By Kevin Deveaux and Tim Baker
Parliamentary elections in the Pacific Island region have been disrupted by a series of political and social challenges in recent years. In 2014, the parliaments of Fiji and the Solomon Islands are experimenting with the implementation of more democratic electoral processes, inclusive of modified and revised electoral laws and enhanced public and civic access to their respective parliaments.
2014 elections are an important opportunity for both countries to more fully and equitably choose their elected representatives as part of a more open and democratic process. This process is not without challenges and this comparative case study addresses some of the challenges and opportunities for both countries during this current election cycle. There are also a number of common challenges facing these two countries and indeed many of the smaller island nations which collectively comprise the Small Island Developing States (SIDS). [1]
In the Solomon Islands a decade after a period of political upheaval and social unrest that resulted in the government’s request for direct Australian intervention to restore political stability and social order, [2] there is evidence of incremental stability on the political landscape. The electoral system was recently provided additional democratic structure through passage of the Electoral Integrity Act (2014) [3] at the closure of the 9th Parliament since full independence from Britain.
Fiji, which has been governed by an unelected government since 2006, recently held parliamentary elections under an electoral system based on an open, national list proportional representation system. This system is dramatically different from previous systems used in the country and is an attempt to address ethic divisions that have been entrenched in the country’s previous political system. Likewise, a series of political reforms enacted in Parliament may help foster a more democratic system of governance in this Pacific island nation.
The Solomon Islands is a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as head of state who is represented in the country by the Governor General. The national parliament is a unicameral legislature with a representative structure according to the Westminster system. General elections are held every four years utilizing the "first-past-the-post" electoral system. The country is divided into 50 single member constituencies, and elections are conducted with universal adult suffrage for any citizen over the age of 18 who is not a convicted criminal. Any citizen over the age of 21 can run either as a member of a registered political party or as an independent candidate. The last parliamentary elections for the 9th Parliament were held in 2010 and the next round of elections to determine representation for the 10th Parliament is scheduled for late in calendar year 2014. [4]
Since independence, there has been a demonstrated and incremental series of steps to counter the violence which resulted in political upheaval and ethnically motivated conflict. Beginning in 1997 with the election of Bartholomew Ulufa'alu as Prime Minister, a series of political challenges including a motion of no confidence, is primarily the result of an ongoing social conflict between the indigenous people of the main province of Guadalcanal (the Isatubu Freedom Movement/IFM) and the Malaitans (Malaitan Eagle Force/MEF), the latter group accused by the former of taking jobs and land rights from them. After at least 20,000 Malaitans were forced off the island, the MEF was formed. Utilizing illegal arms and in some cases arms excavated from WWII-era US Army bunkers on the main island, the MEF and IFM engage in open urban warfare. In June 2000, an attempted coup d’etat resulted in the MEF taking Prime Minister Bartholomew Ulufa'alu hostage. He was subsequently forced to resign and was replaced by Mannasseh Sogavare. A peace treaty in October 2000 was followed by a series of political transitions and continued social unrest with the eventual establishment, by the Government’s request, of an Australian-led peace-keeping mission and the creation of the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) in 2003. [5]
During the years of political and social unrest, democratic processes in Solomon Islands suffered. Parliamentary sittings were often brief and irregular. Attendance by Members of Parliament (MPs) was poor, and many of the key activities expected from Parliament including its primary legislative, representative and oversight functions were lacking. Through the ongoing effort of international organizations cooperating with the SI government and other institutions, reform has been incrementally instituted. This includes programs initiated by the UNDP through the cooperative parliamentary strengthening program, [6] public accountability through external watchdog organizations such as Transparency International which seeks to hold candidates and subsequently elected MPs accountable to the public, [7] and the most recent effort to establish a political party institutional structure and Electoral Code of Conduct in 2014. Likewise, the RAMSI development assistance program included components intended to enhance the democratic transition process while providing parliament and prospective MPs with electoral campaign assistance.
