One of the first women to hold an open seat in Bougainville, Theonila Roka Matbob, is confident she can win again.

Bougainville goes to the polls in the first week of September, and Roka Matbob aims to hold on to her Ioro seat in central Bougainville, where she is up against nine men.

The MP, who is also the Minister of Community Government, recently led the campaign that convinced multinational Rio Tinto to clean up the mess caused by the Panguna Mine.

RNZ Pacific asked her if she is enjoying running for a second election campaign.

THEONILA ROKA MATBOB: Very, very much, yes. I guess compared to 2020, it is because it was my first time. I had a lot of butterflies, I would say. But this time has been very different. So I am more relaxed, more focused, and also I am more aware of issues that I can actually concentrate on.

DON WISEMAN: And one of those issues you’ve been concentrating on is the aftermath of the Panguna Mine and the destruction and so on caused both environmentally and socially. And I guess that sort of work is going to continue for you?

TRM: Yes, so the work is continuing. I had three platforms when I was contesting in 2020: leadership, governance, institutional governance and the accountability on the issues, legacy issues of Panguna Mine. I thought that the third one was going to be very challenging, given that it involved international stakeholders.

But I would say that the one that I thought was going to be very challenging was actually the one that got a lot of traction, and it’s already in motion while I’m like back on the trail, defending my seat.

DW: In terms of the work that has been undertaken on an assessment of the environmental damage, the impact that the process had had, and the report that has come out, and the obligations that this now places on Rio Tinto?

TRM: The recommendations that were made by the report was on a lot of like imminent survey areas that is like on infrastructure that were built by the company back then in the operation days that is now tearing down.

And also a lot more than that, there was a call for more intrusive assessment to be done on health and bloodstreams as well for the people, but those other things and also now to into the remediation vehicle, what is it going to look like?

These are clear responsibilities that are at the overarching highest level of engagement through the what we call this process, the CP process. It has put the responsibility on Rio Tinto to now tell us, what does the remediation vehicle look like.

At the moment, Rio Tinto is looking into that to be able to engage expertise in communication with us, to see how the design for the remediation vehicle would look. It is from the report that the build-up is now coming up, and there is more tangible or visible presence on the ground as compared to the time we started.

DW: So that process in terms of the removal of the old buildings that’s actually got underway, has it?

TRM: That process is already underway, the demolition process is underway, and BCL [Bougainville Copper Limited] is the one that’s taking the lead. It has engaged our local expertise, who are actually working abroad, but they have hired them because under the process we have local content policy where we have to do shopping for experts from Bougainville, before we’ll look into experts from overseas.

Apart from that as well, one of the things that I have seen is there is an increased interest from both international and national and local partners as well in understanding the areas where the report, assessment report has pointed out.

There is quite a lot happening, as compared to the past years when, towards the end of our political phase in parliament, usually there is always silence and only campaigns go on. But for now, it has been different.

A lot of people are more engaged, even participating on the policy programmes and projects.

DW: Yes, your government wants to reopen the Panguna Mine and open it fairly soon. You must have misgivings about that?

TRM: I have been getting a lot of questions around that, and I have been telling them my personal stance has never changed.

But I can never come in between the government’s interest. What I have been doing recently as a way of responding and uniting people, both who are believers of reopening and those that do not believe in reopening, like myself.

We have created a platform by registering a business entity that can actually work in between people and the government, so that there is more or less a participatory approach.

The company that we have registered is the one that will be tasked to work more on the politics of economics around Panguna and all the other prospects that we have in other natural resources as well.

I would say that whichever way the government points us, I can now, with conviction, say that I am ready with my office and the workforce that I have right now, I can comfortably say that we can be able to accommodate for both opinions, pro and against.

DW: In your Ioro electorate seat it’s not the biggest lineup of candidates, but the thing about Bougainville politics is they can be fairly volatile. So how confident are you?

TRM: I am confident, despite the long line up that we have about nine people who are against me — nine men, interestingly, were against me. I would say that, given the grasp that I have and also building up from 2020, I can clearly say that I am very confident.

If I am not confident, then it will take the space of giving opportunity for other people and also on campaign strategies as well. I have learnt my way through in diversifying and understanding the different experiences that I have in the constituency as well.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Despite calls from women’s groups urging the government to implement policies to address the underrepresentation of women in politics, the introduction of temporary special measures (TSM) to increase women’s political representation in Fiji remains a distant goal.

This week, leader of the Social Democratic Liberal Party (Sodelpa), Cabinet Minister Aseri Radrodro, and opposition MP Ketal Lal expressed their objection to reserving 30 percent of parliamentary seats for women.

Radrodro, who is also Education Minister, told The Fiji Times that Fijian women were “capable of holding their ground without needing a crutch like TSM to give them a leg up”.

Lal called the special allocation of seats for women in Parliament “tokenistic” and beneficial to “a few selected individuals”, as part of submissions to the Fiji Law Reform Commission and the Electoral Commission of Fiji, which are undertaking a comprehensive review and reform of the Fiji’s electoral framework.

Their sentiment is shared by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who said at a Pacific Technical Cooperation Session of the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in Suva earlier this month, that “putting in women for the sake of mere numbers” is “tokenistic”.

