Owners, immigrants and ethnic conflict in Fiji and Mauritius

Abstract

Fiji and Mauritius are very similar countries, but in Fiji conflicts between native Fijians and Indo‐Fijians about basic political rights contributed to the military coups of 1987, and the subsequent proclamation of a fundamentally undemocratic constitution. In Mauritius, by contrast, ethnic relations have been almost entirely peaceful, and democratic institutions have taken root. This article argues that the fact that native Fijians believe themselves entitled to special rights as an indigenous people, while no ethnic community makes similar claims in Mauritius, is an important factor in explaining the differences in ethnic relations in the two countries. Claims to special rights as an indigenous people are shown to rest not only on the length of prior settlement, but also on a number of contextual factors. Differences in their colonial experiences, in the internal social structures of ethnic communities, and in the timing of demographic changes, help to account for the insistence on Fijian paramountcy on the one hand, and the acceptance of equality of rights in Mauritius. When there is a sizeable ethnic community that perceives itself as an endangered indigenous people, its members will often claim an entitlement to predominant political power. The clash between that claim and the value attached to the equality of rights of citizens makes intense ethnic conflict almost inevitable.