In 2015 cyclone Pam devastated Vanuatu, with Tanna being one of the worst-hit islands. Women bore the brunt of the devastation, forcing them to seek out new ways to survive. A realisation began to dawn that it was time for them to stand up and speak for themselves. After numerous meetings with women groups, the first ever Tanna Women’s Forum was held in October 2015. Over 1,200 attended the meeting where women demanded change to a political system that held them down, tied them in poverty, and gave them no opportunity to speak out. It was a breakthrough moment as many of these women have lived under threat all of their lives.

The women put their heads together and agreed it was time someone took the lead. I was nominated. The women agreed that I would contest the next general election scheduled for late 2016. Just days later the government announced a snap election, effectively wiping out our time to put together an election campaign. We moved ahead anyway with membership numbers now standing at 3,700. We had much confidence that we would secure one of the seven seats in the Tanna open constituency.

With very little time to prepare, I took on the challenge with much confidence. That as a solid membership of women we could succeed, and that even if we failed to win a seat, we would learn valuable lessons from the snap election experience that would better prepare us for the next general elections in 2020. I had so much confidence. I wasn’t thinking of losing; our hopes based on the registration figures signed by women across the island.

Crossing controversial territory

The first obstacle was informing community leaders of our decision to field our own candidate – a woman. Working with a chief that I have close ties to, a community meeting was arranged whereby I would declare and launch my candidacy. No one uttered a word, except a female friend who stood up, and much to my surprise, said ‘I am not in support of women being electoral representatives in parliament, and I am also against the policy of reserving seats for women’. I took this understandably as coming from someone speaking from her heart, but it also confirmed that the notion that women ‘do not belong in parliament’ were not held by men alone.

With no financial backing (other than two small personal contributions totalling 15,000 vatu) I had to dig into my own pockets to fund the campaign. I must say the election process is very expensive, with transportation in Tanna costing 20,000 vatu per day. We hired six public transport vehicles for the campaign.

We managed to visit (and revisit in some cases) 19 communities, speaking with roughly 700 men and women. Our slogan was Hemi Taem! (It is time!).

Taking centre stage during the campaigns was the most challenging. The questions and comments raised by communities were not difficult to answer, but there were also tricky ones coming from those who perceived us to be defying kastom.

‘You have not killed a fly or an ant, how can you prove that you can work like men in parliament. You are nothing but a woman.’

‘Our custom and culture perfectly points out your place – which is to look after the children, and mine (male speaking) is to do the talking. Where is your respect for this kastom? Are you from Australia that you don’t know our kastom? Who has given you this right to contest?’

‘Maybe we can vote for you in the provincial council election, but not to parliament.’

‘Our fear right now is the domestic violence law; we do not want our women to take those laws into their own hands.’

‘We don’t want to vote for women, because we don’t want women to have the right over us men.’

‘We don’t want our women to vote for women. If they do, we will divorce them.’

In a lot of places, prior to our campaign meetings, there would be community meetings most held in the nakamal where ‘consensus’ was often reached for all community members to vote for a particular candidate. In some cases, I wasn’t allowed to go and campaign – even to speak to just the women. In one case, some women called me and said, ‘Mary, please don’t come to our community as you will not be allowed to speak here’.

Discrimination and the threat of violence

The campaign revealed that culture is a main contributor to the limitation of woman’s influence in politics. I’ve seen how a lot of people are reluctant to vote for a woman. We did not receive discrimination from men alone, but women also. The discrimination we received was more on emotional violence. Discrimination against women in the society was very obvious at the time of campaigning and we observed how discrimination was somewhat based on a woman’s age, her marital status, her level of education and economic status. And as such, a woman may not be considered to be valuable or worthwhile if she does not fit the collective representation of both men and women.

Personally, I was able to endure a male-dominated political campaign period, but stories of threats of violence experienced by some women have just been unbearable. There are many of such accounts, ones that I share with a sad heart. This is one woman’s account of the threat she received from her partner the night before the poll.

I was already in bed pretending I had fallen asleep for some hours, but my husband came up and woke me up. He held a knife to my throat and demanded that I tell him who I was going to vote for. I was so afraid, I did not speak. He told me to speak or else he would beat me. I started crying. I was short of breath and was shaking. I cried out, “please help me … someone listening outside, please help me!” But nobody came to my rescue because they were afraid of my husband. He pushed me down, punched me again on my stomach and head, and said he was giving me a chance to speak or else he would beat me up. He knew of my intention to support women in this election. I begged him to let go of my throat or I was going to die, and I promised him that I was going to vote for the candidate of his choosing.

