A non-traditional security threat in the Kingdom of Tonga: Democracy and Democratisation Featured
By Col.(Re’td) Siamelie Latu
A Personal Perspective
As I was reflecting on this topic and the events which have taken place on the Island Kingdom of Tonga, I realised that I needed to write a section on my personal perspective which has been my frame of reference in writing this paper.
Although born and raised in Tonga the awareness of the importance of my own culture and tradition has been more recent. Like most Tongans, I found the events of the 16th November 2006 shocking. This has led me to focus and reflect on the happy days of my childhood life and to appreciate the values which have been transmitted to me by my grandfather.
I was adopted by my father’s parents, Siosaia Latu and Salote Puipui Ki-He-Toa Latu. Siosaia was a school teacher and later became a Minister of Religion of the Free Church of Tonga. As a legacy adopted by King Taufa’ahau Tupou 1 from the Wesleyan missionaries, education (ako) and religion (lotu) became the treasures for all Tongans who made sure that these were passed on from generation to generation since the late 19th century. The rationale was that King Taufa’ahau Tupou 1 strongly believed that if his people were well educated and believed in the new religion brought by the Wesleyan missionaries it would provide Tonga with better citizens to help build a modern Tonga. I remember my grandfather saying to me, “Siamelie, manatu’i ko ho’o ako ke ke ‘aonga kia Tupou mo hou’eiki, ‘o ‘ikai ko au pe ko koe.” (Siamelie, remember, the purpose of your education is not to help me or yourself, but to be an asset for his Majesty’s country and its Chiefs). My grandfather had emphasised the values of faka’apa’apa (respect), ‘ofa fonua (patriotism, love the country), mateaki’i fonua (loyalty to one’s king and country), and lototo (humility). I have come to realise that these are the values that have kept Tonga socially and politically intact and stable for two centuries. This is despite the fact that Tonga adopted the Westminster model and merged it with its own traditional political hierarchical system. In addition, working in the military has helped to strengthen these values in my life.
As a result of the 16th November 2006 incident, I have asked myself the following questions. Firstly, why does the Pro-Democracy Movement (PDM) want to change the current political system if it has been able to keep Tonga stable for two centuries? Are their motives siokita (to reap personal interest) or ‘ofa fonua (love the country)? Is the current hybrid democracy good or bad? Secondly, in what way are the strategies used by the PDM detrimental or beneficial to the country or to the democratisation process of the structure of the government? Thirdly, How has the movement’s philosophies contributed to the riots?
Reflecting on these questions gave me the idea that the PDM is a NTST to Tonga. It has led me as a senior officer of the then Tonga Defence Services to undertake this study in order to identify where the challenges to security lie. It is important that analyses are made of the PDM in Tonga based on the views and perceptions of Tongans as viewed through their own cultural awareness.
In order to identify these challenges, this paper therefore, will examine and analyse how democracy and democratisation as NTSTs have contributed to the major political riots and instability in Tonga. “Western democracy and democratisation” are two different concepts. Both terms will be examined because they have implications for peace and security in Tonga. An analysis of Western democracy and the current Tongan traditional political system and their associated values will be conducted. The concept of “Mo’ui Faka-Tonga” (Tongan way of life) is presented to justify the appropriateness of the hybrid democracy in the Tongan context. Mo’ui faka-tonga is the yardstick by which the Tongan traditional social and political systems will be measured against Western democratic systems and values. Finally, the legacies of the 16th November 2006 crisis will be examined for their implications on national security.
Non-Traditional Security Threats in Tonga
In the context of Tonga the definition of non-traditional security threats (NTSTs) constitutes any natural or human cause in any combination of endogenous and exogenous forces without the involvement of the Armed Forces[1]. As well as the obvious threats posed by natural disasters human causes should be given much attention because they can also be a major security threat. Decision makers need to keep their minds open and analyse and evaluate these threats as part of a dynamic process. This avoids being extreme and simplistic about the issues. For example, part of what happened on the 16th of November 2006 in Tonga was the result of not being able to critically analyse the situation as to “who threatened” and “who are being threatened”.