Rabuka said it devalued “the dignity of women at the highest level of national governance.”

“This specific issue makes me wonder at times. As the percentage of women in population is approximately the same as for men, why are women not securing the votes of women? Or more precisely, why aren’t women voting for women?” he said.

Doubled down
The Prime Minister doubled down on his position on the issue when The Fiji Times asked him if it was the right time for Fiji to legislate mandatory seats for women in Parliament as the issue was gaining traction.

“There is no need to legislate it. We do not have a compulsory voting legislation, nor do we yet need a quota-based system.

However, Rabuka’s Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Speaker Lenora Qereqeretabua holds a different view.

Qereqeretabua, from the National Federation Party, said in January that Parliament needed to look like the people that it represented.

“Women make up half of the world’s population, and yet we are still fighting to ensure that their voices and experiences are not only heard but valued in the spaces where decisions are made,” she told participants at the Exploring Temporary Special Measures for Inclusive Governance in Fiji forum.

She said Fiji needed more women in positions of power.

“Not because women are empirically better leaders, because leadership is not determined by gender, but because it is essential for democracy that our representatives reflect the communities that they serve.”

‘Shameless’ lag
Another member of Rabuka’s coalition government, one of the deputy prime ministers in and a former Sodelpa leader, Viliame Gavoka said in March 2022 that Fiji had “continued to shamelessly lag behind in protecting and promoting women’s rights and their peacebuilding expertise”.

He pledged at the time that if Sodelpa was voted into government, it would “ensure to break barriers and accelerate progress, including setting specific targets and timelines to achieve gender balance in all branches of government and at all levels through temporary special measures such as quotas . . . ”

However, since coming into power in December 2022, Gavoka has not made any advance on his promise, and his party leader Radrodro has made his views known on the issue.

Fijian women’s rights and advocacy groups say that introducing special measures for women is neither discriminatory nor a breach of the 2013 Constitution.

In a joint statement in October last year, six non-government organisations called on the government to enforce provisions for temporary special measures for women in political party representation and ensure that reserved seats are secured for women in all town and city councils and its committees.

“Nationally, it is unacceptable that after three national elections under new electoral laws, there has been a drastic decline in women’s representation from contesting national elections to being elected to parliament,” they said.

“It is clear from our history that cultural, social, economic and political factors have often stood in the way of women’s political empowerment.”

Short-term need
They said temporary special measures may need to be implemented in the short-term to advance women’s equality.

“The term ‘temporary special measures’ is used to describe affirmative action policies and strategies to promote equality and empower women.

“If we are to move towards a society where half the population is reflected in all leadership spaces and opportunities, we must be gender responsive in the approaches we take to achieve gender equality.”

The Fijian Parliament currently has only five (out of 55) women in the House — four in government and one in opposition. In the previous parliamentary term (2018-2022), there were 10 women directly elected to Parliament.

According to the Fiji Country Gender Assessment report, 81 percent of Fijians believe that women are underrepresented in the government, and 72 percent of Fijians believe greater representation of women would be beneficial for the country.

However, the report found that time and energy burden of familial, volunteer responsibilities, patriarchal norms, and power relations as key barriers to women’s participation in the workplace and public life.

Fiji Women’s Rights Movement (FWRM) board member Akanisi Nabalarua believes that despite having strong laws and policies on paper, the implementation is lacking.

Lip service
Nabalarua said successive Fijian governments had often paid lip service to gender equality while failing to make intentional and meaningful progress in women’s representation in decision making spaces, reports fijivillage.com.

Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry said Rabuka’s dismissal of the women’s rights groups’ plea was premature.

Chaudhry, a former prime minister who was deposed in a coup in 2000, said Rabuka should have waited for the Law Reform Commission’s report “before deciding so conclusively on the matter”.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

On Wednesday next week, the people of Kiribati go to the polls in the first of two votes for a new government.

The second vote is on Monday, August 19, after which nominations will be made for president with that vote to happen in September or October.

Don Wiseman spoke with RNZ Pacific correspondent in Kiribati, Rimon Rimon, and began by asking him about the slightly lower number of candidates, 114 — down from 118 four years ago.

The transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Rimon Rimon: I think there will always be around this number, as each constituency has [only] a certain number of candidates who can run, depending on the population. This time round, it’s quite interesting to learn that there are three electorates that don’t need any contest because there’s only one candidate running from there, and they are the incumbent candidates.

Don Wiseman: So, a surprise?

RR: It’s quite a surprise in a sense. I haven’t seen that in my lifetime here in Kiribati. Growing up in a constituency where only one candidate enjoys no need to campaign and all that is quite new.

But I think one common element about these candidates is they are currently from the ruling party. I don’t know if that has any relevance or not, but it’s a good point to note.

DW: And a significant number more women contesting it. How successful are women normally in Kiribati elections?

RR: Well, having women in Parliament is nothing new. We’ve had that since independence. But if we’re talking about numbers, then that’s where the discussion should be.

As you understand, Kiribati is a patriarchal society. So, men usually have the upper hand when it comes to decision making. It’s quite surprising, and also a welcoming sign to see that 18 women are running in the current elections, which is a great number compared to previous elections.

