Editor,
Those who advocate for reducing the monarchy's power should recognize that every nation carries a unique political history and corresponding political theology, shaping its governance and societal values. In Tonga, the foundation of the modern monarchy is deeply intertwined with its political theology, significantly influenced by the Wesleyan Church. This connection is reflected in many Wesleyan hymns, which often invoke divine protection for the king and the monarchy.
For example, Wesleyan hymn number 390, verse 3, encapsulates this union of faith and governance:
“Tuku hono ngaahi filii, Ke movetevete pee: Tuku enau ngaahi tu'utu'unii, Ke liliu Ke Vale pee, ‘E Sihova, ‘e Sihova Me’a mai emau punou Keke Tali Emau Lotu, O Malu’i ‘a Tupou.”
Translated:
"Let his enemies be disunited, Let their decisions change to follies, O Jehovah, here we bow, Answer our prayer, Protect the King (Tupou)."
This hymn reflects the church's commitment to the monarchy as well as the monarchy’s historical role in preserving Tonga’s social order and stability. Political theology—the intersection of religious beliefs and political governance—is evident in Tonga, where the monarchy is viewed as divinely sanctioned and central to national stability.
Fragmentation in pro-democracy movement
Tonga's pro-democracy movement, initially a unified force calling for greater representation and reform, has struggled with internal divisions. Founders like Akilisi Pohiva, Uili Fukofuka, Teisina Fuko, and Isileli Pulu laid the groundwork for democratic aspirations. However, over time, Fukofuka, Fuko, and Pulu distanced themselves from the movement, citing disillusionment with its direction and unresolved conflicts.
The movement’s fragmentation became more apparent in Akilisi Pohiva’s strained alliances with prominent scholars like Professor Futa Helu of Atenisi University. These early collaborations deteriorated, reflecting the difficulty of sustaining a cohesive vision.
Following Pohiva’s death, internal disputes escalated, particularly between his children and other members of the movement. These conflicts underscore the movement’s inability to present a unified front, raising questions about its capacity to offer a viable alternative to the monarchy.
Shift in religious leadership
Religious leaders, once key supporters of the pro-democracy movement, have also shifted their positions. Dr. Sione Amanaki Havea, a former president of the Wesleyan Church, was a vocal advocate for democratic reform. However, his son, Dr. Tevita Havea, the current president, is a staunch opponent of the pro-democracy movement. This generational divergence highlights the movement’s declining support among influential religious figures, further complicating its efforts to gain traction.
Democracy without the Monarchy: lessons from division
The pro-democracy movement’s internal struggles serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of entering a democratic system without mechanisms to ensure unity. Tonga’s divisions parallel those seen in the United States, where partisan conflicts between Democrats and Republicans threaten the stability of its democracy.
In the U.S., polarization manifests in gridlocked legislation, ideological divides over fundamental issues like healthcare, abortion, and climate change, and increasing distrust in democratic institutions. The January 6 Capitol riots in 2021 exemplify how stark divisions can escalate into societal unrest, undermining the very foundations of democracy.
If a nation like the U.S., with centuries of democratic practice, grapples with these challenges, Tonga may face even greater risks. The absence of the monarchy’s unifying role could deepen societal divides, as the pro-democracy movement has already demonstrated its difficulty in maintaining coherence and collaboration.
Path forward for Tonga
For democracy to succeed in Tonga, its proponents must address the foundational issue of unity. Efforts to replace the monarchy must consider the cultural, religious, and historical fabric that holds the nation together. Democracy cannot thrive in a fractured environment, as seen in the ongoing polarization within the U.S.
Tonga’s unique context demands a governance model that respects its traditions while accommodating aspirations for representation and reform. Without this balance, the nation risks further fragmentation, jeopardizing its social order and long-term stability.
Seni Penitani
(Nomuka)
Comments
I greatly appreciate this
I greatly appreciate this comment, as it reflects a situation similar to what we experience in Spain. I believe that the role of the monarchy is essential in ensuring, to some extent, political stability, as the king serves as a guarantor of national unity. In contrast, today’s politicians often seem to polarize society around ideas that, unfortunately, undermine coexistence. I hope this reflection proves helpful, and I express my full support for the Tongan royal family to continue being a symbol of unity and cohesion for the entire nation.
Seni,
Seni,
Your letter about democracy in a Tongan context reminded me of my father’s experience in Ha’apai in the 1950’s. He was superintendent of the Ha’apai district in the Free Wesleyan Church. However, he was very frustrated at the quarterly meetings of the Church because he could never gain approval for any of his proposals. It was only when he understood the Tongan way that he could make progress. He learned that church matters were discussed and resolved by the ministers and stewards over kava before church every Sunday. The quarterly meeting was just the formal process for approving decisions that had already been approved informally over kava on Sunday mornings.
After learning this, my father made a point of visiting every church in the district every three months. Before the Sunday service, he would sit down and have kava with the ministers and stewards of the church and would raise any matters he wanted to discuss. Everyone could participate in the discussion and ask questions. When he raised the matter at the quarterly meeting, it was approved, as the matter had already been discussed and resolved.
I think that Tonga needs to develop its own informal process to deal with legislation. Members of parliament have visited the kava clubs of other members to discuss matters in the past and lobby for a proposal. But another possibility would be for the King to request ministers to informally brief him on any proposals that were coming up. He would invite the members of parliament to join him at these briefings. When the King was satisfied that he understood the proposal, he could excuse himself from the gathering and allow those remaining to informally discuss the matter. Any members who had any questions could raise them in this informal setting. There could be follow-up briefings, if necessary.
When the matter was submitted to parliament, all members would have had the opportunity to understand and to have been consulted on the proposal. Then they could formally accept, or reject, it.
Regards
Leigh Harkness