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’ (unlike an ‘illiberal’ sham) 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 the Constitution, had discouraged.
Notwithstanding the ebb and flow of the contest for political power (and we knew that this was always going to be case despite the best intentions in the world). 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-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, in a less perfect world, through their representatives, sitting as 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 democracy). Elections 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. They would then participate more meaningfully in running the country – which was a roundabout way of developing democratic government.
Click here to continue reading Part 2
Dr. Malakai Koloamatangi, Tonga National University’s inaugural Registrar, is a former Massey University Associate Professor (Politics) and senior leader, Chair of NZQA’s Pacific Advisory Board, Taupulega. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect the views of Talanoa ‘o Tonga.
