;)
Melanesia, Democracy, Nationalism and Federalism
Hello everyone,
The APROFED association is back in touch this week following its articles on France’s democratic index. But what about Melanesia and its constituent states, namely Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji?
Although some states like the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu are on the list of territories and countries whose democracy index is not calculated (see Democracy Index — Wikipedia ), there appears, however, according to other sites, to be a general trend placing the whole of Melanesia on the border between imperfect democracy and hybrid regime.
Although Vanuatu during the colonial period was unwillingly classified as an authoritarian regime, it has since managed to rise to the rank of an imperfect democracy, albeit with a fragile rate placing it on the edge of a hybrid regime.
Papua New Guinea, despite having half its territory occupied by Indonesia, had a rate since 2006 that placed it in the category of imperfect democracies, like France . Again, like Vanuatu, it was downgraded to a hybrid regime by 2024.
Fiji, for its part, has remained in the category of hybrid regimes since 2006 , with a brief period after the 2006 military coup in the category of authoritarian regimes.
It is worth recalling here that imperfect democracies represent nearly 37% of states worldwide, and hybrid regimes approximately 18%. The remainder are classified as either authoritarian regimes (37%) or full democracies (8%).
As mentioned in one of our previous articles, federalism has already been studied by all of these states (see Federalism under debate in the Loyalty Islands, within the FLNKS and in the Melanesian world – APROFED ), but none has yet taken the step individually. Papua New Guinea, a former German and British colony, then under Australian trusteeship, has been moving towards this solution since its independence in 1975, particularly in relation to Bougainville. Vanuatu, for its part, existed until its independence as a condominium, a kind of confederation, shared between the two powers, France and Great Britain. Federalism was subsequently considered in greater depth by the Solomon Islands, where several draft federal constitutions were drawn up starting in 2016 without success (see unc.hal.science/hal-03379464v1 ).
New Caledonia, a non-self-governing territory still administered by France, also considered this solution during the events of the 1980s, aiming to develop a federal constitution (see FINAL REPORT ANNEXES.pdf ) and subsequently accepting two peace agreements with the French state, establishing the foundations for federal-type development and organization for the territory. Some Kanak leaders, although pro-independence, proposed a third way with this concept of federalism, such as Gabriel Païta. In 2003, at the 15th summit of the Melanesian Spearhead Group in Gizo, Solomon Islands , the FLNKS even promoted the Federated States of Melanesia , similar to the neighboring Federated States of Micronesia, with the aim of creating a Melanesian central bank, a Melanesian parliament, and so on.
This is precisely why the association believes the FLNKS should be renamed FLFKS, for Kanak and Socialist Federal Liberation Front, with a slogan such as “One country, many peoples, one common destiny.” While the association understands the notion of nationalism aimed at calling for unity against the colonizer, it maintains that the front’s structure and operation are closer to a federal model than a national one, with decision-making originating from the grassroots rather than being imposed from above.
The idea of federalism was also presented to Fiji at the beginning of the 20th century during the founding of Australia, which proposed to New Zealand and Fiji the formation of a “Federal Council of Australasia” to address the threats that other European colonial powers (and Japan) might pose to these British colonies in the South Pacific (see Pacific Federalisms – Le Taurillon ). Unfortunately, Fiji declined this proposal, leading to the geographically smaller project of a more restricted “Australian federation.”
However, while many current federations arose from the grouping of states to protect themselves against a potential external threat, the Melanesian territories, not yet independent , had not yet achieved nation-state status . Although they acquired their respective sovereignties within a relatively short period, between 1970 for the first and 1980 for the last, the Melanesian territories preferred to embrace nationalism in an attempt to defend themselves individually rather than unite in a federation.
Although the aforementioned idea of establishing the federated states of Melanesia has been put on the table, the fact remains that the last Melanesian country is still unable to acquire its independence, with France opposing it and thus blocking this federation project.
Nevertheless, the already independent Melanesian states could, while awaiting the arrival of New Caledonia, regroup into a federation or confederation. However, aside from their existing exchanges through the Pacific Islands Forum, no sign of political progress towards this project has yet been observed. They prefer to maintain control over their populations and territories through a central, unitary state, controlled by a small number of individuals. Unfortunately, this system has only led to failures, as it is not in keeping with Melanesian culture and has been the source of numerous revolts and insurrections against these central institutions, requiring the intervention of their neighbors, particularly Australia, to restore peace.
It is worth remembering that prior to European colonization, there was no absolute or centralized authority of a monarchical type within Melanesian territories except in Fiji.
Thus, the nation-state system established by European powers allowed Melanesian states, in a way, to reach a monarchical stage, despite being republics like France. However, as mentioned in one of our previous articles, nationalism is not the logical continuation of human evolution, unlike federalism (see The Federal System: The Logical Continuity of the Tribal and Feudal Model – APROFED ).
