But given Fiji's political and social climate, the inevitability of the outcome now in sight seems obvious.
The Government of deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry was beset by problems when a frontman materialised with the charisma and confidence to draw disparate factions together. Speight's terrorist tactics were ruthless, but unbeatable.
One of the Army negotiators who helped broker Thursday's deal, Lieutenant-Colonel Filipo Tarakinikini, confirmed that Speight's followers came from many groups but the true driving force behind the coup was leaders from the nationalist Taukei movement and the SVP opposition party, ousted from Government in last year's elections by Mr Chaudhry's Labour Party.
Though Taukei is a racist movement, the coup cannot be characterised as purely anti-Indian. Nor can it be interpreted simply as indigenous Fijians exerting their nationalist rights - a stance adopted by Maori activist Tame Iti yesterday when he travelled to Suva to visit Speight.
For a start, indigenous Fijians are divided along traditional tribal lines, and provincial splits have plagued the country for centuries.
Victoria University Pacific studies lecturer Teresia Teaiwa put it thus: "The problem with Fijian nationalism is that there is no Fijian nation."
A strong undercurrent in the crisis is an east-west split. Speight and his people, who are from the west, were out to seize power.
An official from the Fiji Labour Party, Subash Verma, believes proposals to split the west from the east will emerge in the aftermath of this coup, so serious is the division.
Economic factors should not be forgotten either. On one hand, political observers say Mr Chaudhry had embarked on a campaign against corruption and bad business practices. Speight, of course, was a victim of the anti-corruption drive himself.
On the other hand, Mr Verma says, the left-leaning nature of the Chaudhry Administration had more to do with his demise than his ethnicity. It is, after all, the second time Labour has been forced from Government at gunpoint.
Fiji's problems, however, cannot be reduced to a class struggle, either.
By Speight's own admission, he drew "all sorts of people, from chiefs right down to perhaps common thieves."
Many who came to the parliamentary complex travelled in rust-bucket vans and utes from the highlands in the centre of Viti Levu to hear the message of this man who dabbled in multimillion-dollar business deals.
They have lived in such poor conditions for so long that the prospect of someone promising to help was compelling.
Many were worried by Government land policies. Laws laid down long ago mean 83 per cent of the land is retained by Fijians, though Indian Fijian farmers who run the lucrative sugar-cane sector lease plots. Long-term leases began to expire several years ago, and some are not being renewed.
Mr Chaudhry's policy of paying compensation to families forced to leave their farms caused anger among some indigenous Fijians, who perceived it as Indian Fijians receiving preferential treatment from one of their own.
Even members of the Indian community admit privately that Mr Chaudhry did not help the situation: appointing his son to a senior Government job drew charges of nepotism.
Whatever his faults, however, nobody condones the kidnapping of the Prime Minister and cabinet except Speight's closest followers.
One of many unanswered questions is whether the hostages have the will to fight for their right to rule after two weeks of captivity and psychological pressure.
George Speight talks to IRN's Barry Soper
(10 min).