This year, we are having 10 females running from the capital, which, I think, tells a lot about why these women are so motivated to run for Parliament.

DW: Because of conditions on Tarawa?

RR: I’m sure nobody just wakes up one day and says, ‘hey, I might just try this and see how it goes’. I think people are compelled to run for several reasons. One interesting fact about these women is, three of them are lawyers. I think this says a lot about the current election, and perhaps the rule of law in Kiribati.

There’s been some controversy with the judiciary, within the last term, this current administration. One of these women is a staffer with the Attorney-General Office, which is the government’s lawyer. The others run their own private legal firms, and legal firms are quite popular here with a lot of civil cases going on.

There’s a lot of jobs to be done there. But for them to forego that and run for Parliament, that tells a lot about why they are doing that. It’s really interesting to learn why, as lawyers, as women with legal backgrounds, they are running for Parliament.

DW: We’re just a week or so out from that first election on the 14th — have party positions been revealed? Does that happen in Kiribati? Or is it all local issues that candidates talk about?

RR: Party affiliation is, especially during election time, more like “the big elephant in the room”. It’s right in front of you, but nobody really mentions it because candidates running for Parliament would want to get re-elected or elected first. It’s hard to gauge, for example, for one island, which way are they aligning, to whether it’s with the current ruling party or with opposition.

It’s a safe bet for candidates when they run, and most of them are doing that, say that ‘when I get re-elected, my party affiliation will be decided by you. I will come back again with you, once I’m elected. And then I will choose my party, which you want’.

A lot of these people running I know a lot of them — these are my own personal observations. I know the affiliations, and values and principles, what they support. I know where they stand. But these can all change when they get elected because, ultimately the people decide where they want their candidate or the elected nominee to be within parliament, whether in opposition or within the government.

DW: You alluded to the issues in the judiciary and the removal of all the senior judges from the country by the government. And there have been a number of other very controversial moves by this current government. Will those matters have an impact on the election?

RR: I think they will do. But there are also other pressing issues that would really matter for the people in this election. The majority of the population in Kiribati are grassroots people, people who live in the villages, who live within communities and who think about daily subsistence lives and how to get by each day with help from the government or with policies that are provided by the government.

Those are some of the deciding factors in elections and of course, there have been controversial policies that are open for debate. The opposition saying they’re not sustainable, they just draining money and resources, without generating revenue. I think that is one of the strengths of the current ruling party, the Tobwaan Kiribati Party, or TKP, to ensure it has several policies which mainly provide “giveaways” to the people, and these are quite popular.

Regardless of whether the judiciary is intact or disengaged or degraded, or whether the economy is not performing well, or the medical healthcare is not up to par, people tend to forget about all those other important issues when the daily issue is just getting food on the table and getting by each day.

DW: Would you anticipate a change of government?

RR: There’s always two sides of the coin, Don. I’m hearing a lot of people having had enough of this government. They have taken quite a tough approach on how they introduce a lot of their policies and decisions. Some of their policies are quite draconian, especially with media and all news information. I hear a lot of people saying we should have something new.

But then of course, the other half of the population, or people that I’ve been speaking to, especially in South Tarawa, here at the capital, are quite happy with the government’s performance and would like to see another four years of their reign in government. This all due to the policies that they give out, especially the giveaways.

DW: Now the giveaways. You’ve referred to these a few times.

RR: I talked about them because in Kiribati we are a least developing country, a Third World country. We don’t really have a social welfare benefit for our citizens. So, parties have tried to introduce that within their campaigns. The only social welfare benefit that all the people agree on is the elders’ fund. So, once you reach a certain age, and elders are quite respected in our culture, they get a monthly sum of money from the government.

Now, these [other] giveaways I’ve been talking about, it’s a signature of this current government’s policy. They call it the unemployment fund, which basically gives away A$50 to each person, each individual within the age of 18 to 59. These are, as you understand the voting ages of groups, and people find this very popular, in favour of the government, because they are getting money every month.

The other thing that I have been referring to as a giveaway is the copra money. We’ve had reports and advice from credible institutions like the World Bank, and the IMF, saying that subsidising copra money by the government cannot go any further than A$1 [per kilogram]. This government has brought that up to $4 and it’s quite popular. We’re seeing a lot of people going back to the outer islands and cutting copra, but these kinds of things constitute a big chunk of the economy.

The budget at certain times in this four years’ term, the government has had to rebalance the budget because it’s in deficit. These have been critical issues that the opposition have always been raising; that the key policies that this government is introducing or advocating, are not sustainable. Those are the kinds of things that are facing people nowadays, when they elect their government, choosing between those kinds of policies or some alternative.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

French Polynesia’s newly-elected President Moetai Brotherson has presented a 10-member government, which includes four women.

Brotherson has confirmed his pre-election choice of Eliane Tevahitua as Vice-President as well as Culture, Lands and Environment Minister.

Several of the ministers are new to politics, with 29-year-old Jordy Chan as Infrastructure and Transport Minister being the youngest.

Vannina Crolas, who was an official in the now ruling Tavini Huira’atira party, is the new Public Sector and Employment Minister.

Minarii Galenon, who has been the president of the Women’s Council, is the new Housing Minister.

