Tonga at the polls

from w
Barely a mention in the Fiji media (if at all) but Tonga has shown a new face in the transition from nobility ruling to a partial democratic face. Malo lelei.
from a NZ source: (with sections deleted)
Power to the people
By Audrey Young
5:30 AM Saturday Nov 27, 2010
Tonga democracy leader Akilisi Pohiva in Nuku'alofa yesterday after an election delivered democracy-aligned candidates a landslide victory. Photo / Audrey Young
A home-grown form of democracy - with some unorthodox elements - sprang into life in the kingdom this week.

Enthusiasm for the kingdom's first democratic elections was everywhere on Thursday, not least at the Lapaha polling station, the site of the old capital of Tonga, where National MP John Hayes was an official observer.

Isapela Hufanga, who works at the Reserve Bank, was happy to talk outside the polling station in the local community hall. But it was hard to pin her down.

She continually interrupted herself, waving and greeting others streaming in to pick a representative for her area, Tongatapu No 10, as soon as the polls opened. To some it was a sombre day; to Isapela it was thrilling, to everyone it was history.

Asked whether a commoner should lead the Government rather than a noble, she replied yes: "I'm sure it is what the King expects."

She was dead right. It is now emerging that it was the King who ordered his brother, Crown Prince Lavaka Ata 'Ulukalala, to drop out of the contest to become one of the nobles' representatives. And it was almost certainly on his instruction that none of the nobles should try to be Prime Minister.

Had the Crown Prince been elected, according to many Tongans, the Parliament could have felt obliged to elect him Prime Minister, a result which could have undermined the integrity of the democratic reforms.

The reforms happened because of three remarkable men. The first is politician Akilisi Pohiva, a former trainer of teachers, whose name is synonymous with the democracy movement in Tonga. Vilified as a traitor when he faced and defeated sedition charges in 2007, Pohiva is now triumphant after 30 years of campaigning, 23 of them from a lonely seat in Parliament. Yesterday his people were literally dancing in the streets when he arrived at party HQ to begin the process of Government formation.

The figure probably given least credit for the new Tonga is King George Tupou V whose progressive views are overshadowed by his eccentricities. Nonetheless his long held ambition to surrender his executive power to the people is highly unusual.

And in his old boyhood friend Prime Minister Feleti Sevele he had an accomplice and commoner in the legislature who ran a thorough consultation process and turned the dream into law. Each man played a vital part in the biggest overhaul of the constitution in 135 years.

What do the reforms do? They allow voters to elect people's representative. For the first time people's representatives will outnumber the hereditary nobles' representatives. Together they will elect their own Prime Minister, who was previously chosen by the monarch.

The King has relinquished the right to appoint the cabinet, a job given now to the Prime Minister.

Any political decisions in his name, including the royal assent on legislation, will be on the basis of the advice from the Prime minister.

Interviewed on ABC Australia, King George said he had always wanted to implement reforms for the country."It's a very practical idea in that our political life has to travel at the same speed, the same level of development as our economic life." The democratic reforms have been delivered at a pace which was clearly unimaginable 10 years ago to the outgoing New Zealand envoy. They were hatched by the King while he was Crown Prince.

Soon after taking over the affairs of his ailing father, in 2006 the prospective King sacked Prince Lavaka who was Prime Minister, and installed his friend Sevele, the first commoner to hold the rank.

King George, who went to Kings School and Kings College in New Zealand, said he would not have wanted reform if he had been educated only in Tonga.

"Like others of my generation, my education has generally been a liberal European education and I feel sure that without a European education, with a solely Tonga education, I don't believe I would have been able to make the changes," he told Bruce Hill.

It is a fascinating interview: it shows someone who has thought carefully and deeply about the handover for a long time. He also acknowledged he had come under pressure over the reforms - but not from "below." "The pressure I felt was the pressure not to change which was exerted on me from my own class in society."

New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully has watched the reform process closely, first as foreign affairs spokesman in Opposition and now as minister.

