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.

Vanuatu social networks such as Yumi Toktok Stret and others are awash with these sentiments.

Carcasses was always going to walk a political tightrope since March 2013, and as pointed out by PiPP in our analysis of the last motion, Carcasses only survived the last no-confidence vote because of a lack of clear choice as to who would lead an alternative government if he was removed.

Natuman was elected unopposed by 40 votes, after a surprise move by the majority of then government members who crossed the floor on the day of the scheduled motion.

Movers of the motion had cited the USD 350 million airport ‘promissory note’ deal, health ministry woes and the immigration scheme luring Chinese investors among a host of reasons for his removal.

Natuman’s election still needs time to settle and further changes to the sharing of the portfolios are expected.

Some of the previous ministers such as Ralph Regenvanu remain (Minister of Lands) but there are some surprise choices like former PM Sato Kilman who has returned as Foreign Minister.

This may complicate some foreign policy decisions given that Natuman has long been sympathetic to the West Papuans while Kilman is perceived as pro-Indonesian.

Although support for West Papua is bi-partisan, many will remember Kilman making a unilateral decision, against a Cabinet directive, to support Indonesia as an observer to the sub regional Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Regional capitals may also raise eyebrows given Kilman’s role in expelling Australian federal police and his endorsement of Russia’s proxy Abkhazia.

Already there is talk of a reshuffle as MPs wait for a High Court decision shortly to assess whether Tanna island needs to go to a by-election due to claims of vote discrepancies from the last election. If this happens it will affect Joe Natuman’s hold as PM.

Natuman, as the first Tannese to become PM is likely to retain his seat, but if a by-election is called he will have to temporarily vacate his seat, meaning he can not be PM during this period.

Unlike some regional nations like PNG where there can be no motions for the first and last 18 months of a government, Vanuatu still has no legislation in place to provide for such ‘grace periods’.

Many ni-Vanuatu voters have been frustrated at the constant numbers game of parliament and governments that come and go with seasonal regularity.

Australia has agreed to take up Fiji’s offer on the basis that a co-leader would also be appointed from a ‘growing democracy’, says attorney-general Ayaz Sayed-Khaiyum, who met Australia’s visiting parliamentary secretary to the minister for foreign affairs in Fiji, Senator Brett Mason recently.

The announcement was made following Mr Mason’s visit.

If Australia does take up the role, it will be another major step towards the two countries mending their strained relations.

Australia was one of the staunchest critics of Fiji, since Voreque Bainimarama seized the reins of power from Laisenia Qarase in 2006.

It is clear both Australia and New Zealand have shifted their policies towards positive engagement since the announcement of the election date in Fiji.

New Zealand’s foreign minister, Murry McCully, says their decision to lift travel restrictions is in the best interest of Fijians so that they can contribute freely and more meaningfully to the country’s public discourse.

With the change of heart in Canberra and Wellington, it now appears that Bainimarama’s most vocal critics are within Fiji, with leaders such as Mahendra Chaudhry, Mick Beddoes and Biman Prasad leading the line.

Prasad, a former USP economics professor, recently openly challenged the head of the Fiji government to a public debate on the leader’s record to date, urging him to ‘remove decrees that restrict people’s rights to association and freedom of expression.

‘Our people don’t need pity, they need respect and they need their freedoms,’ he says.

In addition, Mr Chaudhry also tells radio Australia he wants the international community to be ‘vigilant’ in their monitoring of Fiji’s progress, not just glossing over the image being portrayed by Bainimarama.

Together with Methodist clergyman and Citizens Constitutional Forum chief executive, Rev Akuila Yabaki, Bainimarama’s critics are pursuing allegations that the prime minister may have breached the Political Parties Decree, by announcing the name of one of his proposed candidates, when his party is yet to be registered.

It remains to be seen if police will complete an investigation and the claims are tested through the courts.

There are also reports that the opposition will challenge the design of the ballot papers, which will no longer feature candidate names, or party symbols under the Electoral Decree.

Because of these strict provisions, candidates can only have an assigned number, which Prasad says will not help voters make an ‘informed’ choice.

Despite this, there is no doubt that these are exciting times for Fijians once again, with the clouds of uncertainty over their political future unraveling.

As the country edges closer to election, Bainimarama wastes no time in going about painting a positive image of himself domestically and internationally and laying the groundwork for what he firmly believes is good for Fijians.

Beginning last month in search of the mandatory 5001 signatures needed under the Political Parties Decree, Bainimarama has gathered an astonishing 40, 083 signatures, more than what is required before lodging an application early this week to register his proposed Fiji First Party.

Bainimarama also announced the names of the party’s committee members, although the registration process will take 28 days to verify everything, says supervisor of elections and registrar of political parties, Mohammed Saneem.

‘Fiji First’ is a name that reflects Bainimarama’s own aspirations for a completely different Fiji to the one most have come to know.

This would be a party ‘where every Fijian regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, status, colour, gender and creed is considered equal – where every Fijian is put first in relation to our collective progress, success and growth as a nation,’ he says.

So far, four major political parties have been registered. They are the Fiji Labour Party (FLP), National Federation Party (NFP), Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) and People’s Democratic Party (PDP).

But in a major blow for the opposition, Fiji’s Labour Party president and former prime minister, Chaudhry has been convicted and fined FJD2 million by the high court of Fiji, after being found guilty of breaching the Exchange Controls Act.

The hefty fine must be paid by June 30, or he faces a 15-month imprisonment term.

Chaudhry’s conviction effectively rules him out as a candidate for the September poll. Dr Steven Ratuva of Auckland University says the conviction gives Bainimarama added advantage.

Ratuva also suggests that with Chaudhry out of the picture, the September election will be a competition between Prasad’s National Federation Party, and Bainimarama’s Fiji First Party, especially in the battle to win the Indo-Fijian votes.