Nahema Temarii has been made Sports Minister.

Brotherson said weeks ago he had more women than men aspiring to be ministers but as some women withdrew, he has not been able to form a government with gender parityas he had expected.

Gender parity the aim
Before the election, Brotherson said he planned to have a government made up by at least half with women.

Ronny Teriipaia has been made Education Minister, and Tevaiti Pomare has become Finance Minister.

Cedric Marcadal has been made Health Minister, and Teivani Teai is the Primary Industry Minister.

He added an additional position to his line-up by making Nathalie Salmon-Hudry an interministerial delegate responsible for People with Disabilities.

Wanting a broad government, Brotherson offered one ministerial position to the pro-autonomy opposition A here Ia Porinetai party, but it declined.

The term of government is five years.

Meanwhile, Brotherson has reaffirmed that the main priority for his government is not independence from France but continued assistance to the victims of the flooding two weeks ago.

The pursuit of independence, which is the central tenet of their Tavini Huira’atira, has been Brotherson’s repeatedly stated endeavour and a long-term goal but, like his predecessors, he has shown no hurry to call a referendum.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A woman candidate appears to have won a seat for the first time in Vanuatu in more than a decade in unofficial results from last week’s snap election.

Julie King, a member of the Union of Moderate Parties, is reported to have won one of the seats in the Efate constituency.

She is from Mele Village, outside Port Vila, the same town that provided the country’s first president, Ati George Sokomanu, in 1980.

Official results are expected later this week.

Meanwhile, a group of parties has formed with the aim of producing a coalition government.

A pact has been signed between five of the largest political parties and associated smaller parties, and, with independent MPs they are claiming the support of 31 members of the new Parliament.

RNZ Pacific correspondent in Port Vila Hilaire Bule said the main parties in the new group are the Union of Moderate Parties, the Reunification of the Movement of Change, the Leaders Party, the Land and Justice Party, the People’s Progressive Party and others.

“The next step is to agree with which political party will hold the prime ministership and if the members of Parliament who are in those parties sign the pact it will be okay, but if they disagree there will be a problem,” Bule said.

Second coalition
A second coalition has now emerged in Vanuatu following last week’s election.

This one involves the Vanua’aku Pati, the Rural Development Party, the Iauko group, the National United Party, the People’s Unity Development Party and the Reunification of the Movement for Change, or some members of these parties.

A number, including the RMC, are also party to the pact signed by the earlier coalition grouping.

The leaders of that first grouping, which is in camp at the Sunset Bungalow Resort, claim they retain the numbers for a majority in the 52 member house.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

If there is a glimmer of hope in Papua New Guinea’s violence marred national general elections, then it has to be the elevation of a lone woman to the National Parliament.

It took the People’s National Congress (PNC) Governor-elect of Central Province, Rufina Peter, three attempts to wrest power away from Pangu’s Robert Agarobe at the close of counting last week.

The contest went down to the wire and Peter won on the weight of second and third preferential votes from eliminated candidates to unseat Agarobe.

She becomes the second woman to win the Central regional seat –– the first being vocal Papua Besena MP Dame Josephine Abaijah. And she is the eighth woman to be elected to Parliament, the first in a decade.

In another major development, the people of Madang are on the cusp of sending a second woman to join Peter in Parliament.

Rai Coast hopes up
In the remote district of Rai Coast –– famous for hosting a Russian anthropologist a century ago – jittery voters are keeping their fingers crossed as distribution of preferences was taking place over the weekend.

These are the same preferences that elevated Peter and given Sawang’s strong lead in the first half of the count, the preferences are hoped to push her to  victory.

Last Friday, she was in second place on 5086 votes after the first preferences were completed from defending MP Peter Sapia’s LLG area, pushing Sapia to 7127 votes.

Counting of preferential votes is continuing at a snail’s pace in Rai Coast as the coasties hold their breath.

More than 62,361 people of Central Province cast their vote for Peter, who polled 3444 more votes against incumbent Agarobe.

She surpassed the absolute majority of 60,640 after the 20th exclusion of Nelson Saroa who had 25,551 votes distributed, which pushed Rufina to collect 6779, making her reach the target with 62,361 votes against Agarobe who had 58,917 votes.

She said at her declaration on Friday night that she was aware of the magnitude of politics played out on the floor of Parliament, the tasks ahead of her, the wrestling she would need to do to give her Central Province people what they deserve.

First woman declared
An economist and Goilala’s first female politician, Rufina Peter is now the first woman to be declared in the 2022 national election.

Peter admitted that being elected as the political head of a province came with great responsibility and she was confident she could deliver to her people by working as a team.

PNC leader Peter O’Neill was first to congratulate the party’s “iron lady”, saying her declaration was a proud moment for the party.

“Rufina Peter’s declaration is a proud moment for our Party. She fought hard and stands strongly for those she represents. It is a pity that the ferocity and aggressive nature of this terrible national general election has sidelined a record number of female candidates,” O’Neill said.

In an interview over the weekend, Peter said Central Province had many educated elites who were instrumental in building the nation on the eve of independence.

“In my five years, I will make that happen again while in office, I will carry my people’s plight, I will fight for our women, our children and the underprivileged,” she said.

