The Constitutional Crisis in Samoa
Some Reflections from a New Zealand-born Perspective By Rene S. Maiava – MTh programme at Pacific Theological College, Suva
T
o all my Samoan family and friends and those of Samoan ancestry, tulou lava fa’amolemole (please excuse me). What follows is my New Zealand-born Samoan perspective on the constitutional crisis in Samoa following the elections on 9 April 2021. For those readers unfamiliar with our region, Samoa is an independent island nation in the South Pacific Sea. Its motto is Faavae i le Atua Samoa (Samoa is founded on God) and nearly 90% of its 200,000 population identifies as Christian.1 Since independence in 1962, a Westminster parliamentary system of government has been in place with the unique Samoan feature that only those who hold chiefly titles can be elected. There are 51 seats in the parliament of Samoa. As a theological student based in the Pacific, Suva at present, I have been keenly following the elections through online news feeds, interviews with experts and social media. I write with the prayerful concerns for the homeland of my ancestors and birthplace of my parents, uncles, aunts, and cousins. It is in this spirit that I watched the political strategising presenting to the world a side of Samoa that is unfortunate. This political episode does not accurately represent the character and strength Samoan leaders can have and do action. The Prime Minister elect Fiame Naomi Mata’afa of the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST; in English: "Faith in the One God of Samoa”) party gives us an example. In making that statement, I am imagining the 18
the previously elected government supporters to have disengaged. And, I do understand, a prominent characteristic of Samoan people, my people, is our loyalty to those we believe in and have relationship with. Growing up in West Auckland, I would overhear my elders speak of politics in the homeland, not understanding the words as much as intuiting their body language. The two cultures my siblings and I were part of meant we were children of two worlds, like that of most diaspora communities. We knew in part and were partly known. Samoa, we came to know in part, the distant Pacific homeland of our parents. Through them and our relatives, we identified ourselves as Samoan, ‘plastic’ to some and ‘coconuts’ to others, but nonetheless, that was our biology and understanding of how to be in relationships and in the world. My parents and elders modelled the loyalty that Samoans show towards those they love and believe in. It is how I can make sense of the political allegiance many Samoans are showing to the previous Prime Minister who has had the position for 23 years and his political party, Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), that has been in power for nearly 40 years. To give a brief overview of what transpired post-election, the results had FAST, the newcomer at less than a year of being registered, and HRPP tied with 25 seats each. The one independent decided to commit to FAST, giving them the electoral victory. Much INSiGHT | June 2021
political wrangling occurred for HRPP to try and put in place an extra seat based on the minimum number of women required within parliament. The Supreme Court became heavily involved with petitions being made by both sides. On 17 May the Supreme Court voided the extra women’s seat giving the election victory to FAST, with 26 seats. Under the constitution, parliament must sit within 45 days of an election, the last day was 24 May. With the Supreme Court’s decision, it seemed that all would be well now. I sat back and imagined the new era Samoa was entering into with its first female Prime Minister-elect Fiame Naomi Mata’afa, she would also be the first female Polynesian Prime Minister. It could be a new dawn for women in positions of power within the Pacific, the gender disparity in leadership roles could be closing in Samoa. These were exciting thoughts to behold. As we all came to discover, sadly, that was not the end. The previous PM and HRPP were not ready to relinquish power. The Head of State, who holds the power to dissolve Parliament in certain circumstances, two days prior proclaimed a suspension of parliament until further notice, with no reasons provided. The FAST party responded the next day with an urgent call for the Supreme Court to hear their challenge to the Head of State's new edict, which the court ruled as unlawful. It should have been that parliament sat the next day.
