DEAP 3.2.1

have about how they may act within the community given certain underlying preconditions of security, (for example strong sense of confidence in

community). In most communities there are people that do get along or trust each other, while inevitably there are others who do not. The theoretical aspects of social capital presented in Chapter 2 indicated communities that are close or have strong feelings of belonging (for example identify with that settlement) are also more willing to value cultural, ethnic and religious diversity and help others in need irrespective of these differences, (the subjective aspects of social interaction) (Carpiano, 2006, p. 170; Chan et al., 2006, p.291). These are also the underlying factors associated with social cohesion. This section will analyse the findings about subjective aspects of horizontal connectivity that exist within these settlements. This Section represents the findings from a review of results for Questions 2.1-2.4, 2.7-2.10, 3.1, 3.5-3.8 and 4.15, (refer to Appendix 3).

68

Refer to Section 3.4 for an explanation of Chan’s et. al (2006) analytical framework for

analysing the level of social cohesion in a community and a discussion about ‘horizontal’ and

152

(a) Community Trust and Honesty Levels

The importance of trust and honesty in daily interactions with people are fundamental indicators for social cohesion. People were asked about levels of trust, and honesty in general dealings and also in relation to money matters, with people from within their community or neighbourhood with whom they may interact on a daily or weekly basis. To assist with a shared understanding about what was meant by the term ‘trust’, participants were prompted to evaluate if they felt able to rely or depend on individuals from the specified groups, for example whether neighbours would look after their house if they were not there or openly assist when in need, or could be trusted to manage community funds. A graph showing the degree of trust and honesty (percentage on the left-hand axis) conferred by the eighteen respondents across all three settlements for a variety of society groups is shown in Figure 7.1 on the following page.

To establish a benchmark for gauging the results participants were first asked whether most people in society could generally be trusted. The, majority of participants across all settlements agreed they could not. Less than twenty five percent or four of the 18 respondents said they trusted people they knew. This was only slightly higher than the level of trust associated to dealings with strangers: just 9% on average so only two out of the 18 respondents.

The graph shows that most people conferred the highest levels of trust on those: That had the same religion or faith (89% or 16 from the 18 household respondents surveyed); where leaders from their own religion (81% or 15 respondents); staff from NGOs (75% or 13-14 respondents); people from the same ethnic groups (72% or 13 respondents); and staff from the local post office (64% or 11-12 respondents). Less trusted but still significantly more trusted than strangers (at 8% or just 1 respondent who showed some trust in strangers) were: Other ethnic groups (47% or 8-9 respondents); other religious faiths (47%) and shopkeepers (36% or 6-7 respondents).

153 Figure 7. 1 Horizontal Community In teractions: Per c e p tions about Trust an d Honest y w ith Other s 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Degr ee (% ) o f Tr u s t and Honest y Tr u s t a n d Ho n e sty S o c ial C o n tac ts S p ec if ie d A ll S e ttle m e n ts

154

Participants’ views on trust within communities showed most people were generally distrusting of fellow community members - below 40% trust levels. Across the three sites the lowest levels of trust occurred within the Nanuku community at less than 17%, (just 1 from the 6 household respondents surveyed) which was comparable to the benchmark levels indicated above. About 50% of Caubati Topline residents showed a moderate level of trust in their neighbours with the highest levels of trust found at Fiji Muslim League - over 80%, (5 respondents). This is probably due to the closeness of the Kecisimani neighbourhood where daily church activities marshalled their

internal support networks. One Indo-Fijian participant from Nanuku commented that the “support networks and trust is strong among the Indian neighbourhood only”(Researcher’s Notes, 2008). On the other hand a Caubati Topline

participant commented that “while the spiritual group is active, you can trust people - otherwise after that [or when they have left] you cannot” (Researcher’s Notes, 2008).

When asked if the level of trust over the last five years had improved, was worse, or stayed about the same, 50% of Nanuku residents said it was either the same. Thirty three percent said it was worse. At Fiji Muslim League, 50% of households were more definite about their declining levels of trust compared to 33%, (2 respondents) stating they were about the same. Both these settlements were in contrast to Caubati Topline where over 80% of participants agreed trust levels were better with only 17%, (1 respondent) saying they had decreased.

The strongest feelings about trust levels were toward other religious groups and other ethnic groups. The three people surveyed from the Indo-Fijian

communities at Nanuku did not respond to this question. Only one out of six participants surveyed at Caubati Topline indicated they were trusting of other social groups. Fijians felt a little different about both social groups. Sixty three percent (all 3 from Nanuku but just 2 from Fiji Muslim League) responded they are trusting. The balance remained non-committal. One indication of the lack of trust levels between religious groups was the view of Hindi Indo-Fijians who claimed neighbouring [Christian] Fijians threw stones on the roof of their houses whenever they had prayer sessions or religious festivals (which involved music

155

and singing) (Researcher’s Notes, 2008). For example, land security has

created ethnic tensions. Indo-Fijians claimed they were made to feel of a “lower status than Christians” (in this context meaning Fijians) because, from their point of view, “Fijians will not let Indians grow flowers [next to their house] as they say this is not your land – the Fijians will over-night pull these plants out” (Researcher’s Notes, 2008).

