternative regional frameworks to develop new approaches to the challenges facing them.

Most of the chapters in this volume were first presented as papers at the Workshop on The New Pacific Diplomacy held at the University of the South Pacific (USP) in early December 2014. We would like to thank the School of Government, Development and International Affairs at the USP and especially Professor Vijay Naidu, then Head of School, for his support for this project. We would also like to thank Sela Epeli and Annie Kaufonongo for their administrative support for the workshop. ANU Press has been very supportive throughout the publication process. We would especially like to acknowledge Emily Tinker, Publications Coordinator, and Teresa Prowse who designed the cover. We are also indebted to Duncan Beard for his expert copy-editing and to Beth Battrick for the indexing. We are especially grateful to Professor Stewart Firth of the State Society and Governance in Melanesia Program at the ANU for his constant encouragement and support for the project and the publication. We would also like to send a vinaka vakalevu to all our students in the postgraduate program in diplomacy at USP who inspired our interest in this topic, not just through their questions and research, but also through our class discussions and debates. Our sincere gratitude also to the various senior Pacific islander intellectuals who addressed our Diplomacy students over the last several years and brought this New Pacific Diplomacy theme to life. They include Kaliopate Tavola, Transform Aqorau, Maureen Penjueli, Dame Meg Taylor, Iosefa Maiava, and Amena Yauvoli. Last but not least we want to thank Nikolai Tarte and Annie Bartlett for their good-humoured patience and constant love throughout this project.

Fiji is undergoing a period of political and economic change. At this stage, the jury is out on the course being charted by the FijiFirst government as it grapples with the dual challenges of political reform and economic development. With the 2018 general election on the horizon, the following article considers where Fiji is placed on the authoritarian-democratic spectrum. By drawing on the comparative literature about transition "from above" and competitive authoritarianism, we focus on the character of reform in Fiji since the re-institution of elections in 2014. Our contention is that the shift that skews the system in favour of an incumbent government often occurs between elections in a less than noticeable manner. The article argues that while there is an appearance of progress in Fiji, overall the situation is less democratic and more precarious than it seems. 1

Discussions about Fiji's politics inevitably revolve around military coups. For many years Fiji was preoccupied with the turbulence and aftermath of the two coups in 1987. Then it was the 2000 coup that preoccupied people. Now we have another coup to analyze, to explore, to use as our current reference point; one which took place in December 2006. This installed a military-backed and led interim regime, with the purported mandate of the President. The periodic upheavals we have experienced over the last twenty years have given rise to the perception that we have a 'coup culture'. Whether this 'coup culture' is something we can overcome is perhaps the greatest challenge facing us as a nation. The notion of a 'coup culture' suggests a pattern of instability that is repeatedly being played out. However, the latest coup has been portrayed as different from the previous ones; according to its supporters it is the coup that will end once and for all the 'coup cycle'. Was the December 2006 coup 'different'? Previous coups were carried out in the name of indigenous rights and were broadly popular among ethnic Fijians and Fijian institutions (including the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC) and the Methodist Church). The 2006 coup, by contrast, was carried out by the military in the name of good governance and anti-corruption. It was not even called a coup by the military: It was called a 'clean-up campaign'. Moreover, the coup-leader has expressly defied-if not ridiculed and marginalized-traditional Fijian institutions. Apart from suspending the GCC, there has been a suggestion from the interim regime of a non-indigenous President, and the formation of a state-based land use commission. Perhaps the most compelling feature of this coup has been the deafening silence of Fijian nationalism. The nationalist voice has been shut out. But the question remains for how long-given the highly emotive nature for indigenous Fijians of issues such as land, the presidency, and chiefly structures.