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.

It is one thing to have a change of government, but it is another thing altogether to bring changes to the system and to change how things are being done; changes to policies, legislations, and practices.

It was Albert Einstein who said: “Insanity is when you do the same thing over and over again, and expect different results.”

An unbending bureaucracy

Reformers who take over the reigns of government are often confronted with an unrelenting and stiff bureaucracy that refuses to do anything different from what it has been doing for decades.

In fact the bureaucracy dogmatically sticks to tradition as its guiding light to anything and everything it does. The bureaucratic system makes it an important duty to resist the facilitation of change.

The view from the traditional bureaucratic body is that changes could bring instability, never mind about improvement to something that may not be working well at all.

The argument is that if changes are to improve the state of things, there must also be stability – or guarding the way things had always been – to the system.

It is no wonder that some reformers of the past have found it necessary to overhaul the system, and in some cases “overthrow” the existing bureaucracy and replace it with another one more conducive to carrying out what they want done.

It is often a case of leadership doing the ‘right thing’ colliding with a bureaucracy just doing things the ‘right way’.

But there is nothing wrong with doing the right things the right way, as long as the so-called right way does not hinder doing the right things.

Reformers sometimes complain that it is hard to work with a bureaucracy that is overly concerned with doing things the right way, that it does not give much care as to what is actually being done.

A case in point is what is happening in the Kingdom of Tonga, whose reformist government came into power only six months ago. Although much has been accomplished so far in such a short time, there are obvious tensions that have arisen between the reformist governors and the existing bureaucracy.

One of the high performing ministers of the government has often had a run-in with the bureaucracy.

The complaint from the bureaucracy has been that this minister is too much in haste in carrying out his duties, at the expense of the necessary processes. He apparently does things like starting out a project before he applies for the procurement – the process of obtaining funding as budgeted – for the project.

The minister argues that the “procurement process” which is carried out by the Ministry of Finance is often late in responding to the need.

He explains it this way: “If a child falls into the water at the wharf, we must jump in and rescue the child immediately… because it is an urgent matter. If we wait the child may lose its life.”

“Before we do anything to rescue the child, if we stand around to conduct an inquiry into who the parents of the child are, and how he fell into the water, and who may have been responsible, we will be too late to rescue the child.”

He added: “we must rescue this child immediately as a matter of urgency, and then we can conduct the inquiry into the details of who he may be later; that way we save his life first.”

On the other hand, the minister’s critics have pointed to the fact that the minister must in all cases apply the right processes so that no laws or statutory requirements are violated.

The civil service in any country constitutes the eyes, ears, hands, and feet of government. The civil service carries out the execution of government decisions, and the implementation of policies.

It is vital to note that the civil service that served previous governments is essentially the same civil service that serves the new and existing government.

A change in government promises changes (as promised by during a campaign) to what it will do for the people, and the policies it will carry out.

And so changes to the government usually involves a change in leadership, who in turn bring changes to policies and practices to be carried out during its term of government.

But here is the trap. Changes can take place in terms of who is the prime minister and who are the ministers of the different departments and ministries, but nothing will really make a difference unless there are clear changes to the policies and practices of government, and changes to those who carry them out ‘in the engine room of the ship of government.’

Using the illustration of government being a ship, we can change the captain and officers, but unless we give clear directions as to where the ship is sailing, and also make sure the people operating the ship are trained and equipped to carry out the orders of the new captain and officers, there will be problems.

The problems could be that by the time new policies and new practices are implemented, the term of government may already be over. Thus, it is not only important to have a new government reformist in its policies, but that there is a civil service equipped with the necessary knowledge and tools to facilitate the work of reform.

There are very few places in the pacific where this is taking place. The nations that experience the unfortunate changes to government in so many votes-of-no-confidence do not necessarily bring change.

The ship is still heading in the same direction, but despite changes at the top, the crew is carrying out the same duties with very little change to their performance, and thus the outcome produced is the same.

A challenging culture

Institutional bureaucracy often reflects the culture it finds itself in. This is so much truer in the Pacific than most other places. The reason being, is that nations of the Pacific are very steeped in culture, and each of their cultures are not just part of the material cultures of the region, but more so are practiced patterns of behavior rooted in unique belief systems.

The culture of a Pacific nation becomes the basis of identity, and as such, culture is often defended passionately as if one’s life depends on it.

In Samoa, we have the Faa-Samoa (the Samoan way) or the Faka-Tonga as in Tonga. The Fijians too have the Fijian way of doing things, and not to comply is to break protocol with their traditions.

As one Samoan chief stated: “There are three ways of doing things – the right way, the wrong way, and the Samoan way.” Then he added: “The Samoan way is of course the best way!”

As all cultures are, they constitute the behavioral patterns that form the fabric of social intercourse.

Culture governs how we relate to one another. Culture provides the legitimate framework by which we conduct our relationships with others.

It informs the protocols we hold to in everything we do socially.

Culture brings about a sense of formality and continuity to what is otherwise a fluid conduct of our relationships, personally and corporately.

But culture can also be a stumbling block in a society attempting to reform itself.

Reformers often find themselves in tension with cultural norms. There are very few cultural practices in the Pacific that cannot be legislated against.

Almost every Pacific island nation has a cultural practice that had to be abolished as a result of reform, which included the establishment of the rule of law.

In 1862, slavery was abolished in Tonga by a decree of King George Tupou I who was a Christian reformer. He drafted legislation pronouncing ‘emancipation’ to all slaves in Tonga.

There were those who opposed his reformist action, but in the end he liberated Tongan society from slavery.

Despite this act of emancipation, the practice of slavery took many years to eventually cease as people – chiefs in particular – were still holding on to attitudes and behaviors that advocated slavery.

One of the things reformers find it hard to reconcile in the Kingdom of Tonga, for example, is a law which grants a salary to the nobles, not because of any performance or work they do, but just because they hold a noble’s title.

An annual stipend of about $10,000 pa’anga a year is awarded to every noble in Tonga. There is no just reason why they should receive such pay, but in a culture of entitlement for leaders, not too many people in Tonga question it.

Some would argue that there are opportunities for reform on many issues in Tonga, especially now that it has its first democratically elected ‘commoner’ prime minister in ‘Akilisi Pohiva. One such issue that I will address in my next blog centers on women’s rights and the struggle to pass CEDAW legislation.

It was the first time for the two Pacific leaders to meet as prime ministers. They established a warm friendship that ensured cordial and frank discussions on a number of issues concerning the two neighboring countries.

Both leaders have embraced change as the way to move their countries forward in terms of development. But the reforms they sought have not been easy to implement, particularly when they touch socio-religious features of society.

Mr Bainimarama had effectively altered Fijian Society from a historical orientation to one that safeguards the rights of the indigenous people and their interests, and moved Fiji to the current realities of a multicultural society. But he is far from reaching his goal, as his main opposition in Parliament is the indigenously driven Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) led by the fiery Chief of Rewa, Ro Teimumu Kepa.

The dismantling of the Council of Chiefs by Prime Minister Bainimarama and the restrictions he placed on the Methodist Church Conference were two actions the indigenous people of Fiji had objected to, but the Commodore insisted he had to remove the political power of the Chiefs, along with the political influence of the Methodist Church, so that Fiji could move forward as a multicultural society. Both were institutions that strongly backed the interests and the rights of the Indigenous Fijian.

There is one thing though that most Fijians have accepted irrespective of their political persuasion: they are on a pathway of change, and that pathway seeks the transformation of Fiji into a multicultural society.

To keep constructing Fiji against this on-the-ground reality of multiculturalism will only multiply socio-political problems, and the past decades have proven this to be so.

Some have reasoned that Fiji is on a pathway that is irreversible in spite of the fact that they still have much to contend with in terms of sorting out indigenous issues, especially land ownership and a special place in the political architecture of Fiji.

Prime Minister Pohiva returned to Tonga feeling encouraged that he had established a fresh relationship with the Fijian leader, and that he had effectively shifted the Tonga-Fiji regional diplomatic relationship to a new level.

Prime Minister Pohiva has been the major force in Tonga over the past three decades after leading a movement that called for the democratization of the Tongan society – a society whose political and social powers had been dominated by the royal family and nobility for centuries.

But change, or at least the call for it, has become the new normal in Tonga. Tonga’s ruling elite is not as resistant to change, and people are generally in support of it, especially when it comes to the way Tonga is being reconstructed into a more equitable and vibrant development movement. One of the major features of this emerging social construct is the recognition and engagement of women whose participation is needed if any social movement is to be successful.