In gauging ‘honesty’, participants were asked to evaluate if they felt able to accept the actions of other individuals, as indicated in the groups specified, as truthful or fair and just. Honesty was considered for example, to represent community affairs impartially, to respect others’ needs and rights or not to cheat on their fellow neighbours. To measure the ‘relativity of trust levels’ the

participants’ choices accorded to each social contact group specified, those choices were compared with the trust level they associated with “strangers”, assuming this group would be the least trusted (which was in all cases). One interesting finding was the level of honesty credited to church or Christian religious leaders, (92% or 16-17 respondents) as opposed to the trust level afforded to other religious faiths, (39% or 7 respondents). The groups

considered the least honest were other ethnic groups, (31% or 6 respondents) and shopkeepers, (28% or 5 respondents).

The key difference concerning honesty between communities was that, Indo- Fijians at Nanuku held the strongest feelings regarding the perceived lack of honesty of individuals from ‘other religious groups’ and ‘other ethnic groups’ From the nine people surveyed, no-one responded “honest’, reflecting similar findings of their perceptions of trustworthiness with these groups mentioned earlier. On the other hand, Fijian households responded a little more reservedly about the honesty levels of ‘other ethnic groups’ with 33% responding ‘honest’ (3 of 9 surveyed from both Nanuku and also Fiji Muslim League). But the balance either remained non-committal (33%) or chose ‘dishonest’ (33%) possibly indicating an overall negative trend. Fijian households perceptions about the honesty of ‘other religious groups’ was higher with 2 of the 3 surveyed from Nanuku (66%) responding ‘honest’ but at Fiji Muslim League the majority were non-committal, (5 of the 6 households taking part in the survey).

156

The cultural differences of Fijians to Indo-Fijians in the approach to answering these sensitive questions were evident. Fijians were polite in their responses, not wanting to voice negative feelings about others, thought to be due to their closely held norms of respecting others and showing dissent by silence, (refer Chapter 4, Section 4.4.2). Fijian’s use of the ‘non-committal’ choice was

perhaps the polite way of indicating that they had doubts about “honesty levels” of Indo-Fijians but did not wish to appear impolite by acknowledging it. In contrast Indo-Fijians were openly critical about others’ behaviours, (refer Chapter 4, Section 4.4.3). Indo-Fijians provided several examples of Fijian behaviours that caused friction among ethnic neighbours. At Nanuku some Indo-Fijians complained they had contributed financially over the past twenty years to initiatives organised by Fijian residents in the belief this was for the wider communities’ benefit only later (they claimed) to find the fundraising was actually oriented more toward supporting Fijian neighbourhood activities and improvements and that the management of funds was not transparent

(Researcher’s Notes, 2008). Some also claimed that Fijians used stand-over tactics to get what they wanted or to intimidate Indo-Fijians: “When you are smoking, they [will] come and stand there near you until you give them one or if you are drinking, until you invite them in. If you don’t give them the cigarette or invite [them] in you will be threatened.” Also “…they [will] extort money from us by coming and demanding money – roughly every 3 months – $20 is usually enough for them to go away”(Researcher’s Notes, 2008).The differences in the amount of negative information given by each ethnic group was noticeable . Indo-Fijians freely disclosed criticisms of Fijians whereas Fijians were not explicit with information that was critical of another ethnic group. This was not the only area where ethnic differences in response patterns showed.

(b) Belonging and Togetherness

The aim here was to gauge the degree of community cohesion as well as their connectedness to external organisations. People were asked about how strong they thought the feelings of ‘togetherness’ or ‘closeness’ was within their community or neighbourhood. Sixty one percent of all the 18 households surveyed across the three settlements indicated they either felt ‘very close’ or ‘somewhat close’ with only 23% stating they felt ‘somewhat distant’ or ‘very

157

distant’. The strongest feelings of togetherness was from Fiji Muslim League (67%) and Caubati Topline (83%) while the integrated community of Nanuku only rated 33% with half the residents saying they were neither distant nor close. A Nanuku resident, commenting on the proximity of their neighbourhood to Fijians said, “support networks are strong among the Indian neighbourhood only” while a Fijian resident stated, “Most Indo-Fijians say they [sic] too busy and can’t come down to solve these problems” referring to community issues (Researcher’s Notes, 2008). A Caubati Topline resident summed up the lack of cohesion that the above findings indicated between the two ethnic

neighbourhood groups claiming, “in terms of closeness between Indo-Fijians, that is somewhat close but between Indo-Fijians and Fijians, then that is very distant”(Researcher’s Notes, 2008).

