Development, 2014, 57(1), (104–111) © 2014 Society for International Development 1011-6370/14 www.sidint.net/development/

Local/Global Encounters

Building ‘Shared Societies’ in Pacific Island States: Prospects and challenges*

CLAIRE SLATTER

ABSTRACT This article examines some of the challenges to building Shared Societies in Pacific Island states in relation to the four essential features: meaningful democratic participation; respect for diversity and the dignity of the individual; equality of opportunity, including access to resources; and protection from discrimination. It discusses the particular challenges of managing ethnic diversity and reducing economic disparities. Building Shared Societies in Pacific Island states is a desirable but long-term project that will involve many changes to be made, inter alia, in law and policy, the educational curriculum, political leadership and citizen understanding. KEYWORDS rights; security; inequality; land; democratic participation; Fiji

Introduction This article reflects on the applicability of the Club de Madrid’s ‘Shared Societies’ model to Pacific societies. As defined by the Club de Madrid (2009: 30), shared societies are ‘stable, safe and just’. They are based on ‘the promotion and protection of all human rights as well as on non-discrimination, tolerance, respect for diversity, equality of opportunity, solidarity, security and participation of all people, including disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and persons’. Shared societies are socially cohesive and inclusive societies in the sense that everyone living in them ‘feels at home’.1 Shared societies are ‘constructed and nurtured through strong political leadership’ (Club de Madrid, 2009: 22). The rationale for promoting shared societies is self-evident – insecurity, instability, conflict and war have their roots in social exclusion, inequality and failure to ‘manage diversity’, as Club de Madrid puts it. There are also environmental costs to failing to build cohesive, inclusive shared societies. The Club de Madrid does not provide a ‘one size fits all’ blueprint for how to create shared societies, but there are four essential ingredients: meaningful democratic participation; respect for diversity and the dignity of the individual; equality of opportunity, including access to resources; and protection from discrimination. Many in the Pacific region would embrace the idea of shared societies. Some would argue that core values in Pacific cultures provide a firm foundation for the creation of such societies. And, in terms of producing solidarity, social and economic security and social cohesion, Pacific societies would seem well-suited to the model. Pacific cultures are Development (2014) 57(1), 104–111. doi:10.1057/dev.2014.33

Slatter: Prospects and Challenges in Pacific Island States based on values of wealth sharing, reciprocity, consensus decision-making and customs of respect. There is a strong ethic of social responsibility for wider kin and for the elderly, and widely subscribed redistributive norms govern broader social relationships. Traditional wealth is accumulated to be redistributed through practices of social exchange. Pacific societies typically value social relationships – especially kinship ties – and community solidarity, and provide security and care to vulnerable and less well-off members of the wider family. In 2001, the World Council of Churches convened a series of consultations with The World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Council of European Churches, to develop the churches’ response to economic globalization, and in the resulting document said: While Western economics revolve around profit and economic growth, the traditional economies of the Pacific are concerned with people and the total quality of their lives; caring and concern for others within the extended families and compassion for all people, especially for the sick and elderly are values of the communities; respect, hospitality, generosity, and forgiveness are other marks of the traditional communities. Nobody is excluded. (World Council of Churches, 2001: 12)

The traditional ethic of ‘care and share’ ought to be a defining feature of Pacific societies, underlying social relationships as well as public policy. In reality, however, the share and care ethic is mostly confined to ‘looking after one’s own’ (i.e. one’s own kin, or members of one’s own community) and does not appear to have inspired or informed public policy in Pacific Island states. The draft Framework for Pacific Regionalism, circulated in May 2014 by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat for comment by stakeholders in the region, for instance, openly prioritizes ‘regional integration’, but makes no reference in its vision statement to creating caring, or fair and just, Pacific societies, or to reducing economic and social inequalities. In the age of neo-liberal policymaking, in which Pacific states have been roundly schooled by international financial institutions and donor agencies since the early 1990s, emphasis continues to be placed on economic growth with little attention to economic redistribution and social development.

So what are the prospects for and challenges to creating Shared Societies in Pacific Island states? This is explored in the next section of this article in relation to the four essential features.

