logo
Fiji's Patriarchal Bargain

Fiji's Patriarchal Bargain

The Diplomat17 hours ago
The patriarchal bargain shaping Fijian society has often played out as a man seizing power by force, followed by voters legitimizing him at the ballot box.
In April, Fiji was left reeling after a violent weekend of domestic violence claimed the lives of three women, leaving six children motherless. Condemnation was swift from women's crisis service providers and activists, the public service, faith-based organizations, and the government.
A 19 percent rise in crimes against women in 2025, compared to the same period a year ago, has emerged amid overlapping crises: an HIV outbreak, a public appointment debacle foregrounding a pending Supreme Court ruling on the 2013 Constitution, a floundering health sector, an education crisis, and a bungled public transport card rollout. A 2024 study found that 71.6 percent of Fijian women respondents had experienced domestic violence.
Less prominent in the discourse is violence against gender minorities, particularly transgender people and sex workers, which has also claimed lives. A 2019 study on the socioeconomic conditions and human rights of bisexual, transgender, and gender-nonconfirming people in Fiji found that 83.6 percent had experienced physical violence from an intimate partner.
In 1988, Deniz Kandiyoti coined the term 'patriarchal bargain,' to describe how women sacrifice their dignity, opportunity and self-determination to secure survival under male domination.
As a society, Fiji too has made trade-offs to survive violence — violence publicly spearheaded, at least, by militarily backed male figures. Such a pattern has made Fiji a Pacific outlier in the Asia-Pacific's history of coups. With Donald Trump's rise revealing America's social pathologies, and Sitiveni Rabuka's return as Fiji's Trump-admiring coup leader turned two-time prime minister, contexts may differ and nuances abound, but parallels persist.
As citizens brace for another round of election year posturing, the question is whether Fiji can reckon with patriarchal traditions and cultural norms underpinning its violent present. Researchers argue that Pacific countries like Fiji face a decolonization question when confronting the place of domestic violence within their cultures. Fijians can easily point to prominent figures in the public service, corporate world, and government who are known, publicly documented perpetrators of violence and misogyny. Lasting solutions require an honest examination of the violence woven into Fijian culture, tradition, and faith.
The patriarchal promise is that a woman is safe if she conforms to prevailing conservative norms, and maintains an agreeable, non-threatening likeability. Yet Fijians know that good behavior, age, marital status, chiefly status, or professional prestige have never guaranteed women's safety from public ridicule, professional insubordination, character assassination, and cyberbullying. Such violations are accepted as par for the course in navigating Fiji's public life.
Calls from the prime minister and senior civil servants to respect women ring hollow when only two women lead ministries, just one in three permanent secretaries are women, not a single woman serves as an ambassador, and an opportunity to appoint Fiji's first female president was passed over. Thus, Fiji's patriarchal system deploys the rhetoric of women's gendered suffering while opposing their freedom in practice.
As tired as the cliche may be, sexism partly survives through women's participation in it. Internalized patriarchy is a feature rather than a bug of the system. Even the most prominent of Fijian women's gendered expressions of humility, maternalism, self-sacrifice, and non-confrontational camaraderie with male counterparts may be well-meaning, but also exemplify safety-seeking within patriarchy. Fijian women in public life are not immune to sexism, regressive policy positions, or poor leadership. Yet while such flaws are used to dismiss women's suitability for public office, men can lead coups, justify raising their own salaries while public services crumble, lead erratically and unilaterally, flout transparency, and still be upheld as statesmen.
The patriarchal bargain shaping Fijian society has often played out as a man seizing power by force, followed by voters legitimizing him at the ballot box, hoping perhaps to reclaim agency by surrendering it in exchange for peace and safety. Yet, neither peace nor safety has arrived, as the violence in April made clear. Concerted efforts are more needed than ever, as trends in Fiji's suicide statistics raise serious concerns for Indo-Fijians, particularly males and the elderly. Recorded factors include relationship and family problems, alongside questions about whether the history of coups targeting Indo-Fijians has left lasting psychological and socioeconomic impacts.
Before the noise of an election year reaches its peak, it is worth considering whether Fijians have been getting the raw end of the patriarchal deal. There are encouraging developments with the truth and reconciliation process underway, and a military averse to interfering in politics. The country's steadfast civil society community, a diverse generation of young activists and academics, and a willingness among men to confront patriarchy are helping to challenge established norms.
It is a particularly timely question as the country edges toward gerontocracy. Fiji's current prime minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, was in his early 40s and the youngest ever to assume the office in 1992. He now holds the record for being the oldest. If re-elected in 2026, Rabuka would extend that record yet again. In a country where life expectancy lags behind the global average, Fiji's political elites continue to grow older.
Statements from within the prime minister's party reveal a culture that views leadership as a vehicle for personal career advancement rather than a public responsibility. Heavy on aspiration, missing in this narrative is citizens' well-being as a leadership goal. Such corporate-coded perspectives are increasingly outdated. Organizational psychology studies show that 'achievement strivers' in national leadership received poor ratings from historians on greatness, decision-making, and political skill, suggesting that strong principles as public servants, rather than mere hierarchical ambition, are what produce effective leadership.
Fiji's gerontocratic drift is reinforced by male-oriented editorial choices in opinion writing. Political sensemaking in traditional media is dominated by older males as sources, subjects and authors, filling opinion pages with fawning features and self-penned vanity write-ups, and wrapping violent logic in gentlemanly rhetoric insisting the same hands that inflict political violence are capable of healing the nation.
While women and vulnerable minorities experience the violent outcomes of Fiji's patriarchal bargain, everyone ultimately bears the cost. As observed of conservative women in the 1980s U.S., 'they hide their bruises of body and heart; they dress carefully and have good manners; they suffer; they love God; they follow the rules.' This resonates in Fijian society, where nine out of ten women do not report domestic violence, trapped in relationships by poverty, fear, and community pressure.
If patriarchal mindsets persist in law enforcement, and women and the elderly are unsafe in their relationships, the interlocking challenges of domestic violence, suicide, drug abuse, and the HIV crisis have little chance of abating. In leaving the falsities of the bargain and their collective role in it unexamined, Fijians risk denying themselves the enduring safety they have long yearned for.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court clears way for Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce
Supreme Court clears way for Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce

