Comments

Thanks tufala for this interesting exchange. I'd maintain that the notion of "beguiling narratives" applies as much to our own Solomon elite and youth as to expats (...and both areas would be a rich basis for anthropological work). A key element of these narratives is the recurrent trope of national renewal manifested by "new blood" and "new leaders". As social media has spread, the rhetoric and discourse employing this trope has been easier to observe, but it has been in strong evidence at least as long as the end of the tensions. In 2006, the "Winds of Change" campaign was the most visible instance of this. It has been particularly evident this time around in online discussions, during both the leadup to the election and the letdown periods. The former during the buildup and campaign period, and the latter in the past 48 hrs as the news of incumbents prevailing, keeps rolling in. Facebook has permitted direct observation of people bemoaning (in a public forum) the behaviour of the general voting population in violating the expectation of mass change. In the past this might have formed a part of the private lament of [ostensibly cheated] candidates seeking to explain their losses. The 2006 riots were I believe enabled by the wide variance between on the one hand, the public expectation of a national revival a' la Winds of Change, and on the other hand the perception of continued politics-as-usual when Rini was elected PM. Although it is hard to compare 2006 to now, the online atmosphere today does seem to reflect more nuance and reflection than previously on display. The tempering of these narratives is important for stability during the post-election period, and for workable political settlements in the immediate aftermath, but this is a difficult call when such grand and -evidently- unattainable narratives are an important element of political mobilisation for many reformist candidates and groups.

Hi Jon, Thanks for the clarification. You wrote: "The phase [Devil's Night] is a euphemism for the short-termism of rural constituents." I disagree with this: I think the phrase simply refers to vote buying in the immediate lead up to (and especially the night before) elections. Although I do agree that voter preferences for localised and/or personalised gain are something that are discussed (and at the elite level often lamented) by Solomon Islanders when they analyse their politics. Beyond that, as I said in my earlier comment, I agree with you that villager's choices make sense given the circumstances they vote in. I also agree with you that most major candidates, be they ostensible reformers or not, appear to engage in vote buying & patronage politics (there is also a logic to this, as I noted in my earlier post). As for whether expatriates are beguiled by the claims of overseas educated candidates or not, this isn't something I know much about, or am interested in -- not my subject area, although I've always thought an ethnographic study of expat life in Honiara would make for good anthropology. In my case, as you know, my claims about electoral politics are based on results data, survey data and case studies of Solomons constituencies. Thanks for the comments. Terence

Hi Terence, You are missing my main initial point. This was to suggest some greater critical scrutiny of Honiara elites complaints about 'devil's night' (last minute vote-buying before a general election), not to question when exactly vote-buying occurs. Articulate, reformist Western-centric or church-going candidates often raise these objections against victors who dabble in money politics, but when you scratch the surface the difference in campaign styles at least of the victors is often not that great. Losers of course almost invariably complain that they were outwitted by cheating. English-Speaking and overseas educated candidates know that expatriates will often be convinced by their claims because so many expect to find corruption pretty much everywhere in Melanesia.

The PM and cabinet in the Solomons has and will remain the tip of the iceberg. The network of coalitions, deals, personalities and forces supporting this visible tip will remain as important as ever in the aftermath of today's election. In this context the new law on parties and the recent judgement "clarifying" it will not be determinative but rather form a further structuring influence on what the 'tip of the iceberg' looks like and how it is supported. Ironically, the strongest evidence of cooperation amongst candidates (on campaigning activities, platform presentation, political strategy, transport of voters, even pooling of shipping resources and support of spoiler candidates) appears to be amongst the many [formally] independent candidates rather than the ostensible party members. The enthusiasm of many candidates in forming parties seems related to their attractiveness as a ready avenue for entry in politics, rather than an organising element for continuing in politics. A real problem in this context is that the already fraught process of PM election will be put under additional pressure by the dictates of the new law and that this pressure will draw in the judiciary as Jon surmises. A protracted standoff after today, heightened uncertainty about aspects of legality and the weight of pent up expectations of near term payoffs by political operators poses the risk of instability over the Christmas period.

hi Jon, thanks for your comment. Two points of agreement and one of disagreement I agree: last minute vote buying is not a Solomons only phenomenon (indeed I say so in the second paragraph). I disagree: the term devil's night is only restricted to the night before the election; it isn't used for voters seeking personal benefit more broadly. And I agree: villagers voting for personal or localised benefits is completely logical given the state of the state in Solomons. cheers Terence