Dedicated to ‘female empowerment’
Peter assured the people of Central and PNG women that she stood ready to work with all members-elect in Central and the provincial administration to serve her people in five districts.

The new governor also thanked her predecessor, Robert Agarobe, for leading and governing Central Province over the past five years.

She dedicated her victory to God, the women of Central and male champions of women empowerment.

She acknowledged all security forces and electoral officials for delivering the elections in trying circumstances, and also praised the PNC party for believing in and endorsing her to run under its banner.

Gorethy Kenneth is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A female candidate in the Papua New Guinea elections believes it is more important than ever that the country has women MPs in Parliament.

Dulciana Somare-Brash is the daughter of the late Sir Michael Somare and she unsuccessfully stood in the East Sepik regional seat in 2017, finishing fourth in the vote count.

This time she is standing in the Angoram seat in East Sepik, which has previously been held by her brother, Arthur Somare.

Papua New Guinea has had very few women MPs over the country’s 47 years of independence, and none in the current Parliament.

Somare-Brash said it was vital that changed in this year’s general election — and she was hoping to be part of that change.

“Papua New Guinea is growing so quickly. We are growing at a population rate of about 3.8 percent each year. We don’t have female representation in Parliament at all and that too is a huge motivator for why I continue to persist,” she said.

“I work in a political space, as a technical advisor, and I am hoping, as I see my support base increase that I might have some success at the polls this time.”

Lack of equity ‘motivating force’
Somare-Brash said the lack of equity for many in PNG society — women and children, particularly — was a motivating force for her.

“I feel very confident with the policy priorities that I am promoting, with a deep understanding of my people and their challenges.

“And certainly the issues of the importance of equity in the benefit sharing arrangements in Papua New Guinea, where women and children and youth seem to be left at the back of the line when we are divvying out the spoils, if you like, from our massive resource base in Papua New Guinea.”

The nominations period is not yet finished but a record number of women candidates is anticipated.

Voting, over a two week period, is set to begin July 9.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As in 2008, 2010 and 2014, none of the female candidates standing in Tonga’s 2021 general election this week have been successful.

Out of a total of 38,500 votes, 34,198 were cast for the male candidates and only 4352 were cast for the 12 female candidates, down from 14 percent of total votes in 2017 to 11 percent in 2021.

The only female MP incumbent running, Losaline Ma’asi, did not make it for a second term.

At the 2017 snap elections she won 35 percent (1034) of the total number of votes in her constituency Tongatapu 5. On Thursday, she won only 23 percent (614).

Her Royal Highness Princess Angelika Lātūfuipeka Halaevalu Mataʻaho Napua-o-kalani Tukuʻaho at the opening of Tonga Women’s Parliament 2021 — just three days before election day — reminded us that there is a need to move away from just a desire to increase the number of women in Parliament to having a concrete action plan to achieve it.

She made a strong statement that the current arrangements are not sufficient for increasing the number of women in Parliament. This is the key to opening up the dialogue for re-visiting and re-educating decision makers on temporary special measures (TSM) such as reserved seats, affirmative action party quotas and legislature quotas that have long been contested in Tonga.

Women in Tonga were given universal suffrage in 1951. This was a political milestone for women navigated by her late Majesty Queen Sālote Tupou III who was one of only two women in Tonga’s history to occupy the powerful position of monarch.

Only 6 women MPs
However, since 1951, only six women have been elected to Parliament, a few more than once, for a total of only 10 female electoral victories.

The irony is that the majority of those who not only registered but who turned up to vote have been women, at all general elections since 2005.

So what is happening?

Two major pieces of research on voter’s perception of women as leaders conducted in 2016-17 and 2020-21, using the same research methodology, showed that the majority of eligible voters believed key decision-making and leadership roles are best left to men and that roles such as household work and nurturing children are a women’s responsibility.

The following table gives a few highlights of the comparative results of these studies:

This widespread belief that leadership and key decision-making roles are best suited to men unfortunately translates into the results we see at election after election.

To change the story, one needs to have a good understanding of the difference between equality and equity.

In Tonga, women do not have the same social, cultural, political and economic experiences as men. Society does not perceive women the same way they perceive men.

Women pushed backwards
Moral standards and domestic expectations are not held against men as highly and rigidly as they are held against women. This automatically pushes women backwards, further down the field and it soon becomes clear that the playing field is not level at all.

Equity forces us to dig deeper and think more critically. To understand the lived experiences of women, we need to unpack the constructed private and public dichotomy — society’s patriarchal expectations of women.

The social expectation that women will prioritise managing the home and its affairs, taking care of the children, and attending to their husbands’ needs will continue to result in attitudes at the voting booth that do not favour women as leaders.

Temporary special measures are measures that work on changing attitudes and behaviour over time as the general public becomes exposed to larger numbers of women in Parliament.

For younger people, in particular, having more women in Parliament will become a norm for them rather than something to be desired. Once TSMs are removed, the country will return to the normal voting procedure with the anticipation that voters no longer frame leadership as a gendered role.

In the case of Rwanda, a constitutional amendment in 2003 provided that 30 percent of its seats must be reserved for women. By 2018, the share of females MPs had increased to 60 percent.