The cooperative RAMSI Parliamentary Strengthening Project was delivered in partnership with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). During three phases having started in 2010 and ongoing until 2015, the project seeks to enhance the procedures within the Solomon Islands National Parliament Office, improving the performance of Parliamentary Committees, enhancing the way Solomon Islands Parliament communicates and documents the work undertaken, and improving the Parliament’s corporate services. Results to date include:
In addition, international development assistance has focused on improving the capacity and function of the Solomon Islands Electoral Commission while seeking to enhance voter outreach, registration processes, and voter awareness of the issues relevant to their daily lives as part of the electoral campaign. Accomplishments to date include:
A nationwide Biometric Voter Registration System is being implemented for the 2014 elections which will ensure a new national electoral roll is in place for the 2014 national elections. [9] Nationwide parliamentary elections are set to take place on November 19, 2014.
Conclusion
While the process toward a fully-functional and democratic electoral system inclusive of broad representation and equal access to the people’s representative body known as parliament is very much ongoing in the Solomon Islands, there are a number of noteworthy successes evident since the period of post-colonial violence and upheaval. As in Fiji, there is a tendency towards tribal chiefs as traditional political leaders, especially on more isolated islands. However, the ongoing effort initiated in large part by the successive governments of the island—particularly over the past decade—has resulted in meaningful and potentially sustainable political and electoral reform.
Since its independence in 1970, Fiji has suffered from periodic interruptions in its constitutionally mandated democratically elected Government. Following two military interventions in 1987, democratic government was suspended until after the constitution was amended in 1990 and elections were held in 1992. The constitution was further amended in 1997. In 2000 there was a third military intervention that was overturned by the country’s Supreme Court in 2001, resulting in elections that same year.
In 2006, only a matter of months after national elections were held, a fourth military intervention was carried out that resulted in a suspension of democracy in Fiji until the recent election in September 2014.
Given this fragile nature of governance in Fiji, it is important to understand the drivers of this fragility. Though detailed analysis is limited, those that study Fiji are clear in stating that ethnic and religious divisions are the primary cause of the four military interventions and attempts to address this divide have resulted in the various constitutions that have been ratified since independence. Less defined is the socio-economic divide that underlines the ethnic divisions, for there are clear class tensions between Indo-Fijians (approximately 37% of the population) and Indigenous-Fijians (just over half the population of Fiji).
Observers of Fiji have noted these divisions as a cause of the fragility. Dr. Paul Buchanan, in an online assessment posted in January 2012, [11] noted two key reasons for the divide. First, there is a clear socio-economic divisions between rural and urban dwellers in Fiji, with a relatively high level of income and standard of living for those residing in urban centres, while those living in rural areas are bound to more traditional customs and less likely to have access to education and other social services. It is also important to note that most Indo-Fijians live in the urban centres and the vast majority of those living in rural areas are Indigenous-Fijian.
As noted by Buchanan, Indo-Fijians have become a mercantile class, while Indigenous-Fijians tend to work in government and the military. This has led to many disputes over the ownership of land and economic interests amongst the communities.
In addition, there is a long history in Fiji of a “warrior culture” in which tribal chiefs dominate. Until recently, the Grand Council of Chiefs was recognized as a constitutionally entrenched political entity, given their appointment to and dominance of the Senate. This dominance by strong, militaristic leaders may explain the willingness of the population to accept military intervention over democratically elected governments.
These drivers of fragility are important to understand as one considers the development of a new electoral system in Fiji, for it was past governments, elected along ethnic lines, that has been cited, in part, by military officers as their rationale for intervening in the democratic processes of Fiji.
In the intervening eight-year period between elections (2006-14), the Government of Fiji attempted to restructure the country to eliminate the factors that resulted in previous suspensions of democracy and to avoid the challenges that prevented the country from moving forward with its development.
The key indication of the desire for a new political system took place in August 2013, with the ratification of the Constitution of Fiji (2013). Where previous constitutions attempted to address the obvious fragility within the country by catering to a confessional system of politics – assigning seats in parliament based on ethnicity and proportionality – the 2013 document went in a different direction, resulting in a “one Fiji” approach.