What became apparent at the Pohiva-Bainimarama discourse is the setting of a new course in the way Pacific countries are willing to carry out diplomatic relations. They are applying the Pacific Way in which leaders can talanoa – talk, discuss, dialogue, exchange ideas – without necessarily highlighting opposition on matters they differ on.

A good example is the way Tonga and Fiji have each made a stand on the West Papua issue: Mr Pohiva strongly supports a Free West Papua. Mr Bainimarama takes the position that West Papua is part of Indonesia, and Fiji maintains a close relationship with Indonesia.

The president of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, has visited Fiji on a couple of occasions. Likewise, Mr Bainimarama is keeping close ties with Indonesia. It is reported that Mr Widodo may be sympathetic towards the West Papua plight, more so compared with previous presidents. This was demonstrated in the recent releasing of West Papuan political prisoners, almost at the same time that executions were carried out on Australian drug dealers in Indonesia.

Obviously the West Papua situation has not been discussed in the Pohiva-Bainimarama dialogue, although their meeting was conducted at the venue of the Pacific Leaders Regional Green Growth summit, where most of the Melanesian delegates have been very vocal in their support of a free West Papua.

The traditional conduct of diplomacy in the Pacific has been bent on Western ways of doing business – open negotiation, frank to the point of being oppositional if there are differences, and seeking to achieve immediate results.

Tonga is embarking on a whole new direction in foreign policy. Previous administrations have treaded the familiar pathway of building a foreign policy that follows a Western architecture in which Australia and New Zealand, Great Britain, Europe and the United States have become the focus of engagement.

But in recent decades, Tonga has established development partnership with Asian countries such as China, Japan, India, and South Korea. This ‘new partnership’ is faring well for Tonga, especially in terms of a lot of Chinese grants and loans for development.

Tonga will continue to tread the same traditional pathway of doing foreign affairs, and will become more and more engaged with Asian countries, but a new direction in doing foreign relations is being embraced to run parallel with the more traditional and well-beaten path of diplomatic relations of previous decades.

The Pohiva Government has chosen this new pathway to build regional diplomatic relations that would lead to the doors of Pacific neighbors – and especially to Melanesian countries – Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji.

On his return to Tonga, Pohiva also spoke of a possible visit to Tahiti, and also to Samoa, in his quest to establish close ties with his Polynesian neighbours. The Pacific engagement – Pacific way, is the pathway of the future for Tonga’s foreign affairs.

But what does Tonga expect to benefit from its new policy on foreign affairs?

What does solidarity with other Pacific countries mean for Tonga, as well as the countries of the Pacific?

And isn’t there solidarity already as most, if not all Pacific Island countries belong to Pacific Islands Forum (PIF)?

Does the formation and presence of the Pacific Island Development Forum (PIDF) speak maybe of the lack of solidarity there is in PIF among Pacific Island states? Or is it just an extension of the growing need for Pacific nations to determine what and how they want to develop their economies?

Obviously there is more to diplomatic relations than just a warm Pacific good will towards each other. Tonga’s move to be closer to Fiji and to Papua New Guinea has economic implications.

PNG’s emerging new leadership, represented by Oro provincial governor Gary Juffa, a Member of Parliament and Governor for Northern Province, uttered to Tonga’s Prime Minister in Fiji, as a matter of fact, that if PNG’s wealth is properly managed, all the Pacific Islands should be beneficiaries in its rich resources of gas, petroleum, and forestry products.

Those who are members of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) believe this to be possible, and they intend to carry out cooperative efforts among their nations to develop their ‘rich natural resources’ into a resource bank for all Pacific Island Countries.

If this is not the Pacific way, then what? Maybe other leaders might want to follow the Bainimarama-Pohiva model of diplomacy. It may have its benefits.

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.

He has a team of 17 candidates, himself included, and standing for all 17 seats reserved for ‘People’s Representation’ through his political party called the Democratic Party of the Friendly Islands.

This is the second election under the newly reformed system of government that was launched in 2010 as a “more democratic” system.

The multi-awarded political leader, most known for his tireless effort to make Tonga more democratic in the past 30 years, might just be Tonga’s next Prime Minister.

He would become the first Prime Minister to be elected by the people. The current Prime Minister, Lord Tu’ivakanō is a nobles’ representative. He was elected by 33 of the country’s nobles, and is one of 9 nobles in Parliament. He was not elected by the people.

