Tonga in Crisis: Some Reflections on the 16/11

“Tonga in Crisis: Some Reflections”

PANEL:
Professor Bill Hodge, Law, UoA
Dr Linita Manu’atu, OPA & Education, AUT
Dr Sitiveni Halapua, Chair, NCPR, Tonga
CHAIR: Dr ‘Okusitino Mahina, Anthropology, UoA

Fale Pasifika, Centre for Pacific Studies, UoA
Thursday 14 December 2006, 7-9pm

“Tonga in Crisis: Some Reflections on the 16/11″

On Anderson’s interpretation of him, Heraclitus taught that a thing’s permanence, its stability, as well as its growth and development, had their source in the counter-poising of opposite tendencies, not in the subordination of every force within it to a single objective. This, according to Anderson, is as true of the human mind and of human society as it is of the candle-flame.
Passmore in John Anderson: Studies in Empirical Philosophy

‘Okusitino Mahina, PhD
Lecturer in Pacific Political Economy & Pacific Arts

Introduction: Fakatapu and Welcome
Si’oto ‘ofa, kia ora and greetings to you all, hou’eiki mo e kainga, chiefs and kinfolks, ladies and gentlemen. My sincere fakatapu goes to you all. On behalf of the organisers of this much-needed forum, Mrs Maria Meredith and myself, I would like to extend to you all our warmest welcome this evening, especially so the honourable members of the panel, Professor Bill Hodge, Dr Linita Manu’atu and Dr Sitiveni Halapua, for giving up your most precious time in order that we all congregate here tonight in this beautiful Pacific fale to collectively reflect on the 16/11, a crisis that is commonly confronting us all, both Tongans and non-Tongans alike.

Division of Tasks
As a huge honour, my chief role is merely to chair this panel, facilitating the speakers in the first hour and the discussions that will follow in the second hour. At the conclusion of my introductory remarks, where I will be introducing the theme of the forum and the panellists, I will then ask that Professor Hodge begins by speaking for 15 minutes, which will be followed by Dr Manu’atu and Dr Halapua, in that order, to speak for 15 minutes each, after which the floor will be opened for questions, comments and criticisms.

The collective role of the panellists is to put in perspective the events leading up to and including the 16/11, generally drawing upon their respective expertise, with a view to shed some light on the moment of “darkness” that has engulfed the whole of Tonga. It is expected that Professor Hodge will critically reflect on both the constitutional and legal implications surrounding the 16/11, and, likewise, Dr Manu’atu for some systematic reflections on the 16/11 largely in the context of education, and, lastly, for Dr Halapua to offer a critique of the NCPR report within the series of events that converged in the 16/11.

Academic Points of View
The 16/11 has been the subject of much confusion, increasingly complicated by finger-pointing and personal attacks, with the single event that took place on November 16, 2006, left on the wayside largely unaccounted for. These complications are furthered by the ongoing exchange of political convictions, religious beliefs, social positions and emotional feelings, thrown to and fro over and above what actually took place on the 16/11. Of all these conflicting points of view, it is the formation of enlightened academic points of view that is virtually absent. The main purpose of this forum is, therefore, to begin the formulation of such an academic position with respect to the 16/11, with a view towards providing some form of enlightenment of the confused situation in Tonga.

In contrast to the value-laden, subjectively-embedded public opinions expressed thus far, the academic points of view differ in that they are an attempt to deal with the independent operations of things as they positively are, as opposed to their imaginings as we would like them to be. The latter, which is the idealisations of things as we would prefer them to be, has abounded in the public area, with too much attention given to the secondary question, “What Tonga could be or could have been”, rather than with a preoccupation with the primary question, “What Tonga is”. While the former deals with the ideal, the latter with the real, which is often ignored and unexamined.

Likewise, the academic position primarily raises the question, “Of what conflicting is really the social scene”, and, secondarily, the question, “What do social institutions serve”. By dwelling on the former, we can afford a better view of the independent working of the conflicting social institutions and societal groupings and competing ideologies in reality, in opposition to merely utilising them for the satisfaction of subjective human demands. In doing so, we can have a much clearer understanding of the conflicts in the relative human arrangement of the form, content and function of things, be they kinship systems, religious institutions or economic and political ideologies.

Public Points of View
The disjointed or fragmented nature of opinions in the public domain is largely responsible for the greater degree of confusion over the 16/11. So far, these public opinions have been directed singularly at the 16/11 and its aftermaths, including principally the Pro-democracy Movement and the youths. Members of the Pro-democracy Movement, notably Mr ‘Akilisi Pohiva, Mr ‘Isileli Pulu, Mr ‘Uliti Uata, Mrs Lepolo Taunisila and Mr Clive Edwards, all five are People’s Representatives of Parliament, have been levelled the blame for inciting the so-called political violence, where many of the young people are said to have been persuaded into doing so. Equally, the Government of Tonga, primarily the Prime Minister, is asserted to have principally been at fault for intentionally hindering and not facilitating many of the necessary and much-called for reforms, and believed to have sparked off the destruction of Nuku’alofa. And so the blame and counter-blame have tended to multiply manifold and often out of the ordinary.