Another woman also had a similar story.

I saw you talking with those women, but I have stated clearly stated my rules and you have to follow them. We are going to vote for a male candidate and not for any woman. If you fail my words and I find out the numbers at our polling station, I will make you pay for it.

Other women were reportedly threatened by their partners to show candidate photos after they had casted their votes to prove they voted for a particular candidate. In some polling station, men threatened to divorce or physically torture their wives if results showed a significant number of women’s votes from that particular polling station.

A way forward

Political parties, as we know, are the most important institutions affecting women’s political participation. Even though our group knew we could have more support (moral and financial) from political parties if we ran under one of them, we still made the hard choice of running as an independent candidate. We had a few reasons for this, with the main one being that bigger political parties filed their candidates in advance, leaving no space for women to contest under their ticket. Secondly, women still have a long way to learn about the processes and lobbying involved in politics.

In spite of the challenges women continue to face, I see a new generation of powerful women flourishing in Tanna. Women with a strong sense of identity and power. Through our journey, many have come to understand that participation in the electoral processes involves much more than just voting. It is time to exercise the democratic rights that have either been ignored or violated over the last 36 years. Through our journey in politics, many have come to appreciate that through political participation women can have the freedom to speak out for the first time in the island’s history, which they’ve done through campaigning, assembling, associating and participating.

I have seen the power of ordinary women who have stood up against injustices to say they are tired. I have seen the faces of those who shed tears because of so much ill-dealing and threatening within their homes and communities. We have started a journey where we will continue to celebrate the united power of women who have taken the first steps to uncovering the multiple forms of discrimination and injustices. We shall continue to seek the empowerment of women to a level where they can think and speak for themselves.

To the surprise of those seated in the crowded Nitijela chamber, as soon as Senator Silk completed his sentence one person clapped politely and briefly. Gauging by the looks of the audience, perhaps this also was without precedent. Clapping in parliament is a motion that is not prompted. In some parliaments it is frowned upon, in others it is the norm, in some it is allowed in some situations and not in other contexts, in some the Speaker regulates this motion or its variations such as clapping on the sides of the chairs or thumping on the desk or standing ovations or saying “hear hear”. The previous day, as the results of the vote of no-confidence against former President Nemra’s Cabinet were tabulated, Speaker Kedi had astutely interrupted the count. He instructed that no one should clap. During the past two weeks, on many occasions the Speaker had invited a clapping applause for other results and reasons. Some parliamentarians had spontaneously clapped after bold speeches had been made during the debates before and after the vote of no-confidence motion was introduced.

The introduction of the final motion by Senator Silk, with no prompting by the Speaker, was a move that can been viewed as showing a respect not only for the law but also a timely accommodation of the positions held by the two Senators – Note and Riklon (remarkable because both Senators were members of the governing and opposing party to Senator Silk’s). Both Senators had insisted on the Nitijela’s attention and adherence to the Constitutional letter and procedure even if the brief opinions of the relatively young and bashful Acting Attorney General and sort-of-but-not-entirely-convincing Legal Counsel appeared to vary with these interpretations. Senator Riklon had earlier argued politely that according to the Constitution, 14 days had to lapse before another President could be elected. This argument had been overruled by the Speaker, again after the legal opinions of the Legislative Counsel had been recorded. Senator Note had insisted on the casting of the secret ballot. The Senators had persisted even when the Speaker Kedi had plainly cited these opinions as the basis of the Speaker’s impending if not already evident decision on the deemed election of a President by sole nomination. Both soft-spoken Senators requested repeatedly a cautious approach to avoid any ambiguous precedents even if precedents (rightly or wrongly) had already been set in previous elections. Such precedents had been pointed out during the debate. Ironically, one precedent that was contrary to Senator Note’s persistent demand took place when Senator Note had been President!

