Queen of Fiji
Sir: It was most gratifying to see in The Spectator (3 October) two articles con- veying a deeper understanding of Fiji's constitutional and ethnic problems than has been the case in most of the national press.
I do feel, however, that Terence Kealey's article 'Time to curb the Queen' draws the wrong conclusions on the consti- tutional issue. Mr Kealey rightly points out that 'the raison d'être of the constitutional monarch is the constitutional crisis. Faced with Fiji's, the Queen did nothing. Another sort of head of state might have
LETTERS
offered more.' There again, another head of state might not have done more.
A quick comparison between the repub- lics in the Commonwealth and those na- tions that still owe direct allegiance to the Queen as head of state shows that the latter have enjoyed far greater political stability and the economic progress that usually accompanies this.
If Fiji had been a Commonwealth repub- lic before the unfortunate events of this year, Colonel Rabuka's first coup would most probably have been successful. An executive president (the preferred system of most Commonwealth nations) can easily be overthrown. A figurehead president too often lacks respect and is often seen as partisan, being nominated by one faction or another.
Fiji was fortunate in having as its head of state an international figure who is greatly respected. This brought international attention to an otherwise minor regional problem. At the same time, the Queen did her best to resolve the problem, with what authority she could still command.
The real failure rests with successive British governments and the British people themselves, who have abrogated all their international responsibilities to their for- mer colonies, unlike the French. As Aube- ron Waugh so clearly showed, we caused Fiji's problems. Don't we now have any responsibility to put things right? At least the Queen recognises we do.
Melvin Rhodes
13 Wrekin Walk, Areley Kings, Stourport-on-Severn, Worcestershire
Previous page
