TONGA
DEATH OF A KING AND END OF AN ERA

The passing away of King Taufa’ahau Tupou 1V represents the end of an era, an era characterized by the sometimes calm and sometimes turbulent relationship between the waning old and the robust new, between loyalty to the traditional order and popular demand for socio-political transformation.

By DR STEVEN RATUVA

Feedback to the Toktok page

THE PASSING away of King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV represents the end of an era, an era characterised by the sometimes calm and sometimes turbulent relationship between the waning old and the robust new, between loyalty to the traditional order and popular demand for socio-political transformation. When the late King ascended the throne in 1965 he was hailed as the awaited modernisation messiah for Tonga, to catapult the tiny South Pacific Kingdom into the twentieth century.

As the first Tongan university graduate, one of his first visions was to modernise and transform the country through education. He did this with utmost zealousness and by the 1990s Tongans had become some of the most highly educated people on earth. They had more PhDs per capita than most other countries. However, this admirable achievement manifested a paradoxical reality. That high educational achievement did not necessarily translate into high economic growth or open democratic governance.

While King Taufa’ahau opened the doors for academic pursuit, he kept the lid on political, social and economic reforms. Much of the political power vested in the hands of the absolute monarch and the nopili (nobles) and so was much of control over economic resources. Many brilliant Tongans left the country and many of those who returned home after overseas education found themselves powerless clogs in a big monarchal wheel. As in many other Pacific states, there were limited chances of upward social mobility, restricted space for political self-expression and absence of conditions for economic accumulation. Most of the opportunities were limited to those with hereditary status. This naturally brewed grievances which were initially latent but increasingly became manifest and relatively violent recently.

Taufa’ahau: Cultural symbol and reform
Despite the difficulties, there was something about King Taufa’ahau which made him a resilient symbol and guardian of Tongan socio-political and socio-cultural unity. His charisma, derived from Tongan reverence for cultural tradition and Christian ethos coupled with his ability to nurture and consolidate Tongan cultural homogeneity within a stable political structure was his main source of strength. This was at a time when new political thinking began to question the political and ideological basis of the monarch.

While the monarch as a family was vilified by pro-democracy opponents as “autocratic” and “corrupt” King Taufa’ahau the person was still widely respected. He was seen as the personification of Tongan nationhood, a human expression of the sacred Tongan ethos, the cultural embodiment of Tongan unity and stability. These powerful symbols helped to maintain a sense of coherence within the Tongan society. This socio-cultural coherence has gone through testing times and will continue to undergo even more dramatic challenges after King Taufa’ahau’s death.

One of the most significant challenges during King Taufahau’s reign was the recent national strike and pro-democracy demonstrations. These events spawned changes within the state leadership as well as within the pro-democracy movement itself. In one of the significant changes, Dr Fred Sevele, a commoner and one of the members of the pro-democracy movement became Prime Minister in place of Prince Ulukalala thus breaking the “blue blood” monopoly of that esteemed position. The former director of the pro-democracy movement, Lopeti Senituli was also appointed political advisor and press secretary to the PM. The “traditionalists” within the pro-democracy movement who advocated immediate “revolutionary” changes did not find progressive reforms “from within”, advocated by Sevele and Senituli, politically palatable. This has provoked a healthy debate on strategies within the pro-democracy movement itself.

Even within the royal family, signs of fractures were appearing. The late Prince Tuipelehaki, who was chair of the constitutional reform committee, had openly campaigned for greater political openness, accountability and transparency. Some nopili had also showed support for political change. However, at the same time some commoners (mostly those of the older generation) did not entertain the idea of democratic reform.

Thus, contrary to popular belief that there are only two opposing sides of politics in Tonga (the pro-monarch and pro-democracy camps), there are in fact various shades of political positions along Tonga’s political spectrum, depending on the type and degree of change preferred. These diverse developments have emerged at the time of the late king. The conservative-minded would probably say that these changes were signs of his weakness and the progressive minded would probably say that they were part of his strength. Towards the end of his rule King Taufa’ahau probably sensed, especially when the political pressure was on, that change was inevitable and it was time to incrementally allow for reform.

