SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE IS BEST FOR TONGA
By Sitiveni Halapua

In Jon Fraenkel’s article Watchful Tongans Wait For Long sought Reform (Pacific Islands Report; Dec. 18, 2009 and in Royal Route to Democratic Reform, The Australian, Dec. 17, 2009) he states, "The weakest part of what is otherwise a careful, well reasoned and sensible report is the section on the electoral system. This recommends the adoption of a complex preferential voting system." In reference to the preferential system used by Fiji, he comments

"Ironically, one of the few issues on which representatives from the European

Union, Commonwealth and the UN have agreed with Bainimarama is his desire to replace Fiji’s preferential voting system."

While both the Alternative Vote, used in Fiji, and the Single Transferable Vote recommended for Tonga require the voter to list preferences, they are, in fact, fundamentally different systems. Fraenkel fails to recognize that STV is a proportional system, whereas Alternative Vote is a majoritarian system. In Fiji, the AV, ‘winner takes all’, single member constituency system transferred votes through compulsory preferences, from minor to major parties. This resulted in the exclusion of many, some with large voter support. Fraenkel fails to mention that the Fiji’s Peoples Charter for Change Peace and Progress has recommended that this majoritarian system be replaced by a more inclusive proportional system.

The historical stability of Tonga is a reflection of the Kingdom’s unification under King George I. What the Tongan monarchy‐based system needs now, and in the long run, is the vision to re‐build the unity and stability of its fractured society.

The question is, what electoral system, as part of a reformed political system, helps realize this vision for Tonga?

STV, the electoral system recommended by the 2009 Commission for Constitutional and Electoral Reform and the 2006 National Committee for Political Reform, is best for Tonga for a number of reasons.

Tonga’s political reform is about the Tongan people’s struggle to be a part of the decision‐making inherent to the allocation of Tonga’s resources. Up to this point in time, the people’s representatives have been totally outside the country’s decision‐making process. Only recently have they, always the minority in the Legislative Assembly, not had to resign their seats when appointed to cabinet posts. Political stability and economic development in Tonga will depend upon unity, accountability, and the Tongan people’s sense of inclusion in their political system.

Tonga is small: in 2008, voters in the current 5 constituencies totaled 32,361. Aproportional system in multi‐member constituencies not only means that electedrepresentatives are accountable to larger areas, it also leads to the inclusion of asmany political interest groups as possible, minimizing wasted votes (minimizing exclusion) and maximizing representation. With the elected more closely reflecting the community as a whole, proportional systems facilitate the increased representation of women and minorities. It should be noted that Tonga’s minorities include supporters of the status quo: in the 2008 elections, Tongatapu’s pro democracy candidates obtained over 50 percent of votes cast in all seven districts (70 percent – 77 percent in five of these).

As it is based on the principles of ranking candidates and sharing votes, STV is culturally appropriate for Tonga. Ranking and sharing are processes that are fundamental to Tongan culture and are practiced from childhood.

STV is a proportional system that operates without the need for established political parties. This makes it suitable where large numbers of independents contest an election. In the 2008 elections, 28 candidates contested the three Tongatapu seats and 22 contested the two Vavau seats. With the transfer of some political power to elected representatives, the number of candidates contesting each election can only be expected to grow.

With STV, current boundaries can be used. Voting papers are similar to the (current) Block Vote, and the now out of date roll is not an obstacle to fairness, as long as new voters are able to register (quotas are based on total votes cast on election day). To further expedite the promised 2010 elections and provide reassurance of impartiality, an independent election services provider can be employed.

That "counting ballots at the polling stations has enhanced public confidence in the management of the electoral process and reduced allegations of maladministration or fraud" may be true when compared to some unspecified past practice. Polling station fraud is certainly not an unknown phenomenon worldwide. However, counting done at a central location can be to the advantage of the people. In 2006, the National Committee for Political Reform heard many people complain that elected representatives only visited areas that had voted for them. Evidence can be seen in patterns of development throughout Tonga, which even today reflect the winners and losers of the 1840s civil war. With centralized counting, a Representative is unsure of where his votes, or partial votes, come from, leading him to feel accountable to all. Voters will, of course, know whom they cast their votes for, and will evaluate their Representatives’ performances accordingly.

Communities not identified as having voted one way or the other are less likely to suffer prejudice in later allocation of national resources.

The concern was expressed that "methods of counting preference votes can appear obscure. Where those ahead at the first count are dislodged by candidates who leapfrog to victory on preferences, this can generate controversy as it did in Fiji."

‘Leapfrogging to victory on preferences’ implies there is some legitimacy in claiming victory before the race is finished; that it is unfair that a vote retains its value if it is not the voter’s first preference. When a voter ranks his candidates he does not tamper with the worth of his one vote. A vote transferred remains a voter’s vote. And wasn’t the "leapfrogging" controversy in Fiji really about exclusion?

STV’s relatively complicated counting system must be balanced against the unity inclusion and accountability inherent in wider representation, fewer wasted votes (exclusion) and the effect that a system has on the political and economic stability of a country. Some political consultants may prefer to recommend a simple, easier system without seriously taking into account the long term effects of instability and disunity. Democracy is more than just counting votes.

The current Government’s desire to carve up the country into single member constituencies will likely lead further exclusion, with a pattern of representation similar to that of other Pacific nations who use FPTP and who, like Tonga, have large numbers of independent candidates contesting each election. In the 2006 Solomon Island election, 26 of the 50 seats were won with less than 30 percent of their electorate vote, some as low as 20 percent (the average was 31 percent). This pattern is already evident in Tonga: in the 2008 elections, the two single member constituencies returned members with 37 percent (the Niua’s) and 35 percent (‘Eua) of their constituency vote.

Breaking the country up into smaller areas of political accountability, as pushed through parliament by the current Government, will certainly not facilitate economic development. Encouraging local representatives to fight over shrinking, scarce resources to ensure re-election will return the country to warring fiefdoms. Tonga needs its elected government to focus its limited energy on growing the national economy, rather than distributing a diminishing gross national product over many small constituencies. This will lead the people to sharing economic growth rather than sharing economic poverty over time.

Hopefully, Government decisions on electoral systems are not based on uninformed arguments. We know that FPTP encourages political fragmentation: single member constituencies fragment society. Unfortunately, Government decisions to date are widely perceived as a plan to weaken the development of truly representative democracy in Tonga, break up future support for current pro democracy leadership, and afford current Government’s supporters some advantage in the coming elections. Such a ‘divide and rule strategy’ can only be implemented at the cost of further instability and disunity, which the Kingdom cannot afford.