Meaningful democratic participation Pacific societies value participatory, consensusbased decision-making, but it cannot be claimed that there is ‘meaningful democratic participation’ as per the Shared Societies model. Not only are non-chiefly men, women, youth, people with disabilities, poorer communities and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBTI) persons largely excluded from decision-making, several states have long had perverted forms of democracy, as a result of accommodating representatives of chiefly aristocracies in their national political systems, virtually excluding women in national leadership, or, in the case of Fiji, constitutionalizing an ethnicbased voting and representation system. Changes have been taking place, however, because of civil society agitations for reform, effective use of international and regional agreements and processes, and in Fiji’s case, reforms imposed by decree. Long overdue political reforms in the Kingdom of Tonga followed three decades of mobilization by an insistent and growing democracy movement, eventually changing the balance of power in parliament in 2010 in favour of elected peoples’ representatives, and diluting the power of the King and the minority class of nobles. Samoa’s democracy, under which only titled men and women (matais) may stand for election to parliament, thus privileging persons of rank, has seen the same party in government for more than 30 years. In line with its obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), however, the government amended Samoa’s Constitution in June 2013 to introduce a 10 percent quota (5 seats) for women in parliament (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2014). In Solomon Islands, where frequent changes of government occur between elections through votes of no confidence, a government legislative taskforce is holding consultation on the introduction of temporary special measures to bring more 105

Development 57(1): Local/Global Encounters women into provincial councils and the parliament. (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2014). Papua New Guinea’s (PNG) parliament, similarly renowned for changing governments overnight through votes of no confidence until the passage in 2003 of an Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates restricted no confidence motions, approved the reservation of 22 parliamentary seats for women in December 2011 – a milestone achievement that owed much to the tireless and effective lobbying efforts of PNG’s Dame Carol Kidu. However, enabling legislation was not passed in time for the 2012 elections.2 Vanuatu has amended its Municipality Act to require a minimum of 30 percent of seats to be reserved for women in municipal councils (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2014). Fiji, which has had four military coups and four Constitutions since it gained independence in 1970, has underdone the longest struggle to achieve meaningful democratic participation for its multi-ethnic citizenry. Radical changes imposed by the post-coup military-led government have taken Fiji off its ethno-nationalist course, forced reforms on indigenous institutions, conferred on all Fiji citizens the common name of ‘Fijians’ and sought to end race-based politics in Fiji. Temporary special measures for Fijian women were excluded from Fiji’s new Constitution (adopted by Presidential assent in 2013) but several political parties are actively seeking to include women in their slate of candidates for the September elections. The voting age has been lowered to 18, enfranchising thousands of first time voters in the 18–29 age group, and encouraging youth candidates to seek election through the youth vote in the coming elections.

Respect for diversity and the dignity of the individual; protection from discrimination Pacific Island states are considered to have a poor ratification record in respect to international human rights treaties. Only PNG, Vanuatu and Samoa have ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. While all except two Pacific Island states have ratified CEDAW, and most 106 have committed to gender equality goals in

international and regional agreements, implementation is still lagging on several fronts, particularly in respect to protecting personal autonomy. As the community or wider group matters more than the individual, there is a tension between group rights and individual rights and the application of customary law often flies in the face of human rights. The democratic value of considering and treating everyone equally – whether male or female, chief or commoner – is still not widely subscribed to. Differential treatment on the basis of gender and class/social status is both expected, and commonly practiced. There is a particular reluctance to embrace individual rights and personal freedoms considered contrary to cultural or religious values and teachings. This mostly affects the rights of women, children and LGBTI persons. Although the social role of transgender persons is traditionally recognized in several Pacific societies, stigmatization, discrimination, bullying, physical and even sexual abuse are commonly experienced by persons whose sexual orientation or gender identity breaches majority norms. And, in most countries, same-sex relationships are criminalized. Pacific societies that deny equal rights and protection from discrimination to women and minorities, including LGBTI persons, would not meet several of the qualifiers of shared societies – namely safety, justice, non-discrimination, tolerance and respect for diversity. These issues, together with pervasive sexual and gender-based violence have begun at last to be addressed through constitutional, legislative and policy changes in response to agitation by feminist and other human rights advocates and support for needed reforms from regional intergovernmental bodies. In 2009 Pacific leaders acknowledged that sexual and gender-based violence constituted ‘a risk to human security and a potential destabilizing factor for communities and societies alike’ (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2010).

