My Say
Does Democracy Work in the Pacific?
The Individualistic Cultures of Melanesia May Not Fit With Parliamentary Rule
A question now often put is: Does democracy work in the Pacific Islands? That is to say, Britain’s Westminster style of democratic government?
 |
|
|
This question arises in the region as its political leaders grope for reasons—but really for excuses—to explain the sad state of governance in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
It is not just in Melanesia. Differing shades of governmental incompetence, waste and corruption on the part of political leaders have reduced other countries as well.
Is the French system of democracy really best for the emerging self-administering governments of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Wallis and Futuna? They are all still fundamentally colonial.
Did the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau make a bad error in allowing the United States-style of government to be foisted on them?
Events in the past few weeks are evidence that France’s present, quite new style of government is by no means the best one for France’s disillusioned voters to continue with.
Look at the 50 years of chaos in Italy that the political style there has inflicted on Italians. There’s not a region in the world with systems of government that can be viewed without cynicism, raised eyebrows and a shrug—Britain included. However, some have obviously worked better for the good of the governed than others. Except for New Caledonia, a heritage of British colonialism has landed Melanesia’s former colonies with governments modeled closely on Westminster’s adversarial line; on one side of the parliamentary chamber a party with a majority, or parties combined in a coalition majority, eyeball minority parties that form the opposition.
After nearly 30 years of relative stability, Fiji is now descending the way of unstable and, hence, deeply unsatisfactory standards of government in Melanesia’s independent states.
The outcome of the Papua New Guinea general election in June is a matter for deep concern. There is every reason to predict that the grave deficiencies of political leadership that plague PNG will worsen unless the present Prime Minister, Sir Mekere Morauta, keeps office. He quite likely will not.
Indigenous Fijians enjoyed relative unity under the dominance of leaders of a more Polynesian outlook. These influences are now gone or diminished. Fijians have become more Melanesian, and thus more individualistic, in their outlook.
In Melanesia “individual” is a key word in more ways than one. From the moment he arrives at the top, a Melanesian leader has a position that is under attack from every side by individuals determined to oust and replace him.
Is Westminster style government suitable for Melanesia?
Perhaps it is all too suitable, because nowhere else in the Pacific do so many political parties form, and so many people strive as parties or individuals to be elected to parliament. Isn’t that what democracy all about?
In PNG’s June election more than 3,000 candidates fought for 109 seats. Most constituencies have scores of candidates. It is impossible to say how the election will go except to say that more than half the incumbent MPs will lose their seats and never be heard of again. History shows this to be the form in PNG, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and now, just a bit, also Fiji. Is this not a dismal display of democracy in action—or maybe an extraordinarily dynamic, one that is splendidly attuned to Westminster ways?
There is a good case for arguing that it is, but it is also the case that the mix of Melanesian culture and individualism and several hundred years of Westminster’s still quite feudally tinged practice produces a highly intoxicating cocktail.
Just one such concoction goes to the heads of PNG’s MPs, and half of them vanish, never to be heard of again, after each election. With less than 30 years of practice democracy behind them, it is quite unrealistic to expect the bulk of Melanesia’s politics to work at anywhere near the sophistication their former Westminster tutors aimed them for.
But there is existent a core just sufficient to keep the cowboys among them in check, just, but not always, while the processes of government grow slowly to maturity.
Melanesians are of rather more democratic bent than some give them credit for. Westminster can be adapted to become a blend for good governance more effective than the critical or disillusioned would now concede.
—Contact Robert Keith-Reid at: rkeith-reid@ibi.com.fj