Problematic Assumptions
The formulation of an academic position requires a total, integrated approach to the current crisis. Accordingly, I suggest to the most learned panellists tonight that we deal with a number of unresolved problematic assumptions that have been floating around since the 16/11. May I ask that we go beyond the confines of the 16/11, critically looking at and into both the “causes” and “effects” of the current crisis. There appears to be a huge public condemnation of the 16/11 while, at the same time, turning a blind eye at many years of systematic economic exploitation and political negligence of the many poor, where a large concentration of wealth remains in the hands of a highly privileged few. With a sense of indiscrimination, the same condemnation has been unjustifiably levelled at democracy.

In addition to the remote economically- and politically-induced “causes”, there were also the immediate “causes”, which were, I sincerely believe, triggered by the total failure on the part of Government to come to the party, where it happened to be one of the main instigators of the NCPR report, formally endorsed by His Majesty, the late King George Tupou IV and the Parliament and Government of Tonga, and effectively carried out by the National Committee for Political Reform in Tonga. The mandate for NCPR was to seek the opinions of the whole of Tonga as to the best way possible in which the highly problematic seat of power was to be made “good” politically.

NCPR, as agreed upon by all parties involved, did provide an effective alangafale (framework), with the fala-’oe-melino (mat-of-peace) fully rolled out, allowing for all the parties to sort out their differences in a civilised, informed and coordinated fashion. In effect, this was an admission of guilt on the part of His Majesty the King and the Parliament and Government of Tonga that Tonga’s political system was politically bad or kovi, and that it was to be made politically good or lelei. Not surprisingly, this is what NCPR stands for in Tongan, Komiti Fakafonua ‘oe Pule’anga Faka-Tu’i ‘o Tonga ki he “Fakalelei” Fakapolitikale, where the component “made-good” politically is highlighted. Such an outmoded political system was responsible for the highly unequal distribution of wealth of the nation which was, in turn, responsible for the social problems faced by her people.

16/11 and 1779: Some Parallels
Let me digress a little by making reference to the parallels between the 16/11 and the introduction of Codes of Laws beginning with the Vava’u Code in 1839, followed by the 1862 Emancipation Edict and the promulgation of the 1875 Constitution – all of which were intimately connected with freedom and the liberation of people from their political woes. These introduced Codes of Laws, including the Constitution, are a form of “averaging-out”, which involves the symmetrical arrangement of the totality of contradictory group and individual interests of the whole of Tongan society, the aims of which are the production of social harmony. The 1875 Constitution is constituted of foreign elements, made up largely of Western, British and Christian ideologies, with very little Tongan cultural values and practices.

These Codes of Laws, as is the 1875 Constitution, it must be pointed out, were the direct results of major political upheavals that threw the whole of Tonga into some fifty years of bloody Civil Wars. These Civil Wars, caused by political, religious and ideological conflicts, had their origins in 1799 with the murder of the 14th Tu’i Kanokupolu, Tuku’aho, who was better known for his highly oppressive rule. These political and religious conflicts peaked at the revolution by Taufa’ahau George Tupou I, who combined the whole of Tonga under his new rulership, ultimately formalised by the 1875 Constitution. While the bloody Civil Wars that began in 1799 and led to the formation of the 1875 Constitution lasted for some fifty years (approximately 18,250 days), the current crisis took place in one day, 16 November, 2006.

Characterised by bloodshed, burning and destruction, these conflicts, which culminated in the promulgation of the 1875 Constitution, raise some serious questions. Must we embrace the 1875 Constitution and treat the political violence that led to its formation a complete disgrace? Or, must we embrace the political violence and regard the Constitution a total disgrace? Or, must we embrace both as valid and legitimate? Or, must we discredit both entirely a disgrace? The same questions apply to the 16/11. Must we condemn the 16/11 and ignore both its remote and immediate causes? Or, must we hold both the 16/11 and its causes a disgrace? Or, must we discredit the causes and accept the 16/11 as inevitable? There is one thing that is clear here. If we are to continue to condemn the 16/11 alone without any reference to the causes that threw people into political action and agitation it would be to deny their common struggle for freedom from oppression.

Political Education or Political Violation?
There also exists a problematised fusion in popular thinking in regards to political domination and political liberation, on the one hand, and political education and political violation, on the other, as distinct yet related conflicting political processes. As a consequence, political education and political liberation are both equated with political violation. By avoiding this unwarranted fusion, we need to clarify the following questions: Where does political domination end and where does political liberation begin? Where does political education end and where does political violation begin? Where does political understanding end and where does political inciting begin? Where does political action end and where does political persuasion begin? Distinguishing between these distinct albeit continuous political processes is really like walking on a tight rope.