NTSTs have become increasingly common in the Pacific region and the international arena. Such threats as faced by Tonga have much in common with those faced in other Pacific Island Countries (PIC). Threats should be analysed and dealt with in order of priority specifically as they affect the country. This is evident in the context of the South Pacific as NTST issues have been taken into account seriously and prioritised by other South West Pacific (SWP) islands according to their socio-political values and the posed order of security threat. For example, Fiji gives priority to their “identity as Fijian. The meaning embraces their land, their culture, their tradition, their language and their very soul”[2]. The Samoan Islands give priority to the “general ideal of Fa’aSamoa”’, expressing that Samoa existed before the arrival of the Europeans’[3]. The Solomon Islands gives priority to the “political aspects, namely the internal collapse of law and order”[4]. Papua New Guinea gives priority to “finding the right political systems and policies as well as dealing with the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS that has increased by 30 per cent each year since 1997”[5].
Once a threat is identified it must be analysed and assessed in order of priority so that the real security issues can be identified and made known to the public in the interest of public safety. This process is particularly important for decision makers in the Government because the deployment of Government resources is dependent upon it. The event of 16th November in Tonga has proved that the NTST for Tonga today is either democracy or democratisation. Both are two different things, as claimed by Agus Widjojo, “Democracy is one thing, Democratisation is another.”[6]. It is thus important that both are analysed in order of priority.
Democracy in the context of this paper refers to Western democracy and its associated values. It means that political power is authorised and controlled by the people[7]. This paper argues that the process of democratisation or struggle for democracy is the principle NTST that has ruined the social and economic prosperity of Tonga on 16th November, 2006. It is widely understood that the 16th November 2006 riot was initiated by the PDM. However, the youth also took an active role in aggravating the situation. As stated by Stephanie Lawson, “…a push for change toward democratisation may lead to violence”[8]. Encapsulated within this quotation is the crux of the problem in Tonga.
Origin and Development of the Pro-Democracy Movement
The Pro-Democracy Movement (PDM) was initiated in the 1970s by a loose association of students from the University of the South Pacific together with a few Government civil servants. Some of the controversial issues at the time included: “civil servants’ salaries, irregularities in the conduct of elections, the number of seats in the Legislature available for Commoners and inequities in the land distribution systems”[9].
These are an interesting set of grievances. Implicitly, the first one is certainly one of personal gain and is related to civil servants being members of the PDM. The second one is a real issue in the sense that if elections are not viewed as fair, then Tongan society will have problems. The issues of the number of seats in the Legislature and land distribution are especially pertinent in Tonga. How much representation should Commoners have? In addition, how should a very precious and scarce resource (land) be distributed among society?
It wasn’t until the 1990s that the label “PDM” was more formally referred to the members of the “Tonga Pro-Democracy Movement” (TPDM)[10]. This movement was founded in 1992 as a result of a national Convention held in the capital city (Nuku’alofa) to discuss constitutional alternatives and political systems for Tonga[11]. In 1998 the TPDM changed its name to “Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement”. This was the result of a decision by its members to expand its agenda to encompass “human rights.” The sole purpose of this name change was (and is) to attract international development and human rights agencies financial assistance. Despite the efforts and initiatives of the TPDM it was unsuccessfully operated. In 2005, after negotiation with government, the movement changed its name to “Friendly Islands Human Rights and Democracy Movement” (FIHRDM). In April 2005, the organisation again disbanded due to a number of controversial issues confronting its members. One of these issues was the differences in opinion as to who would be the best candidate for the 2005 Legislative Assembly election[12]. As a result, the Deputy Chairperson and a few other members were expelled. The expelled group then formed the “Tonga Democratic Party” (TDP) which incorporated under the incorporated Societies Act later the same year[13].
Despite the lack of coordination among members of the movement for democracy and the newly established TDP, they all worked towards one goal. This was the political reform of Tonga. The agenda for this reform was based on a number of reasons. They wanted and still want more peoples’ Representatives to make up the Government and for people to have more input into constitutional amendments and Government decision making. These amendments would give Commoners a greater share of the Monarch’s constitutional powers by allowing them to elect thirty members of parliament from among whom the Monarch can then appoint his Prime Minister and Cabinet[14].