Social Exclusion

Householders surveyed were asked whether any people in the

community/neighbourhood who were excluded access to any essential services or from participating in community activities. Of the 13 who responded 42% indicated over half were excluded in some way and a further 30% indicated less than half their community were excluded. Four of those respondents, 30%, said they were among those who were excluded. When asked about the reasons for their exclusion, 40% put exclusion down to their ethnicity, 20% because of their religious beliefs and 20% felt it was because they were poor.

Settlers from both Nanuku and Caubati Topine believed they were excluded from community activities due to ethnicity following the recent introduction of a social justice and empowerment programme for squatter communities, by a Suva-based NGO. This initiative was targeted at squatter settlements in the Suva-Nausori corridor and based on the premise that establishing a community savings scheme would develop trust within the community and foster

cohesiveness. The concept had gained momentum and developed into a ‘social network’ involving a number of other squatter settlements. However, some from the Nanuku Indo-Fijian neighbourhoods claimed their involvement had been marginalized because the first point of contact for this NGO was via the Fijian community groups rather than through representatives from both ethnic groups.

158

One Fijian neighbourhood leader maintained that since one of the Indo-Fijian families was on the Community Committee savings scheme, they should have informed the other families (Researcher’s Notes, 2008). Another Fijian

household who had been involved at the start of this initiative agreed the organisational aspects of the network could improve giving the example of their own sub-group, dealing with community security, being currently inactive. They attributed this to poor leadership and felt it the responsibility of one or two of the members involved to visit the others so a new leader could be chosen

(Researcher’s Notes, 2008).

Indo-Fijians overall still attributed their exclusion from general community activities to differences in ethnicity and religious orientation. One resident summed up the situation by stating: “they [Fijians] sabotage any collective effort among [our neighbourhood] as they are jealous of the prolonged commitment we demonstrate but they still expect us to contribute to theirs” (Researcher’s Notes, 2008, p.3). This series of observations on horizontal interactions

(including belonging and togetherness) confirm there is closeness of residents within ethnic neighbourhoods but disparities between the ethnic groups. This is commonly manifested through religious and ethnic intolerances, primarily triggered by the lack of trust and honesty each has in the others’ motivations for social exchange. This disparity between ethnic groups is the seventh key finding; supporting similar findings earlier about the narrow social support networks relied upon (refer Chapter 6, Section 2.5).

(c) Willingness to Help

People were then asked about how willing people were to help in their community or neighbourhood, to help each other or cooperate with others by contributing time toward shared physical needs or projects, such as repairing a road or maintaining a community centre. Participants agreed that most people from the three sites – more than 60% were generally willing to help neighbours out if requested with the highest levels coming from Fiji Muslim League (>80%) and Nanuku (50%). Most respondents indicated they preferred to donate time rather than money for such projects. Fijians listed involvement in community projects such as church related activities (repairs and maintenance, visiting less

159

fortunate) followed by community fundraisers and helping neighbours with their house repairs. Indo-Fijians mainly supported neighbourhood or community wide activities like fundraisers. These activities were foremost followed by helping neighbours to build or repair their houses, and by caring for the less fortunate. The willingness of Indo-Fijians to assist Fijians at the Nanuku settlement was declining with two thirds saying they were unwilling to help.

When asked about whether people, who do not participate in community activities, will be criticised or sanctioned, approximately 56% across all settlements indicated this would be unlikely (7 stating ‘very unlikely’ and 3 ‘somewhat unlikely’). These people were predominantly Indo-Fijians, 67% of Caubati Topline respondents (4 out of the 6 surveyed) and 100% from Nanuku (all 3 surveyed). In contrast only 33% or three of the nine Fijian participants believed people were ‘somewhat unlikely’ to be criticised indicating the majority would be critical of others not participating which may be linked to cultural expectations about collectiveness. This observation about the relative willingness of community members to contribute resources toward shared needs is considered the eighth example of potentially positive or negative impacts on community dynamics.

(d) Summary

While it was clear that most identified strongly with their settlement or locality and were willing to donate time toward shared needs, differences were highlighted in ethnic and religious orientation as the key issues that caused tensions between people living in these communities. These differences in ethnic and religious orientation manifested in the apparent lack of trust within neighbourhoods, especially at the integrated community Nanuku, as well as the overt lack of trust and suspicions about honesty between religious and/or ethnic social groups. Whereas Caubati Topline showed reasonable degrees of

connectedness, Fiji Muslim League and Nanuku proportionately seemed less cohesive communities. These suspicions over honesty, lack of trust and differences in ethnic and religious orientation combine to form a barrier toward building cohesion communities and empowerment of communities.

160

7.2.1.2 Objective Components of Horizontal Community Interactions