It can be easily said that both Senators (Ministers at that moment) were deploying a delay-tactic to prolong the life-in-office of the cabinet. However, it can also be suggested that casting a secret ballot in a finale of the electoral process served another purpose. The presidential sole nominee – Dr. Heine was nominated by a self-described less than a fortnight-old coalition. Unprecedented maneuvering, jockeying, shifting and cross-over of party lines, changing membership by number surprising changes in alliances, lobbying by traditional chiefs, the untimely death of an extremely popular high chief presidential candidate, forming of sub-blocs known by colorful descriptions such as traditional twelve solid six fanatic four, claims of buying of membership in parties, forgetting of vows to exclude so-and-so, feuding and solidarity of family, refusals, resignations, ministerial office invitations open until the last minute of the Presidential re-election, etc. had become a well-known and nerve-wracking feature of the political battle for the government during the past month: clearly, loyalties were anything but loyalties; any Senator-voter(s) could change his or her decision at any moment. A secret ballot would colorlessly cast the die, thus making the votes fungible. This is an essence of a democratic free election.

Beyond that, the motion was an expression of an experienced parliamentarian’s intuitive solution to correctly end an impasse that at face value appeared meaningless. Indeed another Senator, Kramer had been quick to fret and seek an immediate dispensation of a “waste time” matter. It was not. Senator Silk’s move also averted notions of a potential legal battle or of a deliberately overlooked procedure in a matter of Constitutional and national importance. It also saved face all around the membership of the Nitijela. These are not trivial facets of the art of the political battle. A save-face tactic is appreciated when battle weary opponents who assuredly are destined to meet each other yet another day are compelled to bluntly face each other with a foregone conclusion.

It is irrelevant whether Senator Silk appreciated or not that Ministers Note and Riklon’s firm stance and demand also covertly allowed for a larger number than 21 senators to vote for President elect (at that moment), Dr. Heine. Nor is it relevant that in a statesman-like move Minister/Senator Note already may have deliberately considered and made space for such a consequence. The result …24, (three more than the predictable 21 votes in favor) itself is relevant. It is a symbolic number that may be optimistically interpreted as if despite the political battles of the past months and weeks some minority number members now accepted the uncomfortable reality of the situation and symbolically said – we are all here, we are willing to move forward and work together.

Rising above partisanship and above party, Senator Silk’s motion, wittingly or not, led to a placated polite procedural election in the Nitijela with Dr. Hilda C. Heine as the elected President. Surely, that final motion deserved an applause; even if only one (just a number) person clapped! After all, when, in an unprecedented moment, as the number goes…if you’re happy and you know it and you really want to show it….clap your hands.

There is nothing presently more challenging to reform than the cultural attitudes and views on women and their rights. In almost every Pacific nation, there is the view and thus the practice, that women are of a lower social status to men. This inequality has led to women embracing subservient roles in deference to their male counterparts, and men dishing out abuse and domination on women. Reforming such volatile issues as the social positioning of women has not been an easy task in many Pacific nations.

Cultural views and practices have been found to be a major stumbling block.

In a place like Tonga where the government is ready to sign the ratification of the UN Convention for the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), petitions and marches against it demonstrate that attitudes and views against the rights of women are still deeply embedded in the Tongan culture.

The wife of a former Prime Minister spoke out quite passionately that “the place of women is in the home – cooking and taking care of the household.” What is most amazing in Tonga is that the leading opponents to CEDAW are women.

There are only seven countries in the world that have not ratified CEDAW. Tonga and Palau are the only Pacific island nations that have not yet ratified.

Most of the arguments against CEDAW carry religious fervor, claiming that CEDAW would inevitably open the door to legislate for abortion and same-sex marriage. Neither issue is advocated for in the CEDAW, but opponents argue that the implications of some of CEDAW’s articles are such that they could open the door to legalizing abortion and same-sex marriages.

The dictates of institutionalized religion

Nothing gives stronger undergirding to a culture than religion. And when religion is heavily institutionalized, it becomes a major force in people’s lives. Not only is it an issue of faith, but more significantly, it is an issue of belonging, where religion and culture combine to form the unshaken basis of personal and corporate identity.

How do you bring reform to a society that is not only steeped in culture but is also undergirded by unshaken religious beliefs? How do you bring issues of development to the forefront when the things that stand in the way are religious in nature?

It has been said many times before that if Tonga liberalizes its Sunday law, there could be great growth to its tourism sector. Those who are advocating for the liberalization of the Sunday law do not want the law abolished; they only want some easing up on certain aspects of the ‘Sunday culture.’

The problem is not so much the law itself but rather the clarity of its interpretation: what is allowed, and what is forbidden. In other words, what constitutes the breaking of the Sunday law?

There is demand from the tourism sector that airplanes should be allowed to land and depart from Tonga; and that passenger cruise ships be allowed into Tonga on Sundays. One tourism operator says: “We can still keep our Sunday law but I do not see anything wrong with allowing visitors to arrive and depart on Sundays.” He says that the same people who are opposed to travel into and from Tonga on Sundays are also supportive of bakeries and restaurants opening on Sundays, simply because it serves their needs. The Sunday law does not seem to be something that has spiritual credibility any more, but a religious practice with no real spiritual meaning. Reformers want an adjustment to fit the times. Not a wholesale abandonment, but simply a clarification on what needs to be kept ‘sacred’ and what needs to be changed.

The forces of bureaucracy, culture, and religion have become a triune power of sorts that stand in the way of reform in the 21st century Pacific.

No one is advocating for their abandonment, but there needs to be serious adjustment so that reform may take society to a greater level of development – politically, socially, and economically.

Often described as an international bill of rights for women, CEDAW consists of 30 articles, defining what constitutes discrimination against women.

It describes discrimination against women as “… any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

There have been and still are extreme practices of discrimination so blatantly apparent against women, and sanctioned by law in so many countries, including so-called modern and progressive societies. But its not just the extreme practices that CEDAW is concerned about. It is out to eliminate ALL forms of discrimination against women. And it sets up “an agenda for national actions to end such discrimination.”

Those states that signed the treaty, ratified, or acceded it, would do so voluntarily, and there are also provisions in CEDAW for the expression of reservations against articles that would be in conflict with the legal, cultural, and religious beliefs of a state.

In 2014, there were 188 States in the world that had ratified CEDAW.

The most notable of the nations in the world that have not acceded or ratified CEDAW is the United States of America, even if it was one of the original signatories to the treaty in 1980.

Most Pacific island countries have ratified with the exception of Tonga and Palau. Only seven countries have not ratified CEDAW including the United States, Sudan, South Sudan, Iran, and Somalia.

Pacific Island states that have ratified or acceded the treaty include New Zealand (1985), Samoa (1992), Papua New Guinea (1995), Fiji (1995), Vanuatu (1999), Tuvalu (1999), Solomon Islands (2002), FSM (2004), Kiribati (2004), Marshalls (2006), Cook Islands (2006), and Nauru (2011).

Pacific island countries are deeply religious, and some of the provisions of the treaty may be in conflict with local laws that are often embedded in cultural and religious beliefs. Yet, the majority of Pacific island countries have ratified CEDAW.

The most recent expression of intent to ratify CEDAW comes from the Kingdom of Tonga. On 6 March 2015, the Government approved starting the process for ratification. The Minister of the Government Department responsible for filing the necessary instruments with the United Nations traveled to New York to inform them of Tonga’s intention.

The Minister, Hon. Fe’ao Vakata was warmly received by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who expressed the need for the process to be completed for ratification. A statement from a Spokesman for the Secretary-General on 21 March 2015 said: “The Secretary-General encourages the Government of Tonga to start undertaking concrete steps for implementing CEDAW. He affirms the continuous support of the United Nations for its efforts to improve the position of women in Tonga.”

In the meantime, Tonga’s public got wind of this move for ratification, and a vigorous debate started breaking out all over the island nation. On the one hand are advocates who have campaigned quite aggressively over the last several years about liberalizing Tonga’s laws to accommodate CEDAW. On the other hand are the conservative majority, who are adamant that CEDAW would violate Tonga’s inheritance laws, which favor male succession to the royal throne and to noble titles.

Additionally, there are also claims that CEDAW would allow abortion and same sex marriage, violating Tonga’s constitutional bans.

Church and community leaders have come out against the government move to ratify CEDAW, including a letter from the newly commissioned Catholic Cardinal of Tonga, opposing ratification.

On same-sex marriage however, there are only 15 countries in the world out of the 188 that have ratified CEDAW, that have legalized it. And the passing of such laws in those countries probably had less to do with CEDAW and more to do with the efforts of a powerful and resilient lobby for same-sex marriage.