At the end of the public servant strike in September 2005 there emerged another loose organisation which combined with the members of the PDM. Members of this newly combined group included individuals from the people’s Representatives to the Assembly, the clergy, teachers and the legal profession. Membership also included a number of people who felt personally aggrieved by some government policies. It also included a large group of aspiring politicians who had failed in numerous attempts to win a seat in the legislative assembly. It also included individuals who had lost a seat they once held and who saw the opportunity to stake early claims for seats in a reformed Parliament. This loose coalition formed what is now called the People’s Committee for Political Reform (PCPR). It was this PCPR that was responsible for the actions justified as part of the process of democratisation that resulted in the violence of 16 November 2006[15]. This was not the appropriate strategy to use.
It has long been the pride of the Tongan people to acknowledge political reform without violent conflict. This can be seen in the peaceful manner in which two of the landmark political reforms, the tau’ataina (emancipation edict) and the promulgation of the 1875 Constitution, were implemented by His Majesty King George Tupou 1.
Response by the Sovereign and Government
The response to 16th November, 2006 by the Government was the creation of the “National Committee for Political and Constitutional Reform” (NCPCR) on 12th October 2004. This was approved by the Legislative Assembly[16]. This response was not a consequence of the burning of the town on the 16th November 2006; rather it was a response plan to counteract the demands and petitions which had been made by the PDM. The purpose was for the committee to review the Constitution and to conduct discussions with the people of Tonga both at home and abroad. These discussions concerned not only political constitutional reforms and proposed laws but other changes as well to foster unity within the country. It was hoped this would, promote social and economic development for the people of Tonga. This process of discussion continues to be an important undertaking because it gives an opportunity to the people at home and abroad to contribute their views concerning the best formula to use to restructure the Constitution. The discussions provide a forum to identify and discuss what political reforms would take Tonga on the road to peace and prosperity in the next generation and generations to come. The NCPCR is comprised of a Minister chosen by the Prime Minister along with a Noble chosen from the representatives of the Nobles in the Legislative Assembly. There are also two members from the People’s Representatives in the Legislative Assembly and four members chosen by the National Committee who are known in the Tongan communities and who are not public servants. It also includes four reserved members from the same categories[17].
The methodology used to implement discussions by the National Committee was a democratic traditional Tongan custom which is “ Fofola e fala” (spreading the mat so that the people can talk)[18]. The National Committee conducted their meetings throughout the whole of Tonga. The meetings extended to and included the Tongan communities living in Fiji, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. The results of the report were to be submitted to His Majesty, together with the recommendations to the Legislative Assembly after a month from the last day of May, 2006[19]. Moreover, the report was made public through Tonga TV and via the Internet[20].
As a result, of this reconciliation process, there were diverse views represented by groups like church leaders, village communities, outer islands; and overseas Tongan communities in Fiji, New Zealand, Australia and the United States of America. There were those who believed that the current system should be maintained and those who believed that a process of political and constitutional reform should be conducted so that the people chose all members of the Legislative Assembly. The King would then appoint the Prime Minister and Ministers from the members whom the people had elected into the Legislative Assembly. Simultaneously, there were people who believed that the “fale” (house) was still in excellent condition and that there was no need to tear down the whole fale if there was only one single tinned roof leaking. Fale is used here to refer to the Legislative Assembly or the whole structure of government[21]. There were some people who supported the basic proposal that the present Constitution and the structure of the Government remain but the Government needed to improve how it did things for the good of families, “kainga,” (clan) churches, communities and all islands of Tonga. In fact this latter view is of the majority of the Tongan people. The rationale for this view is the reflection by people of the political landmarks and reforms made by King George Tupou 1. Despite the diversities of socio-political views, most importantly, the people understood through the fofola e fala that the ultimate goal was for unity and peace for the country.
