Comments

What is the control at the moment with the presence of pandamic at the border of trading goods and services? Is it still operating with at least some operative measure?

Your point about the differences in Vanuatu society such as the anglophone/francophone divide spilling over into the political arena is spot on. Another impact of these divisive elements is that they breed too many political parties which promote differing Policies concerning national issues and these parties when elected into Parliament, don't have the capacity to form a one party Government since none of them have the capability to command the majority of the 52 seats, thus giving rise to the Coalition Government which has been the status quo in Vanuatu since the 1990's. A Government of such nature is fragile due to the differences harboured by these political parties and this is evident by the fact that there had never been a Coalition Government in Vanuatu that lasted it's entire term, apart from the Coalition led by Former PM Salwai which was the first to do so. However, that was not the case from 1980-1991 when there were only two prominent political parties in Vanuatu which resulted in an 11 year period of Governance by the Vanuaaku Pati, a fact that prompted some to call for Legislators to reduce the number of Political Parties in order to facilitate a healthy Political outcome, an option which some analysts pointed out is contrary to democratic principals.

Thank you Greg, That's a very interesting observation. The same discrepancy exists Solomon Islands, where I've had the chance to witness parliament in action - a small number of MPs have a clear interest in national issues, and capacity to address them, and they engage a lot. But most MPs don't. But in Solomons there doesn't seem to be a trend of improvement over time. If you're witnessing change in Vanuatu (even if it's just a trend in potential performance), that's interesting, and possibly significant. Presumably it stems from voters placing more emphasis on candidates' capacity to address national issues? Terence

Very interesting insight Terence. One of the emerging trends in Vanuatu observed in last legislature and current legislature is the quality of debates in Vanuatu's parliament which seems to silence many who enter the parliament with limited experiences of politics and understanding of how government administration operates including general knowledge of global development issues and challenges. There are now many young experienced politicians in parliament who are well qualified. Once the parliamentary debates become more evidenced based and hold both sides in scrutiny then we expect people to realise the potential of voting someone with high calibre. Already you can tell the differences of quality of leaders in parliament by listening to them during parliament session. I personally see a possibility for leadership transformation. I thought this is one of potential observation.

The bad news is in Vanuatu they MPs work for a few masters, the generous donors sometimes cleverly disguised.There is nothing sacred about political democracy and certainly not political parties. If their offer - their Ballot - is unacceptable to customary Values, then don't accept it. Politics is for kids,and for the west. How did Trump win with lesser popular votes loving loyalists: stop immigration to preserve white identity, tarriff on China goods to revive manufacturing in USA.This can't be overlooked! Sounds like everyone in American politics. Well Trump was divisive but that didn't lead to the 2020 election having low turnout.😀

Thank you Anna for a very thought-provoking comment. I agree with much of what you say, I'll just note two points of potential disagreement for discussion's sake. Point 1: You're certainly correct that politics in a country like the US (or Australia or NZ) often involves people or organisations acting for the sake of advancing their own interests (usually financial interests). The crucial difference between the US, Aus, or NZ, and countries where clientelism is prevalent though, is that in the US, Aus & NZ, engagement usually occurs with a view to changing national policy. For example, wealthy people striving to have tax rates lowered. Or, to give an example from New Zealand, farmers trying to stay out of our emissions trading scheme. This differs from clientelist countries. In clientelist countries politics usually hinge around actors trying to gain personal or very localised benefits. Point 2: The question of proximity is very interesting. Jack Corbett has a paper on it in which he argues that proximity makes Pacific politics very different. Interestingly though, in larger Pacific countries, like Solomon Islands (which I know best), MPs actually often end up surprisingly remote, and their connections to communities are mediated through one or two sets of intermediaries. It's a common complaint in Solomons that people can't get access to their MPs. It would be fascinating to survey Pacific countries and see where proximity between politicians and voters really is strong, and where MPs are actually less accessible. I do definitely agree that OECD countries have only limited lessons relevant for most Pacific countries though. Thanks again for an excellent comment. Terence

Thank you for the analysis Terence. Two key points emerge for me: (i) the homogeneity of a state (one language, one culture) makes national cohesion a somewhat simpler exercise than highly multicultural, multilingual states …. both Samoa and Vanuatu have key high-level customary institutions but as the article states, one has more influence over politics blurring the separation of state, (church) and custom governance, while the other has a more pronounced separation similar to other democratic systems around the world. (ii) Political patronage (which is common globally, see for example the USA where political patronage is institutionalized and even encouraged through political financing) at the expense of platform-based, programmatic electoral politics has been a persistent trend, most likely due to scale. Comparisons with larger, more populous states are possibly redundant given the greater proximity of political leaders to people in smaller states like those we have here in the Pacific. Is it a simple equation of political proximity + patronage = clientelist politics + less national cohesion? I would argue that for small island states like ours, OECD lessons in electoral politics are interesting to know, but fundamentally we should be aiming to reframe democratic/political practice to our realities. I would aim for systems that foster political proximity + strategic issues-based politics + public accountability to build national cohesion.

The design of the proposed Ag Visa will "consider permanent residency pathways and regional settlement", something that both the PLS and SWP strictly disallow. It may be time to consider the creation of a single temporary worker visa, or better still to use the existing Temporary Skilled Shortage (TSS) visa, with the same conditions for workers regardless of their nationality. The above could then be complemented with national quotas as is being practiced with WHMs now.

The visa has been targeted at ASEAN countries since its announcement in June. See https://devpolicy.org/asean-ag-visa-makes-no-sense-20210617/.

My immediate impression was that the visa is intended for UK citizens (a post-Brexit trade matter) and citizens of other countries as they sign up. I didn’t hear “Asian” in the news snippet.

The question is raised about DFAT being involved with this given that DHA is responsible for visas is not an issue really. After all, the SWP program operates under DESE/DHA and the PLS is currently through DFAT. So if it works there it can also work here. With the frustrating shenannigans of SWP and PLS workers, quite a number of current Approved Employers are sure to consider switching to the new scheme and perhaps look to Asian countries as their preference. Cheaper Aisan flights and a more skilled population would make it more attractive. The ability to recruit a worker that has a pathway to residency and beyond, and given a much longer length to the visa is another huge attaction. The maximum 9 month SWP visa simply wont cut it. The new visa may also have less restrictions and hoops for employers than the current arrangements, especially those of the SWP. So given those realities, I agree with the author that the SWP and PLS schemes are threatened. Where I disagree is that the SWP will be equally impacted. In my opinion, for the SWP and PLS to survive it will need to become more flexible and 'smarter,' while still maintaining a high level of worker welfare AND let's not forget employer welfare. Perhaps providing a pathway for permanent residency? The alternative is to keep these two schemes at status quo but hamstring the Ag Visa with a small quota. At least at the start.

Ultimately the bigger picture is being missed here. As a colonised state, the people have been historically oppressed and it is written within their culture to hold the coloniser in a position of power. The fact they come and continue to ‘save’ them only depends that feeling of oppression. It excels the feeling that Eurocentric culture and behaviour are superior and to be looked up to, and ignores the confidence needed by the colonised to help themselves again. Only people of the land know what’s best for it, sadly colonisation sent most countries back hundreds of years in this regard. The problem with the colonisers is that deep down they often think their actions have benefitted the country they colonised in some way. Sadly their behaviour sent every place on earth that they invaded back by hundreds of years, actively contributing to the ruination of our planet and climate change. To think that the same people can return to these countries and impose views again under the guise of aid, shows how little everyone has learnt. Please think more deeply about what on earth a white man is doing in an African country and what right he has to do that, considering the legacy of his peoples in that country.