McCully is reasonably close to Tongan PM Sevele, hosting him at his own Northland bach a couple of months ago. He says people under-estimate how difficult it was getting the reforms through.

"The scale of the transformation they have been going through is huge, moving from being a monarchy to a modern democracy in a very short space of time and it has only been because of an alignment of a unique series of events particularly the fact that the King had decided to support the reform process and had a commoner Prime Minister who was a friend of his who was able to carry it through the political process."

Nuku'alofa lawyer Dana Stevenson said she was taking a "wait and see" attitude to the reforms and had concerns people's expectations might be too high.

"I'm concerned that things might not move as quickly as people might expect them to and that might be a source of frustration for people.

"There is a lot of excitement and optimism about this new process we are embarking on but I'm not sure whether people realise it is not going to change things overnight, that this is only the first step in the process of the move towards democracy.

"It's going to be a much longer evolving process. It's going to take a number of years, if not decades, for it to evolve and this is only the first step."

When and how a government is actually formed may take some time. How the nobles exercise their power is unknown as yet. They conducted their own election in the privacy of the Palace Office, a red-roofed house in the grounds by the King's town palace, each noble seated on a red velvet chair with royal insignia.

In a closed door ritual, votes were cast at 12pm, counted at 4pm and announced to the world by the emergence of the successful one for a group photo. They were joined by the whole crew for a bigger group portrait.

Among their number was Lord Ramsay Dalgety, a controversial Scottish QC appointed by the King to a new post, Lord Chancellor. He heads an advisory group which recommends judicial appointments.

Perjury charges against him relating to evidence he gave on the sinking of the Princes Ashika were dropped this month because no one had signed the paperwork.

The King has granted him rights to vote with the nobles but not to stand.

The changes to judicial appointments is seen as the most worrying feature of the reform package because it is a step back from modern practice and potentially threatens the independence of the judiciary.

A recent law setting up a Judicial Service Commission for the appointment of the judiciary, involving the Attorney General, the Chief Justice and the president of the Law Society has been overturned.

The King's view is that the new appointments procedure will preserve the independence of the judiciary by keeping it away from the Attorney-General and other members of the executive. The jury is definitely out on that one.

That feature, together with a structure that could allow a noble to emerge as PM - as looked possible earlier in the week - makes Tonga's system unique.

New Zealand's present High Commissioner, Jonathan Austin, is adamant that the outcomes of the new system are not for others to criticise.

"I don't think it's up to us to judge," he said, when the speculation that the Crown Prince was standing was at its height. "It's their system, this is the system they arrived at, that's the result that they've got. If they want to change it, they're at liberty to do so."

(section deleted).

Democracy and Fiji

from w
A thoughtful feature article in the Fiji Times today is by Appana and about democracy in Fiji.

Desperate for democracySUBHASH APPANA
Friday, February 01, 2008

The search for true democracy in Fiji has been long and arduous. Many have lamented the violent death of the 1970 Constitution at the hands of Rabuka's hitmen. There have been unending discussions of "if only" that constitution had been allowed to deliver.

Fiji was indeed at Rostov's "take-off" stage in 1987. Unfortunately there were those who supported that constitution only so long as it ensured political paramountcy in perpetuity.

Its electoral provisions were designed for exactly that.

The disproportionate number of seats allocated to "generals" and the carefully crafted cross-voting seats were meant to give the Alliance Party a sure head start every time.

Moreover, the two major ethnic groups were supposed to vote on strictly racial lines. If anything, the personal cross-cultural appeal of Ratu Mara would have ensured an Indian Alliance presence within government. That was the electoral focus of the 1970 constitution.

None of its engineers foresaw a convergence of cross-ethnic concerns at any time in future. That racial premise was supposed to hold in perpetuity.

Unfortunately the formation of the Fiji Labour Party in 1985 showed that race could be subordinated to bigger more pressing issues in Fiji.

Mutual concerns mixed with a bigger national agenda was the antidote to the race venom that had been such a salient strategic tool in Fiji's politics up till then.

Two years later the Alliance government fell and the whole set of premises (some articulated and some silent) on which the 1970 constitution rested was suddenly brought up for serious review.

A golden opportunity stared our leaders to steer Fiji onto a higher political plain, but power-play, parochial self-interest and opportunism ruled and those who had been revered and relied on came away permanently tainted.

Race suddenly became an issue of primary public concern; every problem was blamed on the kai idia because that provided a ready-made justification for the 1987 coup.

A string of punitive measures were put in place to harass and subjugate the Indo-Fijian community: humiliating searches by immigration officers, caps on capital transfer, blacklists, Sunday bans (no business, no picnics, no leisure, etc.) just to name a few. It came to a stage where even if it rained suddenly it was blamed on the kai idia.

The nationalists had a field day, calls were made for an all Fijian parliament, the "Indians go back home" slogan was again on the agenda.

And the notorious 1990 constitution was promulgated with the support of all of those Fijian institutions that had previously championed democracy amid token support from hand-picked Indo-Fijian representatives.

Rabuka as the newly elected PM knew that something was amiss. His concerted search for answers led to a personal accord with Jai Ram Reddy and the 1997 constitution was born.

That achievement cannot be taken away from either man despite the shortcomings of that constitution.

It is instructive that bigger agenda ruled that exercise — national interest superseded opportunistic short-term focus.

It can be argued by political sceptics that the 1997 constitution was supposed to propel both gentlemen into government. That is true, but the main difference between that and earlier constitutions was that electoral provisions were not designed for perpetual victory.

They were more focused on the collective and the designing of an appropriate democratic framework for Fiji.

That is precisely why it is invoked repeatedly in the aftermath of the 2006 coup by supporters and critics alike.

Now we are talking about a People's Charter that would guide Fiji and presumably help bring about necessary changes to the 1997 constitution.

This represents an ongoing search for a democracy that is suitable for Fiji. And the main glaring weaknesses of that constitution lie in its electoral provisions and the requirement for a multi-party cabinet.

A number of factors will need to be considered seriously for modifying the electoral provisions.

Firstly, population proportions have changed significantly since 1997 both in terms of ethnic composition as well as geographic concentration. Parliament must now comprise 37 per cent Indo-Fijians, 57 per cent Fijians and 6 per cent others.

In addition to this, Fijian representation must reflect urban-rural population concentrations.

The present constitution is heavily biased towards rural representation, and this is where the voting has historically been less issues-related. After all for democracy to deliver the voter must make an informed rational choice.

Secondly, constitutional boundaries need to be redrawn so that the number of voters that a member of parliament represents is balanced rather than skewed as at present where some represent 4000 while others represent as many as 16,000 voters.

This is why the constitutional boundaries commission has to be membered by people who are seen to be professional and non-partisan.

Thirdly, representativeness is an issue that lies at the centre of any democratic framework of governance.

Under the 1997 constitution, the NFP polled some 30 per cent of the Indo-Fijian vote in 1999, but ended up with zero parliamentary representation rendering their supporters voiceless for the next 5 years. That is not how a representative democracy should work.

This brings us to the most contentious and pressing issue that needs a serious selfless relook in the 1997 constitution.

The present preferential voting system where parties who cannot win outright at the first count choose to hand their votes to other preferred candidates on behalf of the voters makes a mockery of the whole concept of public choice as this gives the party precedence over the voter in choosing who ultimately represents them.

And the requirement for a multi-party cabinet further distorts the picture no matter how noble and visionary its original intentions were.

The public will recall Qarase's bloated cabinet of 36 with its associated costs. That was a mischievous response to a constitutional provision that was seen as a nuisance.

The bigger agenda of giving Fiji the best as envisaged by that constitutional provision did not matter.

In other words, just as forced marriages have a very slim chance of working, that constitutional provision for a multi-party cabinet may be too ambitious.

It is sad that the historically misguided preoccupation with shackling, curtailing and blaming the kai idia has diverted attention from the real issues facing the country.

There needs to be an understanding and appreciation of the fact that the Indo-Fijian no longer poses a political threat to Fijian rule. In fact the exodus continues like a tap that has lost its washer. That washer cannot be replaced because it's gone out of production with repeated political uncertainty.

Fiji needs to appreciate the fact that democracy is an answer that calls for honesty and a bigger concern for nation rather than self; therein lies the solution for true democracy Fiji-style.

The opinions contained here are those of the author and not necessarily shared by his employer, The University of the South Pacific, or any other organisations both local and foreign that he may be associated with.

It's twenty years since the Rabuka coup in 1987

from w
It seems that Fiji has had a 'coup culture' ever since. I remember that day, May 14 1987, as I arrived in Melbourne by train from a visit to my mother. I rang Peceli in Geelong to ask him to meet me at Geelong station an hour or so later. He said, 'Fiji has had a coup!' I was astonished of course. Well, later that afternoon in Geelong we were at a handover of a house to the Aboriginal community for tertiary students, a gift of the Uniting Church, and there were a few odd comments about 'what on earth is going on in Fiji' at that celebration. Newspapers were full of the coup story. And then again, and again, and again, but no longer do stories of Fiji coups take up the first three pages of the newspapers.

Father Kevin Barr has written a commentary in today's Fiji Times. I don't agree with everything he says but he is correct when he says it is not just to get back to an election and 'democracy'. There are other issues that need to be addressed and resolved. He is a bit softly softly about the army though.

Solutions before democracy
FATHER KELVIN BARR
Monday, May 14, 2007

There seems to be a great deal of international concern that Fiji should return to democracy as soon as possible.

Calls for democratic elections have come from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, the European Union and the Commonwealth. We have had the report of the Eminent Persons Group. Recently we have been inundated with overseas visitors the UN fact finding mission as well as the Commonwealth Human rights fact finding mission.

Then the Pacific Islands Forum is organising a committee to advise on the holding of elections.

This great flurry of activity is very interesting. It seems the international community thinks that as soon as Fiji holds elections and returns to democracy, all its problems will be over. It will be accepted back into all the organisations from which it has been expelled and all will be right with the world. There can be great rejoicing and everyone can sit back satisfied that democracy has been restored.

All this is well and good. But it has all happened before. After previous coups in 1987 and 2000 Fiji was urged to have elections and return to democracy as quickly as possible. This happened and the international community was overjoyed to welcome Fiji back into the democratic fold. But elections did not solve Fiji's basic problems and when those problems raised their heads again and caused serious tensions and upsets (as they did during the Qarase regime) the international community seemed quite unconcerned because a democratic government was in place. No fact finding missions came from the Commonwealth or the UN. No Eminent Persons were selected to look into the problems. Our closest neighbours did little to put pressure on a racist regime to act in the interests of all its citizens. They had seen to it that a democratically elected government was in place and that was all that was required.

Yet, by now we should have learnt that democracy measured by elections is not a panacea. Every coup exposes wounds that need to be healed and the deep underlying problems that need to be attended to. Before Fiji can gain stability and effectively return to some degree of democracy a number of serious issues need to be addressed and resolved.

1. The agenda of the extreme nationalists needs to be addressed Fiji for the Fijians, calls for "Fijian unity" and the demand for a Christian State.

2. The racially explosive mix of fundamentalist religion and extreme nationalism found in the Assembly of Christian Churches in Fiji (ACCF) which seeks to have a strong influence on the political and social scene.

3. The conflicts and tensions within the Fijian chiefly families and confederacies.

4. The culture of corruption, nepotism and cronyism.

5. The economic policies which are creating greater poverty and inequality and giving rise to "two Fijis".

6. The electoral system which encourages racial divisiveness.

Besides all this we need:
A well conducted Census;
The establishment of fair and proper electoral boundaries; and
Extensive voter education about the nature and purpose of democracy.

We don't just need a timeframe for a return to democracy, we need strategies that will address the big problems underlying our instability and giving rise to constant coups. We do not have a "coup culture", we have rather a number of serious unaddressed problems which will continue to cause instability until they are effectively acknowledged and addressed. Any attempt to throw a cloak of superficial democracy over them will be counterproductive.