‘The democratic process needs urgent reform in both Vanuatu and Solomon Islands not to mention many other Pacific Islands. It is good that at least some of the checks and balances like the one exercised by the Vanuatu Parliament’s Speaker to dismiss the l

Last month’s general elections in Vanuatu and the by-elections in the Solomon Islands have once again exposed the fragility of democratic and electoral processes in the Pacific Islands.
While in one instance a no confidence motion within two days of the formation of a new government has almost made a mockery of the entire process, in the other, the process itself has been marred by slew of allegations ranging from bogus voting and denying registered voters their rightful vote to threats to electoral and vote counting staff.
In the case of Vanuatu, after long drawn-out post-poll parleys and discussions between political parties in Port Vila, a consensus for a coalition had emerged between the two leading parties, the Vanua’aku Pati led by Edward Natapei and the Vanuatu National United Party headed by immediate past Prime Minister Ham Lini.
The two parties were also in a coalition over the past four years while Lini was the Prime Minister.
But merely two days after the newly elected Members of the House voted Natapei as Prime Minister, a no confidence motion was tabled against his fledgling government by Maxine Carlot Korman-led Union of Moderate Parties coalition that has the support of a group of independents.
Two of the independents who apparently voted for Natapei to give him the 27-25 majority in the 52-member House, later voted against him in the no confidence motion raising the claim in the Korman camp that the majority of the MPs in the House did not support Natapei’s leadership.
One of the elected independents, Ralph Regenvanu who supported the Korman faction had gone on record stating that the Korman led coalition had indeed had more votes.
The no confidence motion was thrown out on the basis of a technicality by the unanimously elected Speaker of the House, George Wells, who stated that under the standing order rules, the request of a motion should be signed by at least one sixth of the total MPs—a requirement that was not met in the present instance. He further stated that the opposition, if it so desired, could lodge another motion of no confidence if it could muster the requisite numbers.
The crux of all this, however, is what makes elected representatives change their minds about supporting a particular leader or party in the space of just two days?
If the two independent members in question voluntarily voted for Natapei just a day earlier, what got them to change their minds to sign a no confidence motion against him later?
Certainly, it cannot be a sudden change in ideological beliefs on the part of the elected candidates. After all, these were independents not aligned to any party and should have therefore been very clear in their thinking and known better than to do a volte face in such short a time.

In fact, one of the highlights of the elections in Vanuatu and the by-elections in the Solomon Islands was that there was a record number of candidates contesting.
That could mean one of two things. One: That there is a growing desire in citizens to bring about change in the country’s political ethos that they do not see as being possible by aligning with any of the existing parties because of their old, jaded ways—therefore they contest the elections as independents promoting the platform of change, freshness and probity.
Going by the success of such a large number of independents in Vanuatu—particularly in the more urban areas of Port Vila—this independent tack of change in the political ethos has appealed well and voters have reposed their faith in these candidates by electing them.
In which case, these independents owe it to their voters to effect the change they have promised. But by flip-flopping on the vote of no confidence, these independents unfortunately have proved otherwise by following the same tiresome tradition of Vanuatu’s long history of ephemeral governments because of a string of no confidence motions that have come in with metronomic regularity.
Two: That the independents are really in it only for their own narrow ambitions.
The sort of action that was displayed by these two independents of first voting a man as Prime Minister and then two days later expressing no confidence in him reinforces this and strengthens suspicions about horse trading that undoubtedly involves pecuniary gain.
A number of international observers had expressed hope that these seemingly educated independents that communicated well with the country’s urban populations and better addressed their rising modern aspirations would begin making a difference in the country’s political ethos.
For the first time, some of these independents had introduced national issue based manifestos, which they stood for and the mood in Port Vila in the run-up to the election was clearly about change. Those hopes have clearly been belied.
And it would be hardly surprising if another tsunami of no confidence motions in Vanuatu’s famed tradition brings down the Natapei government prematurely, necessitating another costly mid-term election.
The democratic process needs urgent reform in both Vanuatu and Solomon Islands, not to mention many other Pacific Islands. It is good that at least some of the checks and balances like the one exercised by the Vanuatu Parliament’s Speaker to dismiss the latest no confidence motion are working—but that indeed only gives a temporary reprieve, not a long-term solution: it does not prevent another no confidence motion next week or the week after.
There has already been talk of dealing with the situation by amending the rule books. One of the proposals is banning no confidence motions for a certain period—like a year or so—after a new government and its leadership is elected, giving them a chance to get on with the business of governance before getting bogged down by the wasteful and draining activity of petty politicking.
Another measure could be passing stricter laws against floor crossing and power broking by splinter groups unless they are weighted by a certain credible portion of elected MPs, as has been done to some extent in Papua New Guinea and in large democracies like India. Such laws must be passed on a priority by lawmakers for fulfilling the very basic function of governance in the interests of the people at large.
Money power cannot be wished away in any power play equation involving humans—but its influence can certainly be curtailed by well thought out checks and balances legislated into a nation’s political system.