|
Article Excerpt
Editorial preface by Ben Burt
The recent conflict in Solomon Islands between the peoples of Malaita and Guadalcanal has been documented in news bulletins, internet commentaries and investigative reports, enabling the main political and economic developments to be summarised in two books (Fraenkel 2004, Moore 2004). But while such publications reflect the experience of both Solomon Islands and foreign professionals, they do not necessarily convey the views of the ordinary Islanders whose circumstances led to the conflict and who found themselves most closely involved.
Michael Kwa'ioloa, a Kwara'ae brought up in rural Malaita, speaks here from long experience of the Malaitan village communities of Honiara, the Solomon Islands capital on Guadalcanal. He has dealt personally with grievances between Honiara's diverse ethnic groups, before and during the crisis, not as a professional politician, administrator or academic, but as a local community activist for the Kwara'ae chiefs and as a front-line officer in the Royal Solomon Islands Police. As such his views on the historical causes and the necessary resolution of the conflict reflect a local understanding which has yet to be fully appreciated by the national and international policymakers who have such influence on the future of Solomon Islands.
In explaining the background to the conflict, Kwa'ioloa emphasises the inherited relationships with Guadalcanal landholders that legitimate the land claims of Malaitan settlers, the authority which clan leaders hold as chiefs to resolve disputes between communities, the importance of political consensus and economic co-operation rather than the competition of winners and losers, and the necessity for conciliation in resolving conflict. In recounting the course of events, he stresses the attempts of the Malaita chiefs to avert the crisis, the defensive origins of the Malaita Eagle Force and the efforts of the Special Constables to contain the violence.
This local perspective is Kwa 'ioloa's own, while my task as long-term research partner and co-author has been to communicate it to those it might not otherwise reach. Kwa 'ioloa proposed the present account as part of a sequal to his autobiography, Living Tradition (Kwa'ioloa & Burt 1997) but we present it here for its topical importance. In the aftermath of the events recounted here, he sent me writings and recordings of reflections and recollections which 1 edited to clarify his argument and narrative, then supplemented with further recordings in conversation with him on a visit to Solomon Islands in 2004.
Kwa'ioloa's underlying theme is his faith in the values of local tradition, in particular the need to involve local chiefs in the government of Solomon Islands and the resolution of the crisis, and a deep but ambivalent resentment of the individualistic values of capitalist economic development, which are blamed for the corruption of the political elite. While he confirms that the tensions between Guadalcanal and Malaita were exploited by politicians and militia leaders for personal gain, bringing militias and police into disrepute, he shows the values of tradition to be deeper-rooted than the exploitative compensation claims emphasised by Fraenkel (2004) as 'the manipulation of custom'. Kwa'ioloa's concept of tradition (translating Kwara'ae falafala, colonial custom and Pijin kastom) has a long history as an ideological focus for Malaitan and other political movements seeking to recover local self-determination under values founded in particular interpretations of ancestral heritage (see Burt 1994). As Akin explains (2005 and forthcoming) and Kwa'ioloa demonstrates here, this ideology has long resisted attempts" by colonial and state authorities to coopt it for their own purposes, as it will survive abuses by lawless militants. Far from merely reinventing tradition as the political symbol described by Keesing (1982) and others, Kwa'ioloa and his fellow chiefs treat their cultural heritage as a source of moral values which they mediate as clan leaders in a network of local communities in Honiara and 'home' in Malaita.
Kwa'ioloa speaks as a man from the Malaitan culture of male seniority about events which affected women and other islanders at least as much, but his themes are also of general concern. Many of these concerns will be shared by the local people of Guadalcanal, who no doubt recognise the predicament of Malaitans seeking employment and land, just as Kwa 'ioloa acknowledges the grievances of Guadalcanal caused by Malaitan immigration. In fact, the underlying concerns leading to the conflict, for appropriate economic development, locally controlled according to local values, are shared by many people throughout Solomon Islands. It is in their interpretations of the historical development of the conflict that they differ, and Kwa 'ioloa's Malaitan account deserves to be compared with other local views, which we hope will also be published.