Often zero representation
The last four elections in Tonga have never resulted in more than 8 percent female representation in Parliament, and often, as this time, it has been zero.

We need significant change. We must aim for at least 30 percent or more by taking legislative action.

If this is not possible now, we need to build our women’s movement over the next four to five years and work towards revolutionary change in attitudes and mindsets — it can be done.
#WatchThisSpace2025

‘Ofa-Ki-Levuka (‘Ofa) Guttenbeil-Likiliki is director of the Women and Children Crisis Centre (WCCC) in Tonga, a women’s rights activist and a filmmaker. Republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Samoa’s Court of Appeal (CA) ruled yesterday that Article 44(1A) of the Constitution requires that six women should sit in Parliament. With all due respect, I believe that the CA’s decision was incorrect.

This is on the grounds that the CA has overreached its powers by encroaching on the law-making powers of Parliament and has made an unpragmatic (or impractical) decision that has now prolonged and further complicated Samoa’s constitutional crisis.

While the CA’s decision is final and cannot be appealed, I believe that it is still important that this decision be critiqued because the decision has set a dangerous precedent for future judges interpreting the Constitution — a precedent which essentially signals to them that they can disregard the clear and unequivocal words of the Constitution and insert their own words as they see fit.

To be clear, nothing in this critique should be taken as my disapproval or dissatisfaction with the fact that more women are now required to sit in Parliament.

It goes without saying that having only six women in a Parliament with 51 seats is shameful for any country and is representative of a deeply entrenched gender inequity problem in Samoa that must be addressed.

However, I believe that it is important for all Samoans to understand both the dangerous precedent that has been set by the CA and the wider implications of the decision on Samoa’s constitutional crisis.

Accordingly, I set out three reasons here why I believe that that the CA’s decision was incorrect:

1. The CA encroached on the law-making powers of Parliament by ignoring the explicit wording of Article 44 of the Constitution
As stated in the Supreme Court’s judgment, the court’s function is to “give primary attention to the words used, and the Court does not have the power and ability to go beyond the clear and unequivocal words used”. This function was made clear in three previous landmark Court of Appeal cases on constitutional interpretation: Attorney-General v Saipaia Olomalu, Mulitalo v Attorney General, and Jackson & Ors v Attorney General.

This statement of the court’s function recognises the fundamental importance of the doctrine of separation of powers in any democracy. The doctrine of separation of powers follows that it is only for the democratically elected Parliament to make and amend the law (including the Constitution) and the courts, as the unelected independent body, should only interpret and apply the law as Parliament intended and not make or amend the law themselves.

In this case, the “clear and unequivocal words” of Article 44(1A)(a) that the Court of Appeal had to apply are: “…women Members of the Legislative Assembly shall: (a) consist of a minimum of 10 percent of the Members of the Legislative Assembly specified under clause (1) which for the avoidance of doubt is presently 5”.

Therefore, the CA’s decision to ignore the explicit wording of Article 44(1A) demonstrates that it consciously chose not to take the correct approach to interpret the Constitution that has been laid down in key landmark cases.

In the CA’s judgment, they state that “there is a principled way to resolve the two ideas which are presently before the court…guided by well-established principles of interpretation from earlier rulings of this Court”.

In my view, the CA’s approach to constitutional interpretation was not at all “principled”, but bizarre and dubious in a way that hopefully would not be adopted by any courts after them. This dubious approach was supported and encouraged by the arguments submitted by counsel for the appellants, that in my view, were insincere and unduly motivated by political gain.

In adopting this dubious approach, the CA deliberately ignored the great (if not determinative) significance of the passing of the Constitution Amendment Act 2019. This 2019 Act amended Article 44 to increase the number of seats in Parliament from 49 to 51 specifically for the “2021 general elections”

If they gave proper consideration to the impact of the 2019 Act, the CA would have recognised that if Parliament wanted to increase the minimum number of seats for women to six, they would have changed “five” to “six” while amending Article 44 for the “2021 general elections” when they had the chance. However, Parliament did not do this, and the courts are not authorised to do this for them.

Parliament’s choice to leave “five” in Article 44(1A)(a) untouched while amending other parts of the Article 44 specifically should be taken as a clear indication that they intended the minimum number of women to remain “five” and not “six” for the “2021 general elections”. Again, it should be emphasised that under the doctrine of the separation of powers, only Parliament can amend the Constitution as the democratically elected body – not the unelected judiciary.

In an attempt to reason or justify their disregard for the clear and unambiguous wording of the Constitution, the CA looked to the overall purpose of Article 44(1A) and said that: “We consider that Article 44 1A [of the constitution] is ambiguous as to the ideas it promotes and that primacy should be given to whichever of the competing ideas best promotes the establishment of human rights practice in Samoa.”

However, the CA knew, or should have known, that it is not for them, as a body of unelected apolitical justices, to consider political matters like what “best promotes the establishment of human rights practice in Samoa”. It is only for Parliament to do so as the democratically elected body which has been chosen by the people of Samoa to debate and legislate on these political issues.