In particular, the new Constitution of Fiji created an electoral system based on one national constituency, instead of either single member or multi-member constituencies that were the norm previously. It also required all political parties to submit one national list of candidates. This system of proportional representation is an “open” system, meaning voters vote for candidates and not parties when they cast their vote. This allows candidates who may wish to remain independent or who are further down on a party list to be elected where they have sufficient personal support.
The electoral system of Fiji is based on two laws. In 2013 the Government adopted the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Decree. [12] The Electoral Decree [13] followed this in March 2014. These decrees established the legal framework for the elections that took place later in September 2014. It also provided greater detail as to how the Government would redefine politics through the electoral system.
With the adoption of the Political Parties Decree, the Government of Fiji signaled a desire to have political parties that would meet minimum international standards and promote political harmony (vs. fragility). The decree imposed certain requirements on parties:
- the need for at least 5,000 registered voters as members. These members must come from all four regions of the country (Central Division; Northern Division; Western Division; Eastern Division); and
- maintaining branch offices in each of the four regions in the country.
- Promote national harmony and democratic values;
- Respect and promote human rights
- Ensure party elections are free and fair and internal affairs are transparent and accountable; and
- Not promoting religious or ethnic hatred
The Electoral Decree establishes the framework for the election of the 50 member unicameral parliament. [14] The Decree provides for a system in which there is a Supervisor of Elections who is in charge of the Fijian Elections Office, which is responsible for the registration of political parties and the implementation of elections, both general (once every four years and special (as required). The Supervisor and the Fijian Elections Office report to the Fijian Electoral Commission, which is responsible for the overall management of elections in Fiji.
The Fijian Elections Office must conduct its affairs in an open and transparent manner. It has certain guarantees with regard to financial independence, including the approval of one multi-year budget per election cycle.
Elections are conducted on one polling day for the entire country. Voters who have been registered are assigned a polling station to which they must attend to vote, unless they are using alternative voting methods, such as mail-in ballots or overseas voting. A Presiding Officer is assigned to each polling station (and an assistant, if necessary) that is responsible for the management of the voting on polling day. Each registered political party has the right to have one polling agent who has certain rights with regard to observing the activities at the station.
With regard to establishing an electoral system that prevents fragility, the system has certain aspects that address some of the drivers of fragility:
On September 17 2014 the people of Fiji voted for the first time under this electoral system. Only three political parties (and no independent candidates) received enough votes to surpass the 5% threshold. One political party – Fiji First – received nearly 60% of the total vote (rising to 62% when the non-threshold votes were discarded), allowing it to be allocated 32 seats in the parliament. The second party – the Social Democratic Liberal Party (SODELPA) – received 28% of the total vote (rising to 30% after discarded votes) and received 15 seats in the parliament. The remaining three seats were allocated to the National Federation Party (NFP).
Eight women were originally elected to the new parliament (5 – Fiji First; 2 – SODELPA; 1 – NFP). However, in Fiji the Speaker of the parliament is a non-MP and one of the Fiji First women MPs resigned from her seat to be elected Speaker (the first female Speaker in the Pacific Region).
The MPs in the parliament broadly reflect the ethnic diversity of the country, with Indigenous Fijians making up more than 60% of the MPs and Indo-Fijians making up 30% of the MPs. MPs come from all geographic regions of the country.
Conclusion
What conclusions can we draw from this first election under the new electoral system? First, the system resulted in a stable government with one party winning a majority of the votes and the seats in the parliament. [15] But with an opposition with more than one-third of the seats, the system has not allowed the domination of one political party.
Second, the election was conducted with almost no electoral violence or major incidents of campaign conflict. The parties generally abode by the Code of Conduct and participated fully in the election, including most parties having polling agents at most polling stations.
