The balancing act of governance in Melanesia
In less than five months since the October 2012 poll, Vanuatu experienced the first change in government when Moana Carcasses Kalosil ousted Sato Kilman in March 2013.
Since then Carcasses has had to perform a balancing act by navigating a narrow path, which I think he did well in the first six months—taking the government to the people by holding council of ministers meetings outside of Port Vila for the first time.
However, his was a difficult task as the first non-indigenous prime minister.
Natuman’s success in bringing Carcasses down three weeks ago has been described as a political coup, after he effortlessly pulled off one of the biggest surprises yet in local politics by amassing 40 unopposed votes in his favour.
How he did it might be a topic for another blog piece for another time, but as has been the experience so many times here, the opposition will not stop peppering the government with no confidence motions.
To say the least, this could not be more distracting for any government, especially when the opposition does not need to have a cogent reason to do so.
It seems an MP’s only goal is to get into government. For instance, in a previous attempt to topple Carcasses, one government backbencher asked to be counted in if the signatures reached the simple majority of twenty-seven.
The political seesaw in Vanuatu, and all of Melanesia for that matter, has been the subject of much study and discussion from the academia and aid agencies to the lowliest in the communities.
In part, the political instability issues attest to the ordinary citizens’ frustrations and disappointments at not seeing the goals of independence materialise. Consequently an unstable political environment ensued— leading to a lack of stability and consistency in the policy making process, and ultimately stifling economic growth and impacting negatively on investor confidence.
Criticisms aside, Papua New Guinea, under PM Peter O’Neill is marching ahead. Its parliament voted in 2013 almost unanimously to amend the Constitution further by giving a prime minister 30-month grace period—an extension from the previous 18 months.
The decision has drawn criticisms within and without, with former PNG Ombudsman Ila Geno mounting a court battle in 2013 and then Belden Namah performing an acrobatic turn from his previous position. The Supreme Court of PNG was scheduled last week to hear a reference he filed on the constitutionality of the no confidence ban.
Those who oppose the change summarily fear this: ‘what if a government is so corrupt?’ —a bona fide concern indeed.
Political ambitions aside, O’Neill’s intention appeared genuine at the start but time will tell if stability and good governance were his real intentions. All we know is he asked for a room big enough so that he could manage an evolutionary process in his reform agenda, and was given the mandate by the legislature.
Following in the footsteps of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands are debating a similar bill. Prime minister Gordon Darcy-Lilo says the law is close to being finalised. Despite lacking a quorum, the bill passed its second reading recently, while the details are being worked out this week.
Overall, such bills aim to ‘promote solidarity in parliament by providing for registration, administration and development of political parties…’
The same approach is being considered in Vanuatu where the present government is determined to not only see out this government’s term, but also find solutions to this political enigma that has haunted governments since the 1990s.
Minister for lands Ralph Regenvanu says they intend to push further by coming up with their own version of an integrity bill that would protect the integrity of political parties, and hopefully help them dictate the tempo of how a government is supposed to work.
In actual fact, the former government started the process in 2013, calling all heads of the political parties together to try and reach an understanding and hammer out a pathway forward. This is not just one person’s concern.
It makes matters extra special for Vanuatu where there are way too many partnering coalition members that often share no common interests, let alone a common national policy agenda.
The ideas behind such laws are the same: to stop parliamentarians hopping from one party to the other after an election, and to get political parties registered to bring much needed stability to the governance structure. As this concerns the electoral process, for Vanuatu, such a change will require a referendum, as well as a two-thirds majority vote in parliament, which will require more than the numbers the present government has.
The good thing is all leaders recognise the nature of the problem and that any proposed changes would require partisan support.
They also recognise that the model presented by the adopted system of governance intimate that for democracy to function, strong party systems should serve as necessary preconditions.
Unfortunately for them, unlike much of the West, this is easier said than done in their contexts where the introduced system of governance sits quite uncomfortably with the existing ones, not to mention the fact that political party systems remain highly fluid and their structures flimsy.
As such, leaders therefore need to find the right balance between the introduced systems, which assume a homogenous society that doesn’t exist in Melanesia; and the existing systems, which have withstood the test of time.
One greatest value of the existing system is what Elise Huffer and Grace Molisa in their work on governance in Vanuatu have described as the ‘nakamal way’. The nakamal way has no place for winners or losers. It encourages everyone sitting together, or side by side and agreeing on what is best for the community. These issues could be worked out if everyone showed enough commitment to expend the time and resources, but they also need people being properly trained and equipped to set the basis right.
It has to be acknowledged that while stability ensures a measure of consistency in government, there are also valid arguments that stability does not necessarily equate with economic growth.
One does not need to look further than the Pacific itself to see this clearly. Samoa, for example, has had a stable government that has been in place since 1998, and boasts a greater level of homogeneity, but this has not necessarily translated easily into economic success. This would stand to mean that for countries to succeed politically, socially and economically, more needs to be done beyond the band-aid solutions offered by the integrity bills.
Is it any wonder that Fiji, at the other end of the political spectrum, continues to draw attention from international observers who are keenly waiting to see if Voreque Bainimarama would deliver a free and fair election in September? He appears to be on course for what he set out to do. As a military person, Bainimarama has no doubt sacrificed many of the niceties of democracy and yet he provides a type of leadership that is in short supply in most of Melanesia.
Yes, the question is validly raised: ‘who gets to decide what is good for everyone?’ Could the Fijians trust Bainimarama’s judgments? What guarantees are there that the country will hold together after September? The above are questions that critics of Bainimarama have asked, and keep asking, as the country goes through a democratic path designed by only a handful.
Bainimarama’s style is unconventional, but one would have to assume that the outcomes he anticipates are the same as those envisaged by Papua New Guinea’s Sir Michael Somare, Solomon Islands’ Solomon Mamaloni, Vanuatu’s Fr. Walter Lini, Fiji’s Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, and Jean-Marie Tjibaou of New Caledonia: economic growth and prosperity for all citizens. After all, these are what modern democracy promises and these countries have found it difficult to remain on track, or maintain any growth momentum since the days of the early founders, because of so many competing interests, and the complexities that exist within.
In her address at the Dili conference in 2013, Timor-Leste finance minister Emilia Pires could not be more succinct about how to achieve sustainable economic development.
Addressing the key issue of stability as a necessary pre-condition for economic growth, she also pointed to the fundamentally important role strong institutions play in bringing about economic empowerment to the disadvantaged.
Naturally strong institutions also call for strong leadership.
Ms Pires was right that the MDGs will fail because countries do not have the tools necessary to do the work required to address the key MDG goals.
For Melanesia, the sooner they develop firm foundations by having in place strong institutions with visionary leadership at the helm, the quicker they might witness the birth of a brand of democracy that fits their conditions, which would then translate into sustained economic growth and prosperity.