Solomon Islanders know as well as anyone that histories are contested, but if governing elites and policymakers are to mediate such contests they need to understand the perspectives of the parties concerned. Unfortunately, as Kwa 'ioloa's account suggests, the dialogue between government and governed in Solomon Islands itself seems in need of mediation. His personal experience of the Malaita-Guadalcanal conflict is offered as a contribution to the national and international debate which is essential to avoid recent history repeating itself
INTRODUCTION
War, as experienced in many continental countries, was unknown in Solomon Islands in the past, but this is no longer true. Formerly conflict was resolved by our traditional chiefs, and feuds between clans and families were fought only with clubs and bows and arrows, not the military weapons used by the two parties in the recent conflict. This article tries to explain why our youth have so unfortunately struggled against each other and destroyed our standing as 'the peaceful Isles of Solomon', causing us to experience the dark emotions of discouragement, fear and sorrow. I want to get to the root of this conflict. From my own experience, as a Malaita chief and a Special Constable in the Royal Solomon Islands Police, I can see that the collapse of the country was caused by the government not attending to the advice of its fathers, the chiefs; the custodians and experts in the traditions of the country.
In 1988, as a result of peaceful demonstrations, several meetings were held by provincial leaders over sensitive issues between the peoples of Guadalcanal and Malaita islands. Ten years later, armed groups of Guadalcanal youths, angry at perceived government inaction in addressing their people's grievances, engaged in activities which resulted in the eviction from Guadalcanal of settlers from other islands, and in particular the displacement of up to 25,000 Malaitans. It was the failure of the government to answer their demands that resulted in the youth of Guadalcanal arming themselves, starting fires, and eventually using firearms to kill the Malaitans who had settled their lands and chase them away. As this continued, the youth of Malaita formed a paramilitary group, the Malaita Eagle Force, and in collaboration with the Police Field Force they opened up the armoury. Then, when Ulufa'alu's government was replaced and first Sogavere and then Kemakeza became Prime Minister, everything went down and further down, but still they did not appreciate what the problem was and the chiefs were still excluded. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were demanded from the government as restitution or indemnity payments for each person killed or injured, and the cost made the government crawl on its belly. The rebel leader Harold Keke would not surrender and killed those who were sent against him to the Guadalcanal Weather Coast. People were in difficulties over money, the police and teachers were not paid properly, there were no medical services, schools were overgrown with forest, without teachers, books or equipment, and everything collapsed because of the uncaring attitude of the government, who would not bring in the chiefs to co-ordinate things.
As a result of this conflict, people lost confidence in the leadership of government. Our leaders misused funds, used people to earn money for themselves, became rich overnight, and implemented stupid illegal policies which led us nowhere. Considering all this, the chiefs have concluded that government must be changed, not just by motions of no confidence to replace one government with another, but by changing the leadership as a whole, because the present leaders were blinded by corruption and concern for money. Maybe, if another kind of government came into existence, friendly countries and aid donors would provide financial support to revive the economy and help the chiefs to teach this country's leaders about honesty and justice.
THE UNDERLYING PROBLEMS OF GOVERNANCE
On reflection we recognise that there have been errors in the system of central government since independence in 1978, with a prime-ministerial system which was inappropriate for the country. We now know that Solomon Islands gained independence too early, because our leaders encouraged us to admire and respect them and led us into a system which did not serve the needs or interests of the people. This has put us into three categories; the governing group who became rich overnight, the middle group who tried business without much success, and the grassroots who had nothing to develop themselves with. The point is that the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, and a deprived man is an angry man, who will steal and rape or even kill.
In the past we lived under a system of equality of wealth based on exchange. When someone needed a pig he offered us a garden-plot of taro; when someone on an offshore island needed taro he offered us fish, when someone needed a weapon, he offered homegrown tobacco. When someone's son was married, everyone came together to pay the brideprice, and when someone's daughter was married, everyone came together to receive the shell-money and contribute to the marriage feast. When the chief ordered people to clean up the home area, everyone came together to clean it, and if there was a helpless old person, the women of each household would bring food to feed him. In respecting each other we complied with a system which was founded when our first ancestors discovered Solomon Islands, but when we adopt politics and get involved in business it leads us astray so that we do not even love our own brothers. This is what has caused the problem of land disputes. In the past land was held collectively by the family, but suddenly, due to business interests, one of two brothers would dispute the land for personal gain, using several hectares for cattle or cocoa or coconut plantations to earn money for himself, denying the rights of his brother. Furthermore, Western ideas of economics convinced Solomon Islanders educated overseas to behave stupidly, contradicting the traditional religious and cultural values of co-operation which suit the people of the country best. Then again,...
|