This particular separation of powers is in place for a very good reason — Parliament is the only body that has the capabilities, time and resources to consider submissions from people in Samoa, (including experts and groups specialising in the relevant issues) in order to make the best laws possible that represent the will of the people. In contrast, the courts do not have the capabilities, time and resources to fully consider matters of great importance before making or amending the law (including the Constitution).

More fundamentally, judges and justices of the courts have not been elected by the people or appointed by elected officials based on their political views or sensibilities as MPs have. In fact, they have the constitutional mandate to act apolitically and objectively when interpreting and applying the law.

Therefore, I believe that the CA’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for other courts to possibly follow, where they have signalled to other judges and justices who’ll interpret the Constitution that they’re permitted to disregard clear and unequivocal words of the Constitution and insert their own words as they see fit.

2. The CA has encroached on the law-making powers of Parliament by creating its own process for Article 44(1A)

Another major part of the CA’s decision is the finding that a sixth woman can only be added only after all petitions and potential byelections have been completed.

For reasons similar to the ones I have given above, I argue that the CA’s creation of a process for Article 44(1A) was an overreach of their powers because it is only for Parliament to design and explicitly set out this process in the Constitution or any relevant legislation (i.e. the Electoral Act).

This was rightfully respected by Justice Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai in the Supreme Court, who observed in their joint judgment that Parliament needed to provide:

“Some clarity as to the ‘process’ to be followed when Article 44(1A) is activated. There is no process provided in regards to a woman candidate appointed pursuant to Article 44(1A). Section 84 of the Electoral Act refers to successful candidates or elected candidates. Section 2 of the Electoral Act defines the word ‘election’ means the election of a Member in a general election or byelection to represent a constituency. The woman candidate coming in through Article 44(1A) is (in our view) not ‘elected’.”

Here, Justice Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai acknowledge that Parliament (in 2013 and 2019) unfortunately did not provide a clear process for the activation of Article 44(1A). However, both justices chose not to go beyond their constitutional powers to engineer and create this process themselves.

Instead, they appreciated that it is only appropriate for Parliament to create this process lawfully and transparently after they have taken the time to fully consider the merits of different options and ideas.

Unfortunately, the CA did not show such respect for Parliament and the separation of powers and decided to engineer and create their own process for Article 44(1A) in less than three days.

In my view, the CA should have simply interpreted the clear and unambiguous words of Article 44(1A) as mentioned above, and stated that it was therefore unnecessary for them to discuss the process as this was a matter for Parliament to determine.

While the CA attempted to design their process with some regard to the practical realities surrounding election petitions, counter petitions and potential byelections — it was still wrong for them to create this process in the fraught context of a dispute in which arguments from parties, namely the appellants, are motivated by political gain.

Therefore, it would not be surprising if the rushed and unprincipled manner in which the CA created the process provides even more confusion, ambiguity, conflict and controversy in the near or distant future. In any case, it is hoped that the new Parliament takes the time needed to fix the problems with Article 44(1A), before designing a new process following its activation, fairly and democratically.

3. The CA’s process for Article 44 is unpragmatic for prolonging and further complicating Samoa’s constitutional crisis

Aside from the issues with the CA’s problematic interpretation of the Constitution, the CA’s decision should also be criticised as being unpragmatic (or in other words, impractical) for having the effect of prolonging and further complicating Samoa’s constitutional crisis.

The CA’s finding that a sixth woman can only be added after all petitions and potential byelections have been completed (and there are still only five women MPs), means that the addition of another woman MP could be several months away. This is due to the sheer volume of petitions that the courts are due to consider next week, a reality the CA was no doubt aware of.

While the courts are not necessarily required to be influenced by what is pragmatic and best for the general wellbeing and smooth running of the country, it is hoped that they at least do not go out of their way to make decisions that would create further uncertainty and delay in a country suffering from an already drawn out constitutional crisis.

Of course, there is already a degree of uncertainty around which party would hold the majority of seats due to the unprecedented number of petitions that have been filed and are yet to be heard,

However, adding the potential activation of Article 44(1A) to the mix does not help things at all. This has already been seen by how both the leaders of the FAST party and the HRPP have interpreted the CA’s decision to mean that their parties hold the majority in judgement and should be able to govern until the election petitions and any potential by-elections are completed.

In my view, had the CA interpreted Article 44(1A) in the correct, honest and principled manner (to find that the minimum number of seats for women is “five” and not six) this would not be a legitimate dispute as the leader of the HRPP would not have any real reason to believe that a sixth woman MP could be added as a 52nd seat in parliament in their favour.

FAST would then have a clearer path for transitioning into the government — a path which I believe they legitimately have because in my view, their convening of parliament was legitimate and constitutional in the extraordinary circumstances Samoa was facing. [NOTE: Although the constitutionality of FAST’s swearing-in on 24 May 2021 is another matter due to be heard by the courts on Friday, I have argued in a previous opinion piece that their swearing-in was constitutional and that the courts should declare this when they do rule on this case — most likely sometime next week.]