Japan Today

time18 minutes ago

  • Japan Today

Supreme Court clears way for Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce

FILE - The Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) By MARK SHERMAN The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's plans to downsize the federal workforce despite warnings that critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will be out of their jobs. The justices overrode lower court orders that temporarily froze the cuts, which have been led by the Department of Government Efficiency. The court said in an unsigned order that no specific cuts were in front of the justices, only an executive order issued by Trump and an administration directive for agencies to undertake job reductions. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the only dissenting vote, accusing her colleagues of a 'demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.' Jackson warned of enormous real-world consequences. 'This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it," she wrote. The high court action continued a remarkable winning streak for Trump, who the justices have allowed to move forward with significant parts of his plan to remake the federal government. The Supreme Court's intervention so far has been on the frequent emergency appeals the Justice Department has filed objecting to lower-court rulings as improperly intruding on presidential authority. The Republican president has repeatedly said voters gave him a mandate for the work, and he tapped billionaire ally Elon Musk to lead the charge through DOGE. Musk recently left his role. 'Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration. It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President's constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. Tens of thousands of federal workers have been fired, have left their jobs via deferred resignation programs or have been placed on leave. There is no official figure for the job cuts, but at least 75,000 federal employees took deferred resignation and thousands of probationary workers have already been let go. In May, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston found that Trump's administration needs congressional approval to make sizable reductions to the federal workforce. By a 2-1 vote, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block Illston's order, finding that the downsizing could have broader effects, including on the nation's food-safety system and health care for veterans. Illston directed numerous federal agencies to halt acting on the president's workforce executive order signed in February and a subsequent memo issued by DOGE and the Office of Personnel Management. Illston was nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton. The labor unions and nonprofit groups that sued over the downsizing offered the justices several examples of what would happen if it were allowed to take effect, including cuts of 40% to 50% at several agencies. Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco were among cities that also sued. 'Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the parties that sued said in a joint statement. Among the agencies affected by the order are the departments of Agriculture, Energy, Labor, the Interior, State, the Treasury and Veterans Affairs. It also applies to the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. The case now continues in Illston's court. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

Trump says steep copper tariffs in store as he broadens his trade war
Trump says steep copper tariffs in store as he broadens his trade war

