Political Party hijacks reform

Tonga becomes like America with two-party system - Sione A. Mokofisi:
I disagree with your assessment (Political Party hijacks … 15 Dec 2010) that the “Two-Party” system, which modern Tonga finds in her modern evolution, may produce a “dictator.”

Modern Tonga is suddenly more like the American “two-party” system: Democratic and Republican are the major parties, and a few “Independents” who switch back and forth between the two major parties. How ironic since Tonga’s Three-Branches of Government is also foundation to the American model: Executive, Judiciary, and Legislative based on the integrity of their independence of each other.

The role of the King as Head of State is similar to the U.S. President who heads the Cabinet. They are not elected by their respective Legislative Assemblies. However, Tonga’s Parliament elects the Prime Minister, while the U.S. Congress elects the Speaker of the House, who is third in the hierarchy of power below the Vice President, and President.

Aristotle’s “Rule of the Many”

The beauty of a two-party system is its simplicity for the voters. Popular voters can replace elected officials and their party’s power in Parliament easily. It fulfills Aristotle’s democratic principle of the “rule of the many,” and Joseph Schumpeter’s “representative democracy.” They allow for the people to change their government representatives often, and denies one party from producing a dictator. Schumpeter theorized that elected officials are forced to work hard for the people’s votes, or get tossed out (Wilson & DiIulio, 1995).

For example: The “Temokalati” Party was expected to win this election in a landslide. They have worked hard to effect the democratic changes in Tonga for the last three decades. But why did they fail to garner 40% of the votes?

“Temokalati” Party’s Image Problems

The people have spoken, and the inference we can conclude logically from it is that the Temokalati Party has an image problem. People distrust them in their (a) ethical decision-making process, (b) honesty, (c) and therefore, lacks the intellectual moral integrity needed to lead the country.

Two quick examples come to mind: (1) the burning of Nuku’alofa in 2006 was a pernicious statement made by Temokalati leaders reflecting their intellect. They were not found guilty in court, but they could not eradicate pictures of burning Nuku’alofa in the public’s mind. (2) They claimed to be the “Human Rights” watchdog of Tonga, however, they were unanimous in defeating the United Nations CEDAW treaty to protect and promote women’s rights in Tonga. - Sione A. Mokofisi

Editor’s note: The Reform was not to introduce a Two-Party System of Government, if that was the plan there should have been an Act to regulate political parties.

The Reform was to increase the number of People’s Representatives from nine to 17, to have a Minority Government with only 12 Cabinet Ministers, including the PM and for the decision making process in the House to be based on consensus.

The point I raised in my Editorial was for newly elected members of parliament, including the architects, reformers and professed democrats who structured our new system of government to explain to the people, why they structured a system of government based on Consensus, and are now trying to put into place a Political Party System of Government?

The danger of trying to force into place a Party system of government into our new fragile consensus-based system is that the political party with the majority to elect a Prime Minister will control Cabinet, and will have a majority in the House, with a very weak opposition and they could put a dictator in power, with no laws to limit how a party rules and how it functions.