Constitutional reform
King Taufa’au has missed the chance to see the new dawn for Tonga when the new constitution comes into effect. The constitutional reform approach was greatly influenced by the talanoa approach popularised by academic Dr Sitiveni Halapua, who assumed chairmanship of the constitutional reform committee after the death of Prince Tuipelehake. The approach was simple. You have an empty template, go around and outside the country without paternalistic presumptions, listening to what Tongans have to say, put them down on paper then you have the basis for a draft constitutional framework of sorts to work on.

This would no doubt be one of the most democratic constitutional reform processes anywhere. The norm in many countries is that some obscure lawyers would put together a constitutional draft and this is shoved down people’s throat under the guise of public consultation. Given the fact that most people are mentally “allergic” to legal language, chances of convincing them to accept a pre-drafted constitution are indeed high. Often people only complain about the constitution later when they realize that it does not facilitate their interests and consequently they usually feel duped and angry.

Nevertheless, whatever comes out of the Tongan constitutional reform process would be symbolically and substantively a great leap forward for Tonga’s struggling democracy.

The new king and the politics of succession
Succession to the throne in Tonga is much easier and straightforward than chiefly succession in Fiji or Samoa because of the different dynamics of their respective socio-political systems. In Tonga there is a rigid socio-political structure with a simple and clear line of succession and there is rarely any debate as to who is the next heir, unless an heir is married outside the royal circle. This is in contrast to Fiji and Samoa where the relative flexibility of the system gives way to competition and dispute over titles. In Samoa substantive and honorary matai (chiefly) titles can be conferred, even to outsiders. Despite the relative flexibility at the top, there is very rigid control by matais at the village level, much more so than chiefly control at the village level in Tonga. In Tonga, while the structure is very rigid at the top, village governance under the nobles is more relaxed.

In Fiji the chiefly system is much more diverse. There are different strata of chiefs of varying status from the level of paramountcy to the smallest social unit. Each social unit has a chief of a particular status and often succession is contested. Some even argue that every Fijian can claim to be a “chief” of some kind. I still can’t find any logical ground to dispute that claim.

Nevertheless, the kinship links between the chiefly classes of Fiji, Tonga and Samoa have been part of the close socio-cultural relations in our part of the world. This becomes more visible when there is death by a high chief when kinsfolk congregate not only to mourn but also to reinforce the chiefly links and show support for future continuity. Continuity of reign in Tonga is automatic without any ripples.

The new Tongan king is different from his father in a number of significant ways. While King Taufa’au was a widely loved and respected national symbol, his son was seen as an eccentric and carefree crown prince who lived the life of an unscrupulous playboy. These images may not be compatible with the Tongan traditional ethos and as a result may deprive him of the same charismatic and mystical appeal of his father. This is a significant factor in the new reign and will no doubt impact on his attempt to stamp his legitimacy.

However, given his “modernised” behavioral dispositions the new king maybe more receptive to changes. Apart from facilitating greater openness and political rights for commoners, another major challenge for him would be how he would let go of his controversial business interests in a monopoly power company, brewery, airline and others. Will he simply give the businesses to his relatives for “safekeeping” and divert attention or is he going to give them up and let the forces of the market and good governance take their course in a fair and transparent way?

The two decisive issues for the new king -allowing for greater democratization and declaring all business interests-are at the very heart of his future fate. If he fails to handle these properly and fails to live up to the brewing tsunamis of reformist expectations then I’m afraid it may turn out to be a Shakespearian tragedy of kingly proportion. If he handles these well to the people’s satisfaction then it may turn out to be a princely and romantic “and they lived happily ever after” affair.

Meanwhile, may His Majesty King Taufa’au Tupou IV rest in peace.

* Dr Steven Ratuva is a senior fellow in governance at the Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance at the University of the South Pacific.