On the 150th anniversary of the Tonga Constitution, political scientist, Dr Malakai Koloamatangi, writes that Tonga’s electoral system and constitutional arrangement might need attention in the future. He asks if a decision was made to further democratise the Constitution, how could that be done? What would be the scope and depth of such an exercise? Could the present system of electorate-based voting be improved so that there is a balance between partisan obligations and national priorities? Some mechanism, too, must be found so that overseas Tongans can vote. And is “first-past-the-post” the most suitable electoral system for Tonga?
By Malakai Koloamatangi
In criticising the English people’s claim in the eighteenth century that they were free, the Swiss philosopher and social contract theorist, Jean Jacques Rousseau, retorted with sarcasm that the English were only free during election time – when they were electing their representatives. At other times, they were less free, because they were represented by other people, and they – the people - had no say in how decisions were made in parliament.
It has been fifteen years since the institutionalisation of a modified parliamentary system in Tonga, where the following setup is played out. It is through elections that the executive and legislature gain their members who, in turn, become representatives of the people and the nobles. The Members of Parliament are elected to parliament in the name of the people and nobles they represent. So, our electoral system makes it possible to elect candidates to a ‘representative assembly’ where the people and nobles operate it according to the Constitution and Electoral Act. Ours, in other words, is a representative, ‘liberal’ parliament as opposed to a system where the people rule directly (as in Rousseau’s preference).
Once recruited to parliament, representatives get the opportunity to elect a prime minister – a ‘first among equals’ in Westminster terms – who in turn gets to select his cabinet from members of parliament. He has the further option of choosing up to four ministers from outside parliament who sit in parliament as ministers (interestingly, ‘unelected’ ministers in the old system used to sit in parliament as ‘nobles’) but are excluded from parliamentary business on certain occasions. Most notably, they cannot vote in the vote-of-no-confidence process.
Having concluded the process of forming the parliament and the government, it still must pass through one more hoop. The monarch plays a significant role in assenting to the selection of prime minister and his cabinet. He, even after the 2010 reforms has, on occasion, and in a ‘transitional’ way, stepped back into the executive – a prerogative that his predecessor had largely relinquished, and to a certain [extent] the Constitution, had discouraged.
Notwithstanding the ebb and flow of the contest for political power and the way that constitutional prescriptions are played out in the real world, the Constitution, together with the Electoral Act, is quite clear about the rules and regulations for conducting elections. The Constitution stipulates in areas such as the qualification (and disqualification) of electors and candidates and even by-elections. This is all discussed, incidentally, under the heading ‘Legislative Assembly’, as if to underline the importance of elections and representation for the conduct of representative government. Moreover, the Electoral Act is also very clear on how the electoral process and cycle ought to be carried out. It cannot be emphasised enough that it was no accident that constitution-makers dwelled on the importance of elections.
Constitution changes in 2010
Constitution-makers in 2010 were quite detailed about what needed to be done, to operationalise the general principles in the Constitution, through the Electoral Act. We sometimes forget that the 2010 reforms were carried out in two parts: a reform of parts of the Constitution by amendment rather than convention. And a reform of the Electoral Act to ensure that what was modified in the constitution was congruent with the requirements of the Electoral Act. The Act is clear that elections needed to be administered efficiently and effectively. They needed to be ‘free and fair’ – people were free to vote as they saw fit without coercion and that there was to be one-vote-for-one-person only, reflecting the general rule that the ‘weight’ of each vote was to be identical. Elections needed to be efficient and regular – to be held every four years without fail. And there was a right of appeal by aggrieved parties when there were alleged irregularities during the campaign, for example.
Given the general gist of the 2010 reforms and the amendments made to the Constitution, why are elections (electoral reform) important?
I guess in a perfect world, elections would not be necessary. The people would rule themselves, either directly via digital government for instance, with the help of new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). Or through their representatives, through a representative assembly. Or through one person - a monarch, which existed in the past. Or a hybrid system, which is what we have now.
Elections are the lifeline of representative government. So much so that some people mistake elections for democratic government (election make up an important part of democracy, albeit a vitally important part). The fundamental functions elections play consist of key features such as forming government (elections at their conclusion are meant to produce ‘a government’). They reinforce the accountability of rulers to the ruled. They encourage transparency in the formulation of laws, while ensuring responsibility and responsiveness in parliament and government and so forth.