Equality of opportunity, including to access resources In several Pacific countries, whole communities live their lives largely disconnected from the global economy, without much (or any) support from

Slatter: Prospects and Challenges in Pacific Island States the state, and thus without any sense of inclusion, much less a sense of care from modern society or government. They include rural communities living outside of the main island, communities living on remote islands or in the interior or hinterland, and, not least, economically marginalized communities in the mushrooming urban and peri-urban squatter settlements in and around the Pacific’s main towns.3 The resilience of the first two communities owes much to the prevalence of subsistence livelihoods made possible by the retention of legally protected communal land tenure systems (Regenvanu, 2010). Such livelihoods are neither supported nor included in national accounts, and are at risk of being eroded in some countries by land reforms or abuse of agricultural land lease arrangements intended to benefit customary owners (Filer, 2011). Liberalization of land leases in Vanuatu in the last decade, for instance, resulted in effectively alienating large areas of beachside custom land to off-shore ‘owners’, mostly from Australia and New Zealand (Slatter, 2006). Burgeoning informal settlement communities in towns across the region enjoy neither land on which to subsist nor access to basic services, and have largely been left to fend for themselves. Only in Fiji (and only from 2013) have economic, social and cultural rights been constitutionally enshrined as part of a bill of rights, to be realized progressively, as state resources permit. Already the rights to housing and education are being fulfilled to some extent through recent policy changes that include subsidization of self-help housing for residents of some informal settlements and expanded scholarships and loans for tertiary studies. Despite recent land reforms, some of which have since been repealed, group rights with respect to land ownership remain strongly protected by law. Sharing access to communally owned land with fellow citizens on fair and equitable leasing terms for both livelihood and residential purposes however remains a vexing issue in some states, including Solomon Islands and Fiji. The internal conflict in Solomon Islands in 2000 was triggered in large part by tensions over acquisitions of land on the island of Guadalcanal, which hosts the capital, by people from the island of Malaita. The recent creation of a Land Bank in Fiji, which is

more likely to facilitate access to longer term leases of customary-owned or Taukei (indigenous Fijian) land by foreign investors than by non-indigenous Fijians, is viewed with suspicion by many Taukei, not least because of open criticism on anti-government blog sites, and the government’s failure to allay concerns.

Other challenges to building ‘Shared Societies’ in the Pacific Apart from the aforementioned complexities and contradictions in Pacific Island societies, there are two main challenges to creating shared societies in the region: managing ethnic diversity and reducing economic disparities.4 Failure to address one or both of these challenges lies behind recent political upheavals and outbreaks of open conflict in Melanesia, and will continue to jeopardize peace and stability in the future.

Managing ethnic diversity As pointed out in the Club de Madrid’s key documents on ‘Shared Societies’, more than 90 percent of all nations today have minority populations comprising at least 10 percent. Some are stable and generally inclusive of ethnic minorities; the rest exhibit varying degrees of social exclusion and instability. Intergroup tension and conflict across the world was one of the main concerns that triggered Club de Madrid’s Shared Societies model. Most Pacific societies are ethnically diverse, comprising either a diversity of indigenous cultural and language groups, or indigenous majorities and non-indigenous minorities. Creating inclusive societies and celebrating diversity remains a major challenge, given pre-colonial histories of autonomy, the legacies of colonial ‘divide and rule’ policies, urbanization and uneven development, differing cultural norms and practices (e.g. in relation to settling grievances and compensation) and, in Fiji’s case, the colonial institutionalization of race-based voting and representation systems, decades of ethnic politics, the ascendancy of ethno-nationalism and the institutionalization of indigenous political paramountcy. Resentment and distrust of ‘others’ 107

Development 57(1): Local/Global Encounters is usually fomented for political purposes, and fear mongering about the influence or intentions of ‘others’ has provoked human rights violations and conflict in some parts of the region. Until recently, in no Pacific state was such socially divisive and offensive behaviour legally prohibited. An explicit prohibition on hate speech in Fiji’s new Constitution has already been cited against a former politician for uttering statements deemed to encourage inter-ethnic distrust. Charges of politically motivated overreaction in this case aside, unless political leaders of all ethnicities and political persuasions disavow themselves of long-held and openly expressed prejudices and resentments, ethno-nationalism will continue to pose a threat to building an inclusive society in Fiji and elsewhere in the region. While ordinary people in our communities live peacefully and cooperatively side-by-side and share much the same values and aspirations, prejudice and stereotypes about the different groups do exist and can contaminate inter-ethnic relations. Tensions between groups largely arise from increasing inequality, feelings of distrust (often stoked by communal leaders and divisive politics) and the loss of, encroachment on or damage to, land and other livelihood resources through expanded urban (or rural) settlement and destructive forms of ‘development’. All of these sources of discord need to be institutionally addressed by the state and not left to fester. The commencement of new mining ventures, and the expansion of other extractive industries (e.g. forestry and fisheries) to which affected communities are (or may become) opposed, are especially concerning. It behoves us not to forget that mining triggered a ten-year war in Bougainville, PNG. The planned reopening of the Bougainville mine is fraught with controversy (Robins, 2014), as are controversial licences for seabed mining in the region (Lee, 2014; Samson, 2014). There are also possibilities of conflict arising from the relocation of communities as a consequence of global warming and rising sea levels. The coming elections in Fiji, under the 2013 Constitution will, for the first time in the country’s history, not be race-based. The abolition of racially 108 reserved seats, separate electoral rolls for different