Even though the 2010 election was more democratic in the sense that all members of Parliament were elected either as people’s representatives or nobles’ representatives, there is yet to be a Prime Minister selected by Parliament who is elected by the people as a people’s representative.

Pohiva’s party claim that if they have the majority to form a government, and Pohiva becomes the prime minister, it would be the first “government of the people” in Tonga’s history.

Pohiva is Tonga’s longest serving Parliamentarian. But his political genius is more suitably demonstrated by his ability to build a resilient peoples movement and has won unrelenting support among the people of Tonga.

He had the largest number of people’s representatives elected in 2010, 12 out of the 17 seats for People’s Representation.

The problem he faced in 2010 which prevented him from forming a government was the 9-noble seats in parliament that are not elected by the people. They are the 9 representatives elected by the 33 nobles, while over 40,000 voters out of Tonga’s 108,000 populations elect 17 seats.

The five representatives who were not part of Pohiva’s team crossed the floor to join the 9 nobles, and thus had the majority to elect the prime minister and form government.

This failure to get the majority to form a government in 2010 was viewed generally as a major setback for the pro-democracy movement. Pohiva and his group, instead of being “the government of the people”, have continued to be in opposition for the past four years.

Pohiva is determined not to have a repeat of the 2010 fiasco. He has never been in government (except for a brief 2-week stint as Minister of Health in 2011), and he has been in opposition far too long. That is why he has assembled a 17-member team whereby each one stands as a candidate for each of the 17 electoral districts. They have been meeting regularly since May to formulate their policy vision, mission and manifesto.

No other party in Tonga has been able to organize and declare their candidates so early. They are also the only ones that have fielded candidates for all the districts of Tonga.

As Tonga faces its parliamentary election in coming days, Pohiva and his team, according to the political pundits, are the front-runners. That means that if all 17 candidates of Pohiva’s team are elected, the pro-democracy party will definitely form the next government. In fact, all Pohiva needs to have a majority is for 14 of his candidates to win. That will give them the majority to elect the prime minister and form Tonga’s next government.

There are 106 candidates registered and vying for the 17 people’s representatives’ seats. The 26-seat parliament also has the 9 seats assigned for nobles, and they are in a sense “a party.”

There were 145 candidates in the inaugural democratic election of 2010. The decline in numbers this year, according to political observers, is due largely to a loss of hope by many because they really did not see much difference in the post-reform government, compared to that before the 2010 reform.

Pohiva and his team have promised to “complete the reform” that started in 2010. By this they mean the 2010 reform was not completed, as they want everyone in Tonga’s parliament to be “elected by the people”. They also want everyone in cabinet, including the prime minister to be elected by the people. One of the key changes they are pushing for is the election of noble seats by the people, if parliament continues to retain specially assigned seats for noble representation.

16 of the 106 candidates for this year are women. This is the largest number of women to stand in any election in Tonga’s history. But only one of those is a candidate for the pro-democracy party: Sipola Havili Halafihi, who is a high school teacher from Tongatapu district 7. Recent polling reveals her as the frontrunner in her electorate.

With just several days before the election, Pohiva’s party looks set to form the next government. They could win all of Tongatapu’s ten seats, the two seats from Ha’apai, and also one each from ‘Eua and Niua. That makes up 14 seats, and that is a majority.

According to the unofficial polling, only the 3 seats from the northern islands of Vava’u are still very close to call. If these are won by the pro-democracy party, that would be a landslide overall, as Pohiva and his party would have won all the 17 seats for people’s representatives.

But there are some who seriously doubt this will happen. Despite Pohiva’s popularity, there are those who are opposed to his hardline democratic stance, as well as his insistence that corruption must be stamped out of government.

There are traditional leaders and prominent members of Tonga’s elite who fear that Pohiva’s reforms could bring too much change to Tonga, while those at the top stand to be the biggest losers.

But Pohiva’s message and movement appeal to the common people, especially to those who believe as he does, that good governance is the one hope that will lift Tonga in relation to economic and social development.

“Lack of natural resources is not an issue for Tonga; lack of good governance is,” claims Pohiva.

He pledges to be a ‘government of the people’ that will place good governance as the highest priority, along with transparency, accountability, and a firm stand against all forms of corruption.