But advocates of CEDAW in Tonga claim there are inequalities in many of Tonga’s laws and these need to be addressed as they adversely impact Tonga’s economy. These have to do mostly with the Land laws.

The Cabinet of Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva’s decision on 6 March 2015 approving CEDAW included reservations in respect to the following provisions:

a) Article 2

The Government of the Kingdom of Tonga declares that it is prepared to apply the provisions of Article 2 on the condition that it does not conflict with provisions of the Constitution of Tonga (CAP2) and the Land Act (Cap 132) regarding succession to the throne and nobility.

b) Article 10 (h)

The Government of the Kingdom of Tonga declares that it is prepared to apply the provisions of the Article 10(h) to the extent that it will not allow for abortion in the Kingdom.

c) Article 12 (1)

The Government of the Kingdom of Tonga declares that it is prepared to apply the provisions of Article 12 (1) to the extent that it will not allow for abortion in the Kingdom.

d) Article 14 (2) (g)

The Government of the Kingdom of Tonga declares that it is prepared to apply the provisions of Article 14 (2)(g) on the condition that it does not come into conflict with provisions of the Constitution of Tonga (Cap 2) and the Land Act (Cap 132) regarding the succession to the throne and nobility.

e) Article 16

The Government of the Kingdom of Tonga declares that it is prepared to apply the provisions of Article 16 on condition that it does not conflict with provisions of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act (Cap 42), Criminal Offences Acts (Cap 18) Divorce Act (Cap 29), Maintenance of Deserted Wives Act (Cap 31), Maintenance of Illegitimate Children Act (Cap 30) Guardianship Act 2004, Land Act (Cap 132, Probate and Administration Act (Cap 16) and to the extent that it will not allow for same sex marriages or abortion in the Kingdom.

The Cabinet decision of 6 March 2015 also gave a time duration for those reservations so that it “will be unlimited.”

The first move by Tonga to ratify CEDAW was in 2006 under Dr. Feleti Sevele’s Government, but because of the reservations, the ratification process was suspended.

In 2011, the government of Lord Tu’ivakano looked into the possibility of ratifying CEDAW but refrained due to claims that the United Nations would not accept the reservations.

Article 28, paragraph 2, of the Convention adopts the impermissibility principle contained in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. It states that a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.

Despite the fact that the Convention does not prohibit the entering of reservations, other State parties may challenge those that challenge the central principles of the Convention.

States which ratify the convention are legally bound to eliminate “discriminatory practices” against women, and are urged to incorporate gender equality into law.
The Officer in charge of the Regional UN Human Rights Office for the Pacific, Satya Jennings, insists that once Tonga has undergone the actual ratification process, it should bring national legislation in line with “international standards.”

Ms. Jennings said: “The UN Human Rights Office based in the Pacific would hope that could be retracted and that the Government would ratify CEDAW without reservations in order to guarantee the full protection and all the provisions under the convention which would expand the protection of women’s rights.”

In the meantime, the Government of Tonga has emphasized the fact that ratification was subject to Tonga’s laws, which may restrict some of the more controversial aspects of the convention, such as succession to the throne and nobility, abortion and same-sex marriage.

An advocate for CEDAW, women activist ‘Ofa Guttenbeil-Likiliki of the Women and Children Crisis Centre, says the process is a mess because of the Government using terms such as abortion and same-sex marriage, which she says, are not referred to in the convention.

She said: “From the get-go the communication of the government agreeing to ratify CEDAW has been somewhat based on a lot of misconceptions, hence the reason why CEDAW has probably become the most debated issue in the political arena and also at the ground level. I haven’t seen anything like this since the move towards democracy.”

Both Samoa and Fiji, Tonga’s closest neighbors, have ratified CEDAW; Samoa in 1992 was the first Pacific Island nation to do so; and Fiji in 1995. There are no provisions in the Samoan constitution, which makes international agreements binding on Samoa. The principles of the Convention however, are well enshrined in Samoa’s constitution, and women asserting and protecting their rights can use these as tools.

Both Samoa and Fiji have their own land laws, and so far there has not been any national debate concerning women’s rights and the land laws. Furthermore, abortion and same-sex marriage are not legalized in these island nations, and Tonga may not have to entertain fears their local laws may be threatened by an international convention like CEDAW.

I recently gained a scholarship to study a Certificate IV in Community Development at the Australia-Pacific Technical College and I feel so excited and privileged to be part of this course, and to be undertaking my work placement at the Pacific Institute of Public Policy.