Japan Today

time18 minutes ago

  • Japan Today

Trump says steep copper tariffs in store as he broadens his trade war

New vehicles from the Japanese auto makers Subaru and Honda are seen at a parking lot in the Port of Richmond, as trade tensions escalate after U.S. President Donald Trump said he would impose a 25% tariff on goods from Japan and South Korea starting on August 1, at the bay of San Francisco, California, U.S., July 7, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria By Andrea Shalal and Trevor Hunnicutt U.S. President Donald Trump broadened his global trade war on Tuesday as he announced a 50% tariff on imported copper and said long-threatened levies on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals were coming soon. One day after he pressured 14 trading partners, including powerhouse U.S. suppliers like South Korea and Japan, with sharply higher tariffs, Trump reiterated his threat of 10% tariffs on products from Brazil, India and other members of the BRICS group of countries. He also said trade talks have been going well with the European Union and China, though added he is only days away from sending a tariff letter to the EU . Trump's remarks, made during a White House cabinet meeting, could inject further instability into a global economy that has been rattled by the tariffs he has imposed or threatened on imports to the world's largest consumer market. U.S. copper futures jumped more than 10% after Trump's announcement of new duties on a metal that is critical to electric vehicles, military hardware, the power grid and many consumer goods. They would join duties already in place for steel, aluminum and automobile imports. U.S. pharmaceutical stocks also slid from the day's highs following Trump's threat of 200% tariffs on drug imports, which he said could be delayed by about a year. Other countries, meanwhile, said they would try to soften the impact of Trump's threatened duties after he pushed back a Wednesday deadline to August 1. Trump's administration promised "90 deals in 90 days" after he unveiled an array of country-specific duties in early April. So far only two agreements have been reached, with the United Kingdom and Vietnam. Trump has said a deal with India is close. Trump said countries have been clamoring to negotiate. "It's about time the United States of America started collecting money from countries that were ripping us off ... and laughing behind our back at how stupid we were," he said. HIGHEST LEVELS SINCE 1934 Following Trump's announcement of higher tariffs for the 14 countries, U.S. research group Yale Budget Lab estimated consumers face an effective U.S. tariff rate of 17.6%, up from 15.8% previously and the highest since 1934. Goldman Sachs said Monday's actions would add 1.4 percentage points to the U.S. effective tariff rate. Trump's administration has been touting those tariffs as a significant revenue source. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Washington has taken in about $100 billion so far and could reach $300 billion by the end of the year. The United States has taken in about $80 billion annually in tariff revenue in recent years. Global markets have not responded dramatically to the latest tariff twists, which come after months of turmoil. The U.S. S&P 500 index was slightly lower in afternoon trading following Trump's comments. Trump said he will "probably" tell the European Union within two days what rate it can expect for it exports to the U.S., adding that the 27-member bloc had been treating his administration "very nicely" in trade talks. The EU, the largest bilateral trade partner of the U.S., aims to strike a deal before August 1 with concessions for certain key export industries, such as aircraft, medical equipment and spirits, according to EU sources. Brussels is also considering an arrangement that would protect European automakers with large U.S. production facilities. However, German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil warned that the EU was prepared to retaliate if necessary. "If we don't reach a fair trade deal with the U.S., the EU is ready to take counter measures," he said in the lower house of parliament. Japan, which faces a possible 25% tariff, wants concessions for its large automobile industry and will not sacrifice its agriculture sector, a powerful domestic lobby, for the sake of an early deal, top trade negotiator Ryosei Akazawa said on Tuesday. South Korea, which also faces a possible 25% tariff, said it planned to intensify trade talks over the coming weeks "to reach a mutually beneficial result." Washington and Beijing agreed to a trade framework in June, but with many of the details still unclear, traders and investors are watching to see if it unravels before a separate, U.S.-imposed August 12 deadline or leads to a lasting detente. "We have had a really good relationship with China lately, and we're getting along with them very well. They've been very fair on our trade deal, honestly," Trump said, adding that he has been speaking regularly with Chinese President Xi Jinping. SPREADING THE PAIN Trump said the United States would impose tariffs of 25% on goods from Tunisia, Malaysia and Kazakhstan, with levies of 30% on South Africa, Bosnia and Herzegovina, climbing to 32% on Indonesia, 35% on Serbia and Bangladesh, 36% on Cambodia and Thailand and 40% on Laos and Myanmar. Cambodia hailed as a big success a reduction in the tariff rate from 49% to 36% and said it was seeking to negotiate a further cut. The tariffs have been an issue for Cambodia's garments and footwear sector, the biggest driver of its economy. The U.S. is also the main export market for Bangladesh's ready-made garments industry, which accounts for more than 80% of its export earnings and employs 4 million people. "This is absolutely shocking news for us," Mahmud Hasan Khan, president of Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association, told Reuters. "This will hurt our industry badly." © Thomson Reuters 2025.

Trump says South Korea should be paying for its own defense
Trump says South Korea should be paying for its own defense

Japan Today

time18 minutes ago

  • Japan Today

Trump says South Korea should be paying for its own defense

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard attend a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., July 8, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque By Andrea Shalal and David Brunnstrom U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday South Korea should be paying for its own military protection and suggested the U.S. ally needed to pay more for the U.S. troop presence there, a day after saying he planned to impose a 25 percent tariff on its imports. "It's very unfair. We supply the militaries to many very successful countries," Trump told reporters at a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House. "South Korea is making a lot of money, and they're very good. They're very good, but, you know, they should be paying for their own military." Trump said at he had got South Korea to agree to pay more for the presence of U.S. forces during his first term, but his predecessor Joe Biden "canceled" the deal. "I said to South Korea ... you know, we give you free military, essentially, very little," Trump said, adding that he had told them they should pay $10 billion a year. "I got three (billion) with a phone call ... but I said next year we have to talk," he said, making claims Reuters has not verified. Trump said the presence of U.S. forces was a "huge" economic benefit for countries that hosted them. "It's like having a city, it's tremendous money for them, and it's a tremendous loss for us ... so we're talking, in a very nice way, We're talking to them." South Korea hosts about 28,500 American troops as a legacy of the 1950-1953 Korean War. It relies on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for protection against China, Russia and North Korea, and is seen as a key ally for projecting U.S. military power. Shortly before last year's U.S. election, South Korea and the Biden administration hurried to sign a new, five-year agreement under which Seoul would raise its contribution toward the upkeep of U.S. troops by 8.3% to $1.47 billion in the first year, with later increases linked to the consumer price index. During his election campaign Trump said South Korea should pay as much as $10 billion per year, and has said such costs would be part of trade negotiations. Trump in the past has suggested he could withdraw U.S. forces stationed overseas if countries did not pay more for their upkeep. In May, the Pentagon said a Wall Street Journal report that the U.S. was considering withdrawing roughly 4,500 troops from South Korea was not true. © Thomson Reuters 2025.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store