Tess, as you say, these so-called party strengthening proposals seem to be moving eastwards! Solomons was much influenced by PNG, and Vanuatu too has been discussing these issues on and off for the past decade, as well as similarly (thinking back to Serge Vohor in 2004) PNG-style inspired ‘grace periods’ during which there can’t be a vote of ‘no confidence’. These debates will not seem to go away in either Solomons or PNG, perhaps because we haven't yet had the really big crisis which a tough legal interpretation of the laws could have delivered - at least in PNG. Instead, the judges rejected key parts of the PNG law in 2010 (& before that the Ombudsman’s office decided not to enforce the law fearing the impending court challenge). In Solomons, ironically, 2007-10 Solomon Islands Prime Minister Derek Sikua tried to pass a party strengthening law, but succeeded thereby in busting up his ruling coalition. The breakaway of ministers ahead of the 2010 election included the current Prime Minister, but nevertheless he too eventually embraced the so-called party strengthening legislation after he assumed the top job in 2011. The attraction is self-evident. Its not really about strengthening parties, but about strengthening governments, even if a costly parties commission is part of the associated paraphernalia. And the ‘biggest party’ provision can be embraced by those guilty of wishful thinking, as was the case in PNG in 2002. Remember Gaston Flosse in French Polynesia in 2004: he managed to persuade Paris to amend the electoral system to give a 30 percent seat bonus to the biggest party, and then narrowly lost the election to his arch rival Oscar Temaru, who got the 30 percent seat bonus. A reform intended to ‘stabilize’ Tahiti politics in the end sparked a period of chronic instability and a phase of frequent changes of government. Watch out for something similar in Melanesia!

Terence - for sure, there is evidence of 'devil's night', entailing last minute payments to communities to capture their votes (shorn of the Christian symbolism, something almost identical is identified by Ed Aspinall in Indonesia), but there are also a lot of candidates and Honiara elites who complain a great deal about 'devil's night'. The phase is a euphemism for the short-termism of rural constituents. The candidates who complain about this imply, accurately or inaccurately, that they have been playing a long game, but are being outwitted by the unscrupulous and corrupt ‘Mamaloni men’ who nip in at the last minute to entice the unsuspecting constituents with baubles. Are villagers really so short-sighted? Or is it the case that there is in fact very little filtering down of much in the way of development to the villages, and so constituents logically try to obtain the short-run gains close to the election-time? Jon

Great to read these informative papers...

The irony is of course that the capital expense or national "development" budget, has not produced a substantial increase in the levels of development indicators, such as health and education outcomes, sometimes even a decrease. The political economy of the "development budget" is that it is much more discretionary in nature, and therefore helps elected politicians to deal with their own and their constituents "needs". At specific institutions, such as the Papua New Guinea University of Technology, the "development" budget is only 10-20% of the recurrent budget. The totality of this budget is invested in infrastructure which is there for everybody to see. Of the "recurrent" or operational expenses over 90% goes to salaries or personal emoluments. Dr. Albert Schram, Vice-Chancellor.

Perhaps Dr Narsey would like to explain what principle was involved when Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and the John Howard-led Coalition government imposed sanctions against Fiji after the military coup in 2006. Was it the same principle that Downer-Howard employed against the military coup that ended the People's Coalition government in 2001? Or did the 2001 election victory of the Laisenia Qarase-led SDL justify jettisoning principle, overlooking the overthrow of a popularly elected government, even though this election outcome was predetermined because the military commander had announced publicly that only an SDL victory would be acceptable? If the latter, how useful is the idea of principled to describe Australian and New Zealand foreign policy towards events in Fiji? If principle is so flexible that it can be employed at convenience, perhaps PM Frank Bainimarama is wise to jettison any so-called special relationship with Australia and New Zealand, including in organisations like the Pacific Islands Forum. Construct Fiji's international relations not on principle but pragmatic opportunism, just as the former colonial `masters' do.

Thanks for this commentary Jon. You will have seen from the 'Pacific Conversations' interview with the prime minister of Vanuatu that political reform with particular reference to registration of political parties is very much on his agenda and careful attention is being paid to what is happening in our neighbouring jurisdictions. Missing from this item (because of timing) is a reflection of the implications of yesterday's ruling by the High Court that unregistered parties cannot contest the elections and those standing as independent candidates may not form coalitions. The next few days will no doubt reveal more about how this will be accommodated within the electoral activities in Solomon Islands.

To improve the current situation we need to focus on the following three; 1. A system of laws/regulations, policies, management (planning, budget, resource, implementation) and continuous improvement 2. Persistent awareness and campaigns, targeting schools and institutions, and individuals 3.legislation that can be