Ironically, the political education actively carried out by the Pro-democracy Movement, notably Mr ‘Akilisi Pohiva, the late Rev. Dr ‘Amanaki Havea and the late Bishop Finau, amongst others, for many years now was somehow fused together with the 16/11, treating them both as a form of political violation. Consciously or unconsciously, this kind of problematic thinking can be viewed as a complete disregard of the extent or degree of economic and political suffering of the ordinary people and the potentialities and capacities for them to react accordingly naturally. But if the holders of such a view are conscious of it, then it is a clear case of education in knowledge as education in misery. Also, this same enigmatic attitude is highly contrary to the findings of NCPR, which happened to find that the whole of Tonga are relatively politically literate, even with a handful of people living on the islands as remote and tiny as Kotu in Ha’apai, Lape in Vava’u and Tafahi in Niuatoputapu.

To continue to fuse together these elements of popular political thinking and practice by treating the Tongans as political minors, or, vale, who are thought to be mindless of their own conditions of poverty and suffering, is to undermine their very own capabilities to be aware of their own demanding situations. To say that those involved were persuaded and incited in what they thought and did on the 16/11, and, by extension, could have been incapable of such an act, is not only to deny history but also to undermine the abilities of people to make sense of their very own struggle for a life of dignity and purpose. History, as in the case of the fighting that, for instance, paved the way for the 1862 Emancipation Edit, tells us that tau’ataina or freedom is not something readily “given” but something that is actively “fought” for. ‘Oku ‘ikai ko e tau’ataina ko ha me’a ‘oku “foaki” mola pe ka ko e me’a ‘oku “fuhu’i” fefeka pe “tau’i” malohi.

We must always remember that we are talking here about people who have a mind of their own, and, who, upon understanding their very own oppression, are angry about it, and, whose emotions are permanently scarred from many years of economic deprivation and political alienation. The words of Abraham Lincoln still echo with some precision and relevance. Herewith, we are all being reminded that we can fool some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but we cannot fool all of the people all of the time.

Tau’ataina and Democracy
The words freedom, independence and autonomy, or, democracy for that matter, all mean more or less the same. In the case of Tonga, they all mean tau’ataina, as opposed to fa’iteliha, which stands for “above-the-rules”. Democracy or tau’ataina, both terms mean the same. Basically, both democracy and tau’ataina refer to a life free of unnecessary constraints. In essence, tau’ataina, like democracy, is a form of “averaging-out” or “symmetry” of the totality of group and individual interests of a society. This form of symmetry is defined by a balance of relations of exchange between groups and individuals of a community, where the constraints involved become the very source of freedom, independence or autonomy.

The acquisition of tau’ataina or democracy is thought to materialise on two distinct but related levels: the societal and governmental levels. These relations of exchange exist in the form of tauhiva, the maintenance of socio-spatial relations between groups and individuals, and fatongia, the performance of social obligations, both of which emanate from within, orientating outwardly, away from the groups and individuals into the common good of the wider society. Once these relations of exchange of social obligations, tauhiva and fatongia, are made balance, there is, then, tau’ataina or democracy abounding in the community at large.

On the governmental level, tau’ataina or democracy can be acquired through the conduct of the civic affairs of a nation by the state, which enters into a two-way relations of exchange with the wider public. Such relations of exchange exist in the form of accountability, transparency and justice, which involve equitable and fair distribution of wealth in the broader society, thereby freeing people from both economic and political constraints, made in the name of social harmony. Along the same characteristic lines, the more freedom-loving a community is, the less there is requirement for legalism.

Education, Economics and Politics
Where do we go from here? Tonga has the highest Human Development Index in the Pacific, with an almost perfect rate of both literacy and numeracy, not to mention the fact that she has the most PhD degree holders per capita in the world, yet these figures do not reflect on her present position in the scheme of things. I suspect the reasons for this sad state of affairs are connected with the overly utilitarian emphasis in, and peculiarly Western-constituted form and content of, Tongan education. In short, Tongan culture, both its classical form and content, as well as the development of critical attitudes to all things, in nature, mind and society, completely lack in the curriculum.

The performance of the funeral rites on the recent passing of His Majesty, the late King George Tupou IV, as a case in point, illustrated the coming together in unity of both foreign and local, Western and Tongan cultural values and practices. Our leaders have yet to project this form of harmony beyond the local level to the international arena, particularly the fields of commerce and trade, economics and politics, art and literature and education and technology, amidst others. It is probably fair to say that Japan is, by far, the only non-Western country in the world to have succeeded in this projection, providing her with an effective front to battle these things out on the global stage.

Conclusion: Tatau and Thank-you
In conclusion, I propose that all the major players in this political game rise above their subjective differences and sort out the political mess right now for the sake of the future of Tonga and her people. Let us take heed of the lasting and memorable words of John F. Kennedy by not asking what Tonga can do for us but by asking what we can do for Tonga. Let us rise from the ashes of the 16/11 not by continuing to declare war upon each other but by making peace with one another. Let us all forgive and forget, fakamolemole’i mo fakangalongalo’i, the past and move forward into the future. There was a time to make war; this is a time to make peace; and now is a time for reflections. Let us all, therefore, re-build and restore Tonga to her former glory by transforming the current state of crisis to a beautiful state of stasis. This is the best thing we can all do for Tonga, at the very least, as a matter of both immediacy and urgency.

Hou’eiki mo e kainga, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for your patience. ANFF, leveleva e malanga kae tau, ‘ofa atu fau.