The planned reform programme in accordance with the report of the NCPCR was to be conducted in four Phases and implemented in four different time periods: Phase One was implemented in 2006. The plan is to continue discussion and debate by members of the Legislative Assembly about the propositions within those chapters of the report. Phase Two is to be implemented in 2007. The purpose is to initiate the important and major task of implementing political, constitutional and economic principles based on the reforms of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Phase Three is to be implemented in 2008. Its purpose is to enact laws for reform. Phase Four is to be implemented in 2009 and the purpose in relation to the reform is for the work of the leaders of the Government, all the People and Nobles to travel on a road of unity for the good of the country[22]. The view expressed in this paper is that if the Government is given the time to continue with the plan in place, following up the Fofola e fala process, there is great hope that the political reforms demanded by the PDM will be achieved peacefully without further riots.
MORE TO FOLLOW
[1] Vijay Naidu, ‘The Oxymoron of Security Forces in Island States,’ in Security in Oceania in the 21st Century, Eric Shibuya and Jim Rolfe (eds), Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2003, p.25.
[2] Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, ‘Keynote Address – Governance in Fiji: The interplay between indigenous tradition, culture and politics,’ in Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific Islands, Stewart Firth (ed), ANU E Press, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 2006, p.291.
[3] Stephanie Lawson, Tradition Versus Democracy in the South Pacific, Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa, Cambridge University Press, UK 1996, p.151.
[4] Trevor H.B. Sofield, ‘Solomon Islands: Unity in Diversity – The end of Dream?’ in Australia’s Arc of Instability, The Political and Cultural Dynamics of Regional Security, Dennis Rumley, Vivian Louis Forbes and Christopher Griffin (eds), Springer, Netherlands, 2006, p.177.
[5] Ben Scott, Re-Imagining PNG, Culture, Democracy and Australia’s Role, Lowy Institute for International Policy, 2005, p.33.
[6] Agus Widjojo, Democracy, National Security and Foreign Policy, A paper presented in NDU/PACOM Symposium: Asia-Pacific Democracies: Advancing Prosperity and Security in Honolulu, Hawaii on June 8, 2005.
Http://www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/Pacific2005/widjojo.pdf (accessed 4 June 2007)
[7] Thomas Pogge, Achieving Democracy, Ethic and International Affairs, Vol 15 No.1 p.3.
[8] Stephanie Lawson, op cit., p.108.
[9] Ibid., p.101.
[10] For a full history of the development and membership of the PDM see the Tongan Government website.
Http://www.pmo.gov.to/artman/publish/printer_257.shtml (Accessed 11 July 2007.
[11] Report on the Convention on Constitution and Democracy in Tonga, November 24 – 27, 1992. HRDM website.
http://www.planet-tonga.com/HRDMT/Articles/Convention_92/Convention_92.shtml (Accessed 16 July 2007).
[12] Lopeti Senituli, (Press Secretary/Political Adviser to the Prime Minister), The Attempted Coup of 16 November 2006: p.1
Http://www.pmo.gov.to/artman/publish/printer_257.shtml (accessed 15 January 2007).
[13] Ibid., same website.
[14] James Kerry, Tonga’s pro-Democracy Movement, Pacific Affairs, Vancouver, Summer 1994, Vol.67, Iss,2; p.3 Http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=6161771&sid=9&Fmt=3&clientld=43274&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Accessed 15 January, 2007)
[15] Lopeti Senituli, op cit., p.3.
[16] Report of the National Committee of the Kingdom of Tonga for Political and Constitutional Reform (NCPCR) 31st August, 2006. p. 15.
http://www.tonga-now.to/Resource.aspx?ID=4506. (Accessed 9 April 2007)
[17] Ibid.,
[18] Fofola e fala is used as a tool of reconciliation particularly between two or more groups who are encountering very difficult issues and finding them hard to resolve. It is in using this strategy of reconciliation that parties are expected to open up and unravel whatever it is that causes their grievances.
[19] NCPCR Report, op cit., p. 19.
[20] The author and the general public observed the reading of the report by the Chairperson of the NCPCR (Dr. Halapua) to the Legislative Assembly whilst in session through a special programme broadcast by TV Tonga. The report is also available on the Tonga now website.
Http://www.tonga-now,to/Resource.aspx?ID=4506 (Accessed 22 June 2007).
[21] NCPCR Report, op cit., pp. 40-43.