My own back ground in working with communities is diverse with a focus on Peace and reconciliation, Gender Equality and Women in leadership and decision making.

As you will know, the Solomon Islands suffered through a civil war between 1999-2003, fought mostly between militants from Guadalcanal and Malaitans who had settled in Honiara and around Guadalcanal island. Guadalcanal militants wanted their kastom land back and were worried about the many Malaitans living there, some of whom were squatters, others of whom had genuine leases.

After the war, In 2007 a reconciliation ceremony was organised by the Ministry of National Unity Peace & Reconciliation at Peochakuri village, South Guadalcanal constituency. I was also in the ceremony not as an official, but as a citizen of that particular constituency and as a Gender Advocate. The women were not participating or recognized in the official program. They had no opportunity to express their emotional feelings to their government, as the Prime Minister was the guest of honour. The women’s participation was to deliver traditional garland to the official guests, and they were dressed in their traditional costumes, but were half naked. My question was – is that the only strength that women have?

I am proud of my cultural norms, but I would like to have a woman representative amongst the official guests, dressed according to custom. The women approached me to see if I could negotiate for a change in the program so that that women could be represented, allocated a time and have a voice to deliver their thoughts.

I prepared a media statement that highlighted my disappointment in the women’s participation in the peace ceremony. The statement came out in the media (Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporations (SIBC) on 1st January 2008.

Then the government of the day offered me a position at the Ministry of National Unity Peace and Reconciliation. I started with the Ministry in February 2008 as a Senior Peace and Reconciliation Officer. My job was to make sure that women were participating in the peace process. I was involved in assisting the Provincial Liaison Peace and Reconciliation Officer in organising reconciliations at the macro and micro levels.

In 2010 I was employed with the Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commission as the Assistant Exhumation officer. The purpose of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is to ‘address people’s traumatic experiences during the five-year ethnic conflict on Guadalcanal (1999–2004)’. Its goal is to promote national unity and reconciliation.

My specific role in the Commission was in the section that was responsible for the reunification of remains. As you can imagine the Exhumation of remains is a process that ends up with very painful and emotional feelings for all involved. Training for Exhumation officers, Forensic (Police officers) and the Solomon Islands Truth and Reconciliation Commissioners involved understanding the complex and sensitive nature of exhumation.

The process involved an invitation to relatives for a meeting to prepare them to understand and accept the process of exhumation. Also to let them know that we (SITRC) respect cultural procedures and that the SITRC was enacted in parliament in 2008 with a time frame of completion. The SITRC engages two qualified counsellors to do the healing process, as relatives receive counselling as part of their healing process.

One of my roles was to do grave mapping on the southern part of Guadalcanal Province, where most of the people were killed and buried. Before and after the grave mapping a cultural procedure must be introduced to calm their emotional reactions. Some are mass graves where there is more than one person in the grave.

In a village a mother came to express herself emotionally that she wanted her husband’s body returned in full; she got married to him in full and not just to the head alone.

The Commission worked with multiple stakeholders such as:

• International Expertise
• DPP
• Police (Forensic)
• NGOs
• Solomon Islands Christian Association (SICA)
• Relatives (victims)
• Perpetrators

I have a strong belief in the rights of women to have a voice in decision making, especially since most of the Solomon Islands follows a matrilineal land system. Solomon Islands has three women only in parliamentary positions. Consequently in 2010 I stood for Parliament in the election in South Guadalcanal constituency and was unsuccessful, however I intend to stand again in the next election in 2018.

Over the next five months I hope to be able make a positive contribution to pacificpolicy.org and gain new knowledge and insights to inform my work and that will make a difference in the Solomon Islands.

I will write more around women’s issues and the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission that is doing much to help heal the wounds we suffered during the war.

The Pacific Institute of Public Policy was commissioned by the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Pacific Regional Office to implement phase one of its gender equality and political governance baseline community panel survey in Vanuatu in the early part of 2010. The survey investigated the extent and level of participation in formal political activities, knowledge and understanding of democracy and citizenship, and perceptions and attitudes towards women’s political participation.

The findings demonstrate there is overwhelming support for more women in parliament in Vanuatu.

Less clear is how this can be achieved. It is also evident that there is room for more and better targeted civic education.