This chapter focuses initially on the context within which Ratu Mara first articulated his notion of the Pacific Way, including his congenial relationship with the British colonial administration in Fiji. The next section examines another important articulation of the Pacific Way by an expatriate commentator, reflecting a much more critical approach to colonialism. But there is also a judicious appraisal of the Pacific Way’s Polynesian associations, something that compromised its ability to function as a pan-Pacific identity. Polynesian elite values are also implicated in an aversion to the adversarial nature of Western democratic politics. In (apparent) contrast, the Pacific Way is claimed to be based primarily on traditional modes of ‘consensus politics’. This issue is explored partly in comparative perspective, noting that the positing of consensus politics as an alternative to adversarial (Western) democracy has often been deployed in other post-colonial settings as a culturally more authentic expression of local political values.

From the mid-1960s, Pacific Island leaders needed to start managing the regional agenda. But if the South Pacific Commission (SPC) was to survive and keep the French within its fold, it could not open up to political issues. This led to the formation of an additional organization: the South Pacific Forum. Its membership included Australia and New Zealand, both keen to see Island leaders create a new body. Ratu Mara of Fiji was a major figure at this time, but there was an apparent contradiction between his opposition to colonial control within the SPC and within Fiji, where he was initially equally opposed to independence. The UK, however, was determined to end its obligations in the Pacific – in stark contrast with French attitudes. It would therefore be a mistake to assume that the colonial powers were all aligned on one side of a divide, resisting moves by an equally united group of Island countries agitating for decolonization on the other.