We Say 2

'Mr Qarase, who is regarded by his admirers asbeing a decent bloke trying hard to do a good job in tiresome circumstances, is someone observers might feel inclined to feel sympathy for. As for Mr Chaudhry, he justifiably has some scores to settle, but is he playing it too close to the fire?'

The state of political play in Fiji is a cat-and-mouse one that features the Prime Minister, Mr Laisenia Qarase, and the real parliamentary Opposition Leader, Mr Mahendra Chaudhry, the former prime minister, who was ousted in 2000 by a partly flopped coup.

Observers of the play are entitled to make their own judgements about the validity of assertions that the country has fully regained comfortable political stability and direction.

Who is the cat and who is the mouse? In May, Mr Qarase exclaimed in a television interview that he felt that Mr Chaudhry had a personal agenda for destroying the country. He said Mr Chaudhry has a great talent for blaming everyone but himself.

Mr Chaudhry, who characteristically responds to criticism with a fiery denunciation of the critic, replied with uncharacteristic restraint. He felt that Mr Qarase had just spoken off the cuff and that all the issues dividing them could be settled by amicable dialogue.

The two are in dialogue in what is known as the Talanoa series of meetings between Mr Qarase's Fijian nationalist party and Mr Chaudhry's Indian-dominated Labour Party under the soothing and extraordinary patient chairmanship of Dr Sitiveni Halapua, the Tongan director of the Pacific Islands Development Programme.

In May, a Talanoa meeting seemingly made an important breakthrough with agreement on saving the dying sugar industry, solving the explosive matter of access to Fijian land for Indian tenants, and on a parliamentary committee for improving race relations.

The euphoria all that generated was brief. Mr Chaudhry mounted yet more legal attacks on the constitutional correctness of Mr Qarase's government. He said his Labour party would boycott sugar and land talks even before they began because, he claimed, the government side wasn't playing fair.

This really riled Mr Qarase, who all along has said that Mr Chaudhry is an impossible chap to deal with and would be absolutely impossible in cabinet, where Mr Chaudhry claims he constitutionally is entitled to be with no less than 16 other Labour ministers.

Mr Qarase's view of Mr Chaudhry is quite likely to be endorsed by all the employers who've dealt with the FLP leader in other arenas.

The sugar crisis is now absolutely critical since more than 200,000 people rely on sugar for a living. The land lease issue is woven inextricably into it. There is very little time to salvage the industry. Mr Chaudhry, who claims to be the sugar industry's real leader, is completely aware of that.

In June, he appeared to have won a capitulation from Mr Qarase when he stated that the prime minister had agreed to sack the board of the government-controlled insolvent Fiji Sugar Corporation and replace it with at least two nominated by FLP; would that be equivalent to the great difficulties Mr Qarase says he would very definitely have if he is forced to absorb all those FLP ministers into his cabinet?

In late June, Fiji's vice president, two of Mr Qarase's cabinet ministers and deputy parliamentary speaker, who the prime minister partly depends for political support, are due to go on trial accused of the crime of swearing allegiance in 2000 to an illegal government.

A few other hairy matters are looming, including what could be corruption charges at an awkwardly high level.

Mr Qarase, who is regarded by his admirers as being a decent bloke trying hard to do a good job in tiresome circumstances, is someone observers might feel inclined to feel sympathy for.

As for Mr Chaudhry, he justifiably has some scores to settle, but is he playing it too close to the fire?