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.

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.

In a matrilineal decent system, a person’s ancestry is traced or identified through the mother’s lineage. Property and power are also inherited through the mother. But, there isn’t much difference in the role women in matrilineal systems can play in conflict resolution compared to that in a patrilineal system. However, experience shows that in matrilineal systems, a woman’s voice can be respected in the height of a tension. In a tribal war or a family argument, you will often hear both men and women use women’s names to calm a situation, for instance, “olsem sista blo yumi tufala nao bae iu faet!”

I come from Guadalcanal, one of the five provinces in Solomon Islands that actively practices a matrilineal land tenure system. I am also a distant relative of Harold Keke, the warlord and leader of the Guadalcanal Revolutionary Army, and also the most notorious rebel leader in the Solomon Islands. As the war went on, I sought to establish communication with Harold Keke. I managed to find my way out and eventually I was able to speak to him from Honiara. I informed him that a group of us women were hoping to meet with him in person. He agreed that we could go.

We felt that if we could speak to him in person, he would listen to us and stop the lawlessness that was going on at that time. So in the height of the ethnic tension, I travelled to Peochakuri village in the southern part of Guadalcanal to meet him. The trip consisted of five women: Aunty Prudence Chasi, late Susan Kukiti, Gladys Robo, late Grace Manea and myself. Late Grace Manea was from Malaita province. The conflict was between the people of Malaita and the people of Guadalcanal.

On arrival, we found out that we were not allowed to go ashore. We were told that we had to go through security, which meant we had to be checked by militant commanders. We waited for two long hours in the boat. It wasn’t easy waiting in a floating boat.

After two and half hours, the chief commander finally arrived. He informed that Harold Keke was not available, but that he would meet us the following day.

We now had to find somewhere to sleep for the night. A sister of mine approached me and told me she couldn’t have us sleep or stay at her place as she feared for her safety. At first, I couldn’t make out what she was saying as she wasn’t speaking loud enough for fear of being reported to the warlord. She told me to speak to my uncle’s caretaker and ask his permission to spend the night at his place. I did as I was told. It got a bit more frightening when a few women came and told me that they didn’t know what was going to happen to us.

At about 9:45 a.m the next day, we met with the warlord at Inakona village where he and his followers were based. It was a real challenge to go and talk to the warlord; he had so many followers and he owned high-powered weapons that his men carry around with them, even in the church when they attend prayer meetings. The place looked like an army base. Hostages were also kept there, many of them were church and community leaders. Also there were men who were in charge of the corporal punishment. It was quite terrifying but we felt that our message was very important and it had to be delivered. We were confident that being mothers, and coming in peace, Harold Keke would respect our voice.

Our team negotiated for him to prioritise and ensure the safety of the women and children of Guadalcanal in the conflict. He agreed. He also acknowledged the fact that both militia groups were now in a no-trust relationship and that a negotiation situation between the warring parties had to be reached.

We spent four days at his place before returning to Honiara. We were putting together our report to present to the Solomon Islands Christian Association (SICA) when news broke out that a team of 10 mercenaries from Kwaio in Malaita who had gone over to search out Harold Keke had unfortunately been caught and killed by Keke and his men. This was just immediately after our visit. Shortly afterwards, Harold Keke surrendered.

Image: An IFM guerilla at a waterfall in the Moro Movement area, Weathercoast of Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, 1999.

The goal to influence the way political parties choose their candidates in Papua New Guinea is set to go before parliament in the coming weeks. If the Bill is considered favourable by the male-dominated 9th parliament of Papua New Guinea the existing laws will be amended before 2017 so that political parties in choosing intending candidates must consider a percentage of women as fully endorsed contenders. This means that by law 10% of candidates nominated by registered political parties must be women endorsed and financially supported as any male candidate, in the extravagant and regularly explosive process of national parliamentary elections in PNG.

The equal participation of women and men in public life is one of the key concerns of the 1979 United Nations Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) of which Papua New Guinea is a signatory. The under representation of women in parliament is central to the international community’s push for this obligation to be ratified by member countries whose histories of equitable representation have been weak. Papua New Guinea has ratified the CEDAW convention but effective implementation and inadequate reporting pose challenges for the aspirations of the resolution.

It is widely accepted that 30% representation of women parliamentarians ensures critical mass – anything less may risk the loss of momentum in the attitudes of the voting public regarding the viability of having more women in parliament.

If the Bill is passed and brought into law in PNG a few things would need to change. For example, if a registered political party is endorsing 80 candidates, under the new laws that party would need to endorse 8 women in 8 separate open or regional electorates.