Indeed, in Melanesia , pre-colonial political systems were highly varied and based primarily on highly hierarchical and much more egalitarian chieftaincies . There was no king in the classical sense. In New Caledonia, for example, each clan (family) had a chief , and some chiefs exercised broader authority (district chiefs), but power was shared with elders and strongly linked to alliances, land, and rituals. Authority was neither absolute nor centralized . Similarly, in Vanuatu, society was founded on the “big man” system. Power was acquired through prestige, gifts, rituals, and exploits, not through strict hereditary succession, and therefore without a central state . This system is also found in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, although some hereditary chieftaincies existed on the coasts, but never kingdoms.
The absence of a monarchy can be explained, on the one hand, by geographical and demographic factors, where the mountainous terrain and the scattered islands fostered the isolation of population groups and their low population density. On the other hand, Melanesian societies were egalitarian, valuing individual competition. Power was based on prestige, not heredity. A leader who was too powerful was often challenged, abandoned, ridiculed, or sometimes neutralized (killed) . Thus, in Melanesia, societies prioritized balance between groups and the limitation of individual power, maintaining relative equality in order to avoid tyranny.
Colonization disrupted these structures by appointing chiefs where none had existed before or by excessively strengthening certain leaders. Powerful figures became administrative chiefs , sometimes without any customary legitimacy. The role of the powerful figure was temporary; with the colonizer, the function became permanent . Prestige, previously limited to gifts, rituals, and alliances, was replaced by education, religion, colonial employment, and money. As a result, customary authorities today find themselves weakened or manipulated, and tensions arise between traditional chiefs and modern elected officials and economic leaders.
The exception to this rule is Fiji, which, through contact with the Tu’i Tonga Empire (see Tu’i Tonga Empire — Wikipedia ), developed a monarchical system with powerful, albeit later, kings (Tui). The Fijian monarchy was the political system in place in Fiji until 1987. The monarch of Fiji holds the title of Tui Viti. Until the mid-19th century, Fiji was not a unified country and never considered itself as such. Although the archipelago , which is part of Melanesia, lies 744 km west-northwest of Tonga, it was a component of the empire and had to pay tribute to it. As a reminder, Fiji, spelled Fiji in English, is the Tongan pronunciation of the name of the island of Viti Levu (“Greater Viti”). Viti means “island” in Polynesian. Unlike Papua New Guinea (with its mountains and landlocked nature) and Vanuatu or the Solomon Islands (with their highly fragmented archipelagos), Fiji possesses large islands (Viti Levu, Vanua Levu), agricultural plains, and internal shipping networks. This facilitates territorial control, the collection of tribute, and the formation of standing armies. In Fiji, the intensive cultivation of taro , yams, and kava allows for regular agricultural surpluses . While in many Melanesian societies the economy is more horticultural and dispersed , the surplus is less centralized. This surplus allows for the maintenance of an elite, the financing of wars and rituals, and the stabilization of hereditary power. However, it wasn’t until 1852 that the first king of Fiji appeared : Ratu Seru Epenisa Cakobau (see Seru Epenisa Cakobau — Wikipedia ). He was not immediately recognized by the chiefs of the other islands and, with the help of the Tongan king and the colonial powers, launched a military campaign to unify the entire archipelago (see Fijian monarchy — Wikipedia ). Interestingly, in 1865 he decided to create a confederation of the independent Fijian kingdoms, which he then led . Although his reign was short, he was the very first Melanesian monarch, drawing on the lineage of both Tongan and Hawaiian monarchs like Kamehameha I ( see Kamehameha I — Wikipedia ), and supported by the colonial powers, particularly the British, to gain greater control over the territory and its resources.
Nevertheless, nationalism is not the solution to the difficulties these countries face . Of the 190 countries and territories recognized by the UN worldwide, three of the four Melanesian states rank between 140th and 156th in the Human Development Index (HDI ) (see List of countries by HDI — Wikipedia ). Fiji is ranked 104th , while Australia and New Zealand are ranked 10th and 16th respectively .
By grouping all European countries under the banner of the European Union, of the top 10 in this ranking by HDI, 5 states, or half, are federal, which in addition to the EU are Switzerland (No. 1), Australia, Canada and the United Arab Emirates.
This is why nationalism , such as Nazism in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century, is a source of perpetual conflict and must give way to federalism , which combines nationalism at the level of sovereign powers but also the sharing of power for other powers towards local structures, something that Germany understood very well after 1945, making it a driving force of the European Union and the leading economic power ahead of France.
It remains to be seen whether the Melanesians will follow the same path as the Iroquois of America (see The Iroquois Confederacy is partly at the origin of American federalism. – APROFED ) or whether they will continue to elect leaders who consider themselves monarchs?
Wishing you a pleasant read and reminding you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.
The APROFED association