Another practical problem the CA could have (and should have) avoided was the risk of creating an even-numbered hung Parliament of 52, with each party having 26 seats. When Article 44(1A) was introduced in 2013, the parliament of that day (and any day up to the 2021 general election) didn’t foresee that its activation could lead to an even-numbered hung parliament which could create major issues in the future. For example, a hung 52 seated parliament (with 26 seats for both parties) could lead the Head of State to use their powers under Article 63 to dissolve parliament and call for a new general election on the grounds that the office of the Prime Minister has vacant beyond a “reasonable period” of time (Article 63(2)) or that the Prime Minister does not command the majority in parliament (Article 63(3)). With due respect, it can only be hoped that this wasn’t the underlying motivation behind the CA’s decision.

In any case, there is an urgent need for a government to come into power to govern Samoa. This is not only because Samoa is in a global pandemic, but also because the government should have already set and announced its annual budget by this time in the year. Therefore, the CA’s decision shows an unfortunate lack of pragmatism for which the people of Samoa will continue to bear the costs.

A case of ‘judicial activism’?
Some might celebrate and defend the CA’s decision as a case of “judicial activism” because it was apparently decided in the interests of gender equality and human rights in Samoa.

“Judicial activism” is a term that refers to when judges go outside their apolitical and objective roles to become “activists” in the courtroom pursuing their political agendas. They do this by interpreting and applying laws in a way that is obviously incorrect and contrary to established legal principles because they believe that the outcome would be morally unacceptable and unjust according to their political beliefs if they did not.

One key instance of “judicial activism” in New Zealand was in the 1985 case of Finnigan v New Zealand Rugby Football. In this case, the Court of Appeal of NZ disregarded well established legal principles in order to prevent the All Blacks from touring South Africa during the nation’s apartheid era.

It is well known now that the justices hearing this case were influenced not only by anti-apartheid protests outside the courtroom but by their own values and beliefs against South Africa’s racist system.

Of course, anyone committed to anti-racism (and the fundamental human right to freedom from discrimination) would not question or fault the Court of Appeal of NZ for being judicial activists in the Finnigan case. However, in my view, the CA’s decision should not be seen or understood as a legitimate and justified case of “judicial activism” like that in Finnigan.

Some may disagree and argue that the need to have six women (rather than five) in Parliament is a critically urgent and important human rights and social justice issue that is analogous or comparable to the moral dilemma the NZ justices faced in the Finnigan case.

However, if anything, this litigation has shown that Article 44(1A) is a deeply flawed mechanism for ensuring the representation of women in Parliament and upholding Samoa’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). In my view, instead of further complicating a deeply flawed mechanism during a constitutional crisis, the CA should have upheld the observations of Justice Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai in the Supreme Court to allow Parliament (and the people of Samoa whose voices they represent) to improve Samoa’s deeply entrenched gender inequity issue in the fair and transparent manner that is expected of a democratic state.

In terms of what a new gender-based quota system for Samoa would look like, it is clear that the new Parliament will need to pay closer attention to the laws and experiences of other democratic countries that have introduced similar gender-based quota laws, such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark who have since achieved an average of 40 percent women in their parliaments.

It’s also important that the new Parliament tackle deeply entrenched gender inequity in Samoan politics more broadly. A 2015 report on “Political Representation and Women’s Empowerment in Samoa” by the Centre for Samoan Studies at the National University of Samoa (NUS) found that Article 44(1A) would “not address what this research found to be the core issue: the barriers to women’s equal participation in local government” and that Samoa does not have gender parity laws and candidate pre-selection mechanisms that other countries like France, Timor-Leste, Senegal and Rwanda have introduced to increase the number of women in their parliaments.

Similarly, Kiki Matire has commented that while Article 44(1A) would increase the representation of women in Samoa’s parliament, “much more needs to be done to address the cultural and tangible obstacles to women as political leaders”.

Fuimaono Dylan Asafo is a law lecturer at the Faculty of Law at the University of Auckland. He holds a Master of Laws from Harvard University and a Master of Laws (First Class Honours) from the University of Auckland. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The five reserved seats for women being put forward by Papua New Guinea’s special parliamentary committee on gender-based violence has been rejected by women and a petition is on its way to demand different proposal.

The women will petition the parliamentary committee to voice their disapproval about the five reserved seats idea and raise other related concerns.

Women in Politics president Maria Hayes told the Post-Courier that women represented half the population of the country and women leaders took offence that an attempt was being made to sideline them.

“Talk about gender-based violence!” Hayes said. “It is an insult.

“Women represent 50 percent of the country’s population; we do not have to stand on the side to be considered whether we are good or not.

“Parliament is mixing up gender-based violence with women in leadership which are two different issues.

“There is no structure in place so it is a farce; an election gimmick to lure women’s votes in next year’s national general election.”

The women are firm over their demand for 22 reserved seats and expressed disappointment that women in leadership was being narrowed down to gender-based violence.

They envisaged women’s decision-making in Parliament to be of much broader scope, encompassing all other areas of law-making and implementation.

They point to previous work done on temporary special measures in which women advocates believed being elected rather than having appointed seats to be the best way forward.

Under such a scheme, which they supported, 22 seats would be reserved for women.

This, they said, was the demand for women in PNG and they stood by it.

The idea currently being mooted is five reserved seats for women on the basis of region.

But PNG has four regions – the Highlands, Mamose, Southern and the Islands – which means there is a proposal to split Southern in half.

Barney Orere is a PNG Post-Courier journalist.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz