Vanuatu’s leadership struggle

Did prime minister Moana Carcasses Kalosil out-maneuver his political opponents, or did common sense somehow prevail on those who switched sides, after re-examining the costs of changing a government on a whim?

For me, the answer could be difficult to pinpoint unless something is done about the country’s leadership jinx that has continued to stymie national progress since the 1990s.

I say this notwithstanding the fact there have been so many allegations that have been flying around on social media and other circles over how the government managed to pull through; or that the opposition were forking out a fortune to camp at a private resort.

Minister of lands Ralph Regenvanu has since said that the four who decided to team up with the government, decided on their ‘own free will’ to join the government. He categorically denied any notion of underhand dealings.

Just a day before the swearing in of the four MPs, PM Carcasses was on a public fishing campaign—quite unprecedented – in a press conference where he declared publicly that four ministerial portfolios were up for grabs to help lure restless opposition MPs. The bait was taken.

By that time it seemed clear that hope was fast diminishing within the government ranks, as the opposition consolidated their support base. However, one post on social media struck a chord: ‘since the days of the early founders, Vanuatu is simply still in search of a quality leader’.

It is true that Vanuatu politics is driven by personality. It is true that the problem of party fragmentation has continued to divide and drive the country further into economic and political instability. It is true that party policies seem no longer to mean anything when it comes to forming a government. But it is also true that people are after quality leadership—leadership that is fair when it comes to redistributing national wealth; leadership that can represent and articulate people’s interests when it matters; and leadership that commands authority and respect.

Some have suggested—and it was quite obvious from the time the motion was declared in order, that the opposition’s choice, or lack thereof, of whom to lead the next government proved to be their undoing. Yet there are others who might argue that the two sides are cut from the same cloth.

In any case, it is difficult to blame anyone for why the four MPs decided to switch sides, or if it would have made any difference had the opposition knocked Mr Carcasses from his perch. The four who jumped ship could not have picked a better moment. While the opposition was in camp, groups within their own ranks were also courting the government side for a possible link up.

None of this is intended to discredit any of the prospective candidates. To the opposition’s credit, they had within their ranks two former prime ministers in the National United Party’s Ham Lini and the People’s Progressive Party’s Sato Kilman. Collectively, they also had a noteworthy level of experience shared amongst them. One or two might even be considered PM material. But other than that, the opposition fell quite short of a clear candidate of choice.

It comes as no surprise that the quartet felt it was in their best political interest, for good or for bad, to take Mr Carcasses’ bait. After all, there were only 13 portfolios to be shared among a staggering 11 different political groupings, notwithstanding their latest re-groupings and affiliations. Most were single-party MPs and independents that had defected from Mr Carcasses’ own bloc.

This is not to say that this would have been the most fragmented coalition Vanuatu has assembled. During the reign of Ham Lini from 2004 to 2008, he managed nearly to complete a four-year term by taking care of up to 11 coalition members.

But one of the reasons why countries like Vanuatu will continue to experience these instances of political instability is that since independence, there have been very few who can stand head and shoulders above the rest, to actually provide the sort of leadership people so desperately need.

When parliament met last Monday, the opposition looked to be on course to topple the government. But come Wednesday they were found wanting. And because of this leadership gap, Mr Carcasses, the first naturalised citizen to lead the country, continues to walk the tightrope. Just because he escaped this time does not mean another motion will not be tabled. The ‘underlying issue’ challenging his time on the high wire remains.

And unless leaders do more to bring about fundamental political reform, the episode we have seen over the last few days will continue to be played out—hampering any meaningful efforts to bring about positive change. It is good to hear initial discussions have commenced amongst leaders of different political parties represented in parliament to find solutions to the instability issues.

But political stability counts for nothing if leaders are not accountable for their actions and use such legal protections to further their own political agendas.

The experience of Papua New Guinea comes to mind. PNG may have addressed its own political instability issues by giving unprecedented grace periods to a government, but the question remains: has this translated into improved social conditions? Given the nature of politics in many island nations, such laws can very easily lead to abuse—especially where state institutions are weak.

It suggests quite strongly that integrity legislation is nothing more than a band aid solution. Broader solutions need to be debated and found, which leads back to the crux of this piece: long lasting solutions require quality leadership at the wheel.