The ‘truths’ that we live by
POLITICS in Fiji, nowadays, is almost like a blood sport. It is so bad that it has infected other spheres of our lives. Gone are the days where niceties, double entendres, whammies, ironies and satires are the primary ways one shows one’s displeasure of an adversary.
By contrast, what is happening now is a no-holds-barred slugfest made up of a mixture of malicious innuendos, blatant insults, aspersions and personal vilifications. In fact, adversarial politics has even been reframed in theological terms as between those who stand for ‘good’ against the forces of evil.
The framing of our disagreements, whether in sports, politics, law or public discourse, as if it is a constant struggle between gods and demons has adversely affected the way we relate to those who are different or may think differently from us. It looks as though basic disagreements are automatically followed, as if by default, by questions about the other person’s integrity – how dare they disagree with us?
In our opinion, the origin of this unfortunate development lies in the systematic dismantling of the normative foundation built around a form of social respect that used to be sacrosanct to everyone - for a very practical reason; that is, everyone gets tripped up once in a while.
Some say that it could be a sign of the times that we are living in. One only needs to look around the world, the argument goes, to acknowledge the fact that social differentiation has led to divergent value spheres that are, in turn, amplified by media and infotainment platforms. The more cynical amongst us, on the other hand, argue that we have passed all that and are now living in a post-truth period – a period where truth loses its neutrality - a condition of its authority in deciding between competing arguments – and is just a matter of perspective. In other words, truth has become a matter of taste. For those that hold this view, truth can easily be classified as fake news and vice versa. Indeed, one only has to look at the Trumpian political world in the United States to understand the vulnerable position of truth in our social life today.
The recent case of Bainimarama and Qiliho brought to us the precarious nature of notions of truth and falsity in Fiji today. By the time, this piece gets published, the two gentlemen would have had their respective fates decided by the same magistrate who had acquitted them of any crimes. This was after that decision was overturned by the High Court.
It is interesting that the initial acquittal rendered by Magistrate Seini Puamau earned her the scorn of every man and his dog who were waiting for a guilty verdict. Automatically, as if following an immutable law in Fijian social etiquette, everyone took to social media and start hurling abuses at her – the more serious of these attackers launching their venoms from behind pseudonyms. Some took the, subsequent, decision of the High Court to squash the acquittal and convict the accused as a redemption of their beliefs on
the baseness of the duo’s intentions. Others took it as a sign that the learned magistrate is not fit for her office. Everyone, in our view, needs to take a deep breath and remind ourselves of a few things.
Firstly, we need to be mindful of the fact that the justice system is not there to cater to our personal whims, legitimate or otherwise. Nor is it there to deliver to us the revenge we, sometimes, desperately believe we need to have. We cannot bend the justice system so that it merely reflects the personal tastes of the majority or the powerful amongst us. That would not be justice anymore.
Let us be clear, the plight of the two men, currently at the mercy of the laws of Fiji, offers a seminal lesson for the rest of us. It was, after all, the English playwright who warned us that “the evil that men do lives after them”. This is a lesson that needs to be learnt by everyone entrusted into positions of power including those currently at the helm of our government.
The cacophony of voices and, it must be admitted, vices raised against the learned magistrate in her ruling obscures the fact that the justice system actually allows for what she did as well as the subsequent overturning of that ruling. It is normal in other words. In fact, there is an in-built system of checks and balances in the court system that is aimed at rectifying what may be called ‘bad’ judgements. There is no room for godly or evil judges, just ‘good’ or ‘bad’ judgements. That is what justice is all about.
This opinion, however, is not about the character of the beleaguered magistrate or her judgement. It is about us as a people. Do we really want to go down this path where truth only matters when it is aligned to our own personal views? That when truth does not agree with us, we immediately assume that something is wrong with it and not us – that it cannot be truth anymore? Why don’t we instead take any opportunity, where a given truth does not agree with us, to start reflecting on some of our most cherished convictions?
This, admittedly, is only possible if we take a step back and reset the ways in which we think and relate to our fellow country men and women. Relationships are built on truths that hold us accountable to each other, not ones that are easily jettisoned when they do not suit us. By the same token, social connections are easily broken in the absence of truth.
The titan, Prometheus, invited the wrath of the gods when he decided to help humankind by providing us with fire. Fire was supposed to bring the light and warmth of truth to the cold barren darkness of the world. Judging from the way we have been conducting ourselves in the public realm recently, burning our bridges is the only way we know how to use our notions of truth for.
Blessed Easter!
■ DR TUI RAKUITA teaches at the University of Otago.
■ SEVANAIA SAKAI teaches at the University of the South Pacific.
The views expressed in this article are the authors and not of this newspaper.