This is the final part of a two-part article. Continue reading below or click here to read Part 1

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. 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 (their people rather than themselves) 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 represent 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 were. It is also important to think about 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 people’s representatives.

This is significant because this was the first time in Tonga’s electoral and parliamentary history that the equal numbers of noble and people representatives had been separated. And that modification in the number of people’s representatives had not been linked to the number of noble representatives. Remember, the inclusion and changes to the number of people’s representatives had always been justified on the grounds that noble representation had been changed.

Everyone seems to be talking about women 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, 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. 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 (FPP) 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. However, some achievements have been made, while others are being negotiated. History has a peculiar way of repeating itself: the opportunities that were given to Tongans in 1875 and, to a greater extent, in 2010 remain today. What do we do with them?

Click here to read Part 1

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.