The feature of elections I want to talk briefly about here is representation. This is important because the argument can be made that from, a whole-of-system perspective, the totality of the reforms in 2010 was about articulating the concept of representation. Done in such a way that it would plug a gap in the system leading to greater satisfaction from people. Moreover, the call for more democracy from some quarters would be muted once the people were enabled, through better representation and increased numbers in parliament, participate more meaningfully in running the country, which is a roundabout way of developing democratic government.
Noble Franchise
Representation in this context is a necessary process for forming a representative parliament, more or less, depending on the degree of representation that the electoral system can produce. (Note the electoral system is only a conduit for expressing what is already required by the Constitution and the law.)
A parliament, like Tonga’s, can be representative of the general will depending on the degree to which the ‘people’ elect the whole parliament. However, in the Tongan case, representation is not as straight forward, given that a noble franchise exists. However, it is not quite a clear division, so the argument goes, between those who are elected by the majority of the people and the others (nobles) who are elected by a limited number of noble voters. Put differently, the logic, if we hark back to the original intention of the first parliament in 1875, was not based on a numerical (majority vs minority) justification. The nobles were represented due to the strength of their support base and the support they gave to Tupou I. The inclusion of the people as members of parliament does not seem to have been based on their superior numbers. Rather it was based on a benevolent care by a king for his people.
Representatives sit in parliament, literally across from each other, to represent the interests of their constituents to each other. This arrangement answers three important issues: one, why representation is important to representative government. Two, who representatives are representing in parliament. And three, who representatives are representing their constituents to. Without genuine representation, the voice and interests of the people will not be heard and cannot be considered in policy-making. The people, in such a situation, (inclusively) cannot be said to participate in parliament nor in government.
Given that increased representation and participation for the general populace was one of the main objectives of the reforms, it is important to consider what the electoral reforms (above) were; the elements that remained unchanged (noble numbers) and some of the areas that perhaps should have been reformed but were not.
Take for instance the number of noble representatives. Their number was not increased because it would have been counterproductive given the rationale behind the increase in the number of peoples’ representatives. This is significant because this is the first time in Tonga’s electoral and parliamentary history that the equal numbers of nobles and people representatives have been separated. And that modification in the number of people’s representatives has not been linked to the number of noble representatives. Remember, the inclusion and changes to the number of people’s representatives have always been justified on the grounds that noble representation had been changed.
Women’s Representation
Everyone seems to be talking about women’s representation, or the lack of it. It is no secret that I and others have advocated for a quota for women in parliament. This is not, at least on my part, a crusade for a particular ideology or a push for women’s rights, though that is important too. Advancing the idea is based mainly on numbers: it seems like a fair argument to make that around 50% of the population should be represented in parliament. Of course, one can argue that men are capable of representing women and they are. However, there are interests that are specific to women that men cannot represent adequately. For example, how can men ‘know’ how women feel about an issue? How about the experiences that women go through, say, in forming women’s cooperative in order to make a living? Health and education issues are different for women, particularly the former and the list goes on. The other point is that a quota for women does not have to be permanently institutionalised: once the electorate becomes familiar with having women in parliament, then the quota can be disestablished.
Looking ahead
Looking ahead, it is important to identify the areas in our electoral system and constitutional arrangement that might need attention in the future. To make them fit-for-purpose for the continued development and aim of buttressing political, structural, and systemic transformation. It is important that a way is found to ensure future constitution-makers are enabled to make changes to the Constitution and Electoral Laws as they see fit. For instance, if a decision was made to further democratise the Constitution, how could that be done? What would be the scope and depth of such an exercise? Could the present system of electorate-based voting be improved so that there is a balance between partisan obligations and national priorities? There are approaches available, for example, such as communal-based voting.
Overseas Tongans
Some mechanism, too, must be found so that overseas Tongans can vote. The majority of Tongans reside overseas; it is only fair that they have an opportunity to participate in elections, while living overseas. (At present, Tongans overseas on seasonal work cannot vote.) Their contribution to the country’s economy far outweighs any reason for disenfranchising them. Is “first-past-the-post” the most suitable electoral system for Tonga? There was a recommendation by the Constitutional and Electoral Commission on the adoption of the Single Transferrable Vote (STV). STV is a notoriously difficult and complicated system to operate, however. So perhaps FPP will have to do for the time being. Clearly, the work is unfinished but a start has been made.
- Dr Malakai Koloamatangi is the Registrar of the Tonga National University