Third, what is key from the results is that the electoral system has established a parliament in which the diversity of the country is presented through a stable system with three parties being represented in the chamber. Given the ongoing rules for political parties under the Political Party Decree and provisions of the Standing Orders of the Parliament of Fiji, there is hope that the political system will promote a consensus amongst the various political actors and thus reduce the fragility that has to date been inherent in the previous political and electoral systems of Fiji.
[2] The Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI): http://www.ramsi.org/. Accessed November 5, 2014.
[3] Solomon Islands Electoral Integrity Act (2014)/PDF: http://www.parliament.gov.sb/files/legislation/9th%20Parliament/Acts/2014/Political%20Parties%20Integrity%20Act%202014.pdf. Accessed on November 5, 2014.
[4] See the official website for the Parliament of the Solomon Islands: http://www.parliament.gov.sb/index.php?q=node/124. Accessed November 3, 2014.
[5] See BBC SI Timeline: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15897585 and Government of Australia SI: http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/solomon_islands/solomon_islands_brief.html. Accessed on November 5, 2014.
[6] See UNDP Solomon Islands PSP: http://www.parliament.gov.sb/index.php?q=node/177. Accessed on November 5, 2014.
[7] Transparency International/Solomon Islands: http://www.transparency.org/whoweare/contact/org/nc_solomonislands/2/. Accessed on November 5, 2014.
[8] See RAMSI/SI, “Strengthening the Electoral System”: http://www.ramsi.org/works/machinery-program/. Accessed on November 5, 2014.
[9] Solomon Islands Electoral Commission website: http://www.siec.gov.sb/. Accessed on November 5, 2014.
[10] Some of the content of this part of the paper is drawn from earlier work by the author as part of report for UNDP Pacific Centre.
[11] 36th Parallel Assessments: http://36th-parallel.com/2012/01/13/fiji-country-overview/.
[12] Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Decree No. 4 of 2013: http://www.electionsfiji.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/PoliticalPartiesDecree20131.pdf.
[13] Electoral Decree No. 11 of 2014: http://www.electionsfiji.gov.fj/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Electoral-Decree-2014.pdf.
[14] Fiji has maintained a Westminster parliamentary system with a President, having nominal authority, being elected by the parliament.
[15] This is somewhat unusual for a national list electoral system. See: http://www.adamsmith.org/research/articles/the-impact-of-proportional-representation-and-coalition-government-on-fiscal.
Kevin Deveaux: A Canadian lawyer (LLB, 1989) and former parliamentarian (having been elected four times), Deveaux provides a practical perspective with regard to national politics and the engagement of citizens. He has worked for the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) in the Balkans and the Middle East. More recently Deveaux was UNDPs global Parliamentary Development Policy Adviser as part of the Democratic Governance Group based in New York. His work included the management of a global programme, including direct engagement with parliaments and parties in the Pacific Region and the Caribbean. In particular, Deveaux has spent significant time in Fiji in 2013-14, supporting UNDP in the re-establishment of the national parliament. Deveaux has also been engaged in electoral observation mission in Egypt and Palestine on behalf of NDI.
Tim Baker: Mr. Baker (MA, 1996) has been a global adviser on issues related to civil society, elections and political governance and civic engagement for 20 years. He has worked extensively in the Balkans, the Caucuses, Iraq and Afghanistan with the OSCE, NDI and the UNDP. He has worked with numerous NGOs focused on electoral process, election monitoring, and electoral supervisory body capacity-building. In 2013, he worked with the Liberian Elections Commission and the UNDP Elections Unit to research and draft an options paper for civic and political party engagement during the election cycle. Prior work includes research, writing, and editing on the ACE web portal. Baker worked with CDHRF (Kosovo) and ISFED (Georgia) to build internal capacity of these nationwide election and parliamentary monitoring NGO networks on strategic planning, staff capacity building, election monitoring training, and organizational sustainability. Most recently, he worked as a consultant for the UNDP in the Solomon Islands to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the parliamentary strengthening project in Honiara, Solomon Islands in preparation for the forthcoming parliamentary election.