But 2 female members of PNGs parliament have expressed views questioning the thinking behind the planned changes to law. Hon. Delilah Gore, PNGs Minister for Religion, Community Development and Youth, herself a recently elected MP, suggests that basic preconditions exist for all intending candidates irrespective of gender. Minister Gore’s view is that the law disadvantages political parties and fails to allow women to prove that they are capable leaders first. Gore who claimed victory over the Sohe Open electorate in PNGs 2012 parliamentary elections says ‘women should demonstrate true leadership before they are mandated by the people.’ But the view that entry conditions into political life for women is impartial in PNG is being disputed by one community representative who is optimistic that the reforms could be the beginning of a cultural shift.

Port Moresby Youth Leader Stanley Arako thinks the proposed additions to the current law on political parties and candidates would allow women to ‘establish their own stronghold and even push to outnumber men in the hausman’ (a reference to parliament) increasing the likelihood for more women to be represented in PNGs male-dominated legislature. But while laws can regulate behaviour within institutions such as political parties, attitudes of the voting population towards overall leadership criteria remain elusive. After 8 general elections since independence in 1975, only 6 women have successfully claimed victory. Delilah Gore was one of three women who beat impossible odds to be declared a Member in the same parliament in 2012.

Getting more women into parliament will rely on institutional reforms such as the ones proposed here by Dr Alphonse Gelu, PNGs Registrar of Political Parties. As the engineer of the proposal Dr Gelu makes an important distinction as to the intent of the new provisions that he says will impose new standards on the electoral choices for voters and regulate the discretion of political parties.

Money politics in the electorate in PNG is the game changer behind whether or not the laws will have the intended effect of increasing women’s representation in parliament. If we consider that on one level political power is sustained by a focus on wealth and its distribution in PNG and that politicians need capital to gain votes and reward supporters, then adding the missing voices of women to the mix could have the contrasting effect of diluting the ‘Bigman’ promise of rewards in exchange for an altered dynamic in the electorate under the leadership of women. More equitable representation in theory could stop the tide of entrenched patronage under the ‘Bigman’ system that continues to undermine institutional processes with the effect of crippling service delivery mechanisms and debilitating effective and efficient government. In practice unless the low numerical strength improves the participation of women legislators in discussions, parliamentary proceedings will continue to be weak. Gender-just and gender-sensitive policies will assist women to overcome the obstacles that their male counterparts rarely face, such as social and cultural barriers.

An injection of new laws more broadly focused on the legitimacy and attainment of political power through merit and policy driven agendas must also be considered in this space.

Could this be the beginning of a different game changer necessary to stop the tide of entrenched patronage in PNG?

If the Bill is passed into law the net effect could be that scouts of political parties looking to endorse viable candidates will be required by law to consider a selection of genuine female candidates with the greatest chance of claiming victory over their male counterparts. The legal provision will create 3 vital conditions: i) a natural selection process where leadership skills of female candidates are assessed and prioritized ii) a search for sustainable and feasible strategies to maintain electoral support iii) a nomination process that includes a more representative selection of potential leaders who reflect the configuration of PNG society.

Political parties that don’t nominate the statutory quota of women to contest elections will risk deregistration. If the penalty for non-compliance is cancellation from such a lucrative race will party leaders influencing their members on the salience of this bill be inclined to support it?

The point is there is a distinct absence of a culture of implementing deliverable and sustainable political party platforms and achievable policy strategies that are consistent with the underlying principles of transparency and accountability in the electorate that favor rational policy processes and ideals that transcend individuals and their whims.

Another youth leader in a Port Moresby suburb, Kaipu Kero Pirisa says no special advantage needs to be created for women as ‘the current level of competition in the general election was just and fair and should not be altered through legislation.’ Pirisa’s concern is that ‘financially weaker parties would simply be deregistered if women chose not to seek their endorsements.’ The impact of the new laws could be that by bringing provisional seats into law,the starting point for political parties to be viable contenders is one where women who form half of PNG society are considered viable natural nominees for leadership roles. This takes into account their diverse capabilities and the responsibilities they already implement in society.

The fluid nature of support for political parties in PNG hinges on the availability of electoral funds and the capacity for election campaigns to be run with great fanfare and with identifiable party leaders who have the appeal of celebrities. The changes to the OLLIPAC laws will need to withstand the pressure of money and the large sums of it that are already beginning to swirl around political circles in the lead up to the 2017 National Parliamentary elections.

The optimism of community leaders suggests that the reforms could pave the way for a cultural shift that would allow women to strengthen their base in the seat of power in Waigani.

When put to parliamentary debate at the end of May, setting this long term priority will need the genuine support of politicians, who must ensure that decisions taken are carried out without political interference. If the reforms are to be sustainable this policy agenda must be delegated to the highest political office, to be better insulated from political or electoral pressures.

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.