Democracy or Democrazy? [1]
Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 18:30. Updated on Tuesday, April 22, 2014 - 14:36.
Dear Editor,
I am grateful to contributors to the column from Tamafoa, Finau and Latu to Mangisi, Mahina, Haouli, Helu, Uata and recently Mariner for such enlightened discussions of the current state of Tonga. Working in a culturally diverse society like Australia, I have come across two groups whose problems seemed to be much more magnified than others: Firstly, those who have distinct culture, history, geographical locality and yet without a recognized state such as the Kurdish. Secondly, those with a recognized state and yet the outside influence in their internal affairs make it obvious that they are not in control, thus the puppet state, from Tibet to Panama and recently Iraq. It is therefore in this broad context of sovereignty that I would try if I could, to make a constructive contribution to the current discussion. A more subtle but modern and aggressive form of domination can be correctly call economic imperialism but with the international acumen for political correctness, the illusive term globalization emerged. My concern is that it would be sad to see Tonga as a modern paradigm of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I have repeatedly emphasized that the root of our problems is educational. Tupou I lamented about the issue ...masiva ‘ilo... during his reign. Futa Helu has always claimed that to be the case and established ‘Atenisi to rectify the problem; unfortunately he derailed this intellectual quest by succumbing to the politically revamped monistic view that one form of change takes priority over others. On that basis, I cannot put the blame for our demise on anyone else but ourselves. I agree with Dr. Mahina as far as that the dimension of the issues call for serious reflection. In addition, agree with Helu on the possible oversight in Mahina's analysis. However, our task is still to ensure that the conceptual foundations of the issue in question are clear and their bearing on each other defined by their relations become factual not assumptuous. Once we come this far, it is then unavoidable in discussion of human society and its conduct to search for fundamental propositions that underpin our thinking and deliberations throughout history and phases of civilizations. Thus, it is by necessity that interested parties should leave their political ambitions, self- interests, mundane state of affairs, egoism and so forth, and ventured into the domain of serious theoretical viz. philosophical deliberation on issues that encompass both the nature and direction of political change in Tonga. History is full of skeletons of countries that failed to create a neutral platform and time for such deliberation.
Analytical approach
The purpose of such endeavor on our part is to introduce a more analytical approach to the current debate. Such approach may curtail the current format of discussion with its ocean of hasty generalization, misrepresentation and historicism. The dualistic nature that the issues pertinent to the proposed change as portrayed by all strain of reformists (monarchy vs. democracy, government vs. people and so forth) in the current political debate in Tonga is an offence to our rationality. Unless some tenets of a realistic view of society are made to establish the holistic nature of the issue (CHANGE), the politicians and lawyers with their one-track mind will continue with this ...either this or that... mode of thinking to its sad predictable end. Hopefully, this would prevent the direction of future development of our society taken over by the educated savages, technocrats and untutored politicians produced by an education system so flawed in its fundamental tenets and yet dominant. Dominant because of the prevalent support afforded to it by mediocre and uncritical acceptance of some hypothesis based on simplistic model of human characters and related social norms and values. Wealth in relation to the economic doctrine of capitalism (free enterprise as mode for production of goods and services) with its overpowering instrument 'privatization', and consumerism (marketeering control of consumption of goods and services) are paradigm cases. Conceptions of equality in relation to two most contrasting and established political doctrines in modern times; on one hand is democracy (equality by representation/majority rule), and on the other is socialism (equality by sharing of means and outcome of production); And most recently, globalization in the context of free trade. Add on to all that the ...concept of human rights... and you will enter a world of hypocrisy, corruption, exploitation, greed and selfishness. The fact of the matter is, this is it, the real world of man.
However, the most pressing issue remains: Do we have the commitment and patience in terms of resource (people) and the willingness to create a platform for such high level debate and deliberation?
Banana Republic?
If we take the current debate over economic and political reforms in Tonga as a measure of things to come, then I have not seen anything to convince me that Tonga would become a stable democratic society, based on any of the models tabled so far. My concern is the urgency of the demand for political change by both the Pro-Democracy and its puppet the Public Service Association and most recently, the Freedom Committee. Every single one of them has indicated to the government, not only a period but also an implied ultimatum. I suspect from the nature of the political activities and what has been said so far that the interest of the people and the society (country) as whole is not the main issue any more, but the ego of those who pushed this political agenda has been surreptitiously placed at the front. It seems that the motive for the race is for whose name is to be placed in history books as leaders of the revolution or reform that turned Tonga from a monarchy to a republic. I will reserve the unavoidable prefix banana for later. In that respect, I cannot go past the absurdity of the PSA 60-70-80 and the Parliamentarians (PR) support for it and, the President of the Law Society demonstration. Wanting to be part of the race for recognition, he abandons his professional fold with so much to do including a professional review of the legal standing of political proposal so far tabled, and became a lone ranger for his own egoistic agenda. I believe he would not be the last.
While the social climbers take over the race for change, what we are waiting for is for these revolutionists to come up with any detail of how would these proposed system or changes benefit the society as a whole. What would be the expected difference in outcome between the current 3 representatives for Tongatapu and the 20 or so proposed? Although these proposals are not readily available for the public and interested parties for debate and analysis, I would like at this point to point out the most obvious flaw of such dualistic proposition. So far, the proposals seem to address every other aspects of change; firstly in terms of NUMBERS of representatives based on their induced dichotomy of government vs. people and, secondly in the transfer of power from one group to another with the most illusive concept of them all ...the PEOPLE.... The ironic nature of democracy is that the concept of representation often contradicts the principle of majority rule. If we employ the principle of majority rule as the basis for the change of the political system, then, Can anyone gives us an idea of the profile and social groupings of the Tongan society in the new regime? In addition, how would the concept of representation deals with the expected social grouping in the new system, if we are to avoid the contradiction mentioned? Will the new groupings remain satisfied with the umbrella term PEOPLE? Alternatively, some would prefer to formulate a distinction and claim representation. It seems that the 20 or 14 PR for Tongatapu as proposed would not be enough.
Social dimension
Political change is not about representation and transfer of power. Economic reform is not about creating, control, distribution and transfer of wealth. The fact is that we have to see both in context of social relations and movements of people in a society. This social dimension of change is more complicated and remains unaccounted for at the initial phase of our reform agenda. Thus the social aspects of reform in any society cannot be in a defined period, for it simplistically denies the dynamic nature of the social variables that tend to response in different ways and rate to any major reform in a society. Once we talk about change in respect to time or worst imposed time, we have to account for every significant state of affairs that serves as stabilizing factor in a society in this transition phase. This is the only way that will make such change meaningful to the populace. This is the dimension of reform neglected in the reformists agenda. It is easy to discuss the politics and economics of change, but when social variables such as individuals, groups and institutions are accounted for in any political model, it is a different ball game.
The establishment of the National Committee for Reform is a step in the right direction. The threat to the success of this committee is the fact that some of its members are the proponents of the imposed ...urgency... view and the implied social disruption based on their simplistic view of our society. The suggestion that we may forego Referendum in regard to changing of the constitution because it seems that statistically 98% have agreed to the change which most do not know about the detail and based on a survey that employed the coconut method of data collection, highlight the danger of the urgency. agenda. Referendum is not about statistical outcome; it is about individuals understanding the impending proposal for changes to a constitution in order to make an informed choice.
The only urgency with regard to change in a society is to have the patient to do it properly.
Faka'apa'apa atu
Inoke Fotu Hu'akau
inokefotu [at] 2000fm [dot] com