racial categories, racially exclusive parties and race-based campaigning, is a very welcome development. All citizens will be voting, as ‘Fijians’, on an equal basis – ‘one man, one vote’ – for their candidate (or party) of choice, in one single constituency. Not only will the new system of representation be more genuinely democratic, it is intended to move Fiji away from the divisive racebased politics of the past and help create a more inclusive society. It will of course require a lot more than institutional changes to secure the kind of inclusive society envisaged by the Shared Societies model in Fiji. Mostly it will require broad support and ownership by incoming political leaders and the citizens of Fiji, many of whom are strongly opposed to the post-coup regime’s torpedoing of the indigenous political agenda and imposition of the 2013 Constitution.

Reducing economic disparities Creating an inclusive society where everyone living there feels ‘at home’ and has a stake in building and nurturing that society, requires a more equitable sharing of wealth and opportunities. The gap between rich and poor is growing primarily as a consequence of neo-liberal economic policies that have enabled a minority to amass unprecedented wealth across the globe, at the expense of masses of ordinary people. The angry protest movements that sprang up in major cities in developed countries beginning with Occupy Wall Street were responses of outraged ordinary citizens to the excesses of economic liberalism and the culture of greed that it has encouraged. Oxfam’s most recent report, released in January this year, on political capture and economic inequality reveals the shocking fact that 85 of the world’s richest individuals owned the same as the bottom half of the world’s population, who number 3.5 billion (Oxfam International, 2014). A growing gap between the rich and poor is as evident in the Pacific as elsewhere in the world. Recent United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and Asian Development Bank reports have pointed to even greater inequality and less formal social protection mechanisms for the most vulnerable in Pacific

Slatter: Prospects and Challenges in Pacific Island States Island Countries compared with Asian States. And a 2014 World Bank report on hardship and vulnerability in the Pacific found ‘levels of inequality in the Pacific … comparable to those in East Asian countries’, with ‘the most well-off people (the top 20 percent) [in most countries studied] consum[ing] many times more than the least well-off ’ (The World Bank, 2014). Such findings are rarely if ever linked to macro-economic policies that favour the private sector (including foreign investors) and higher income earners, hold wages down, and reduce the social provisioning capacity of states. Inequality breeds resentment and discontent, and we see in several countries of the region rising levels of violence and crime, with prosperous people increasingly depending for their safety and security on private security companies, many of which pay notoriously low wages to their ‘security guards’. There is something really ironic in the rich being guarded by the poorest of the working poor. It is imperative to put back in place effective redistributional mechanisms, as well as social safety nets, to support the growing numbers of people who are economically marginalized. The state has important roles to play in both legislating (and enforcing) minimum wages, and in ensuring that all citizens have an equal starting point – that there is a genuine level playing field. This means ensuring that all children do get to finish school, that all schools – not just private schools – are well-resourced, that basic infrastructure and services and quality health care are available to all. This poses particular challenges in outer islands and remote interior areas, but more accessible though depressed and poorly served regions should be prioritized too. To be able to do this will require returning to the more equitable, progressive taxation systems of the past. No one who truly believes in an inclusive society should have any quarrel with that. A recent study by epidemiologists, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, ‘The Spirit Level’: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, provides evidence that more equitable societies prosper in every way – less violence, less crime, less imprisonment, less addiction, less health problems, less teenage pregnancies, less environmental

damage, more security, more trust, better relationships, healthier, happier and longer lives – a win-win situation for all.

Conclusion Creating Shared Societies in the Pacific is a highly desirable goal. But it is a long-term project to which not only governments would have to commit, but to which political, community, women, youth, church and media leaders, among others, would also need to subscribe. It cannot be achieved overnight, or simply through the imposition of decreed laws. It will involve different processes and programmes and the use of various incentives, as well as changes to law and education curriculum, and ongoing citizens’ education to accomplish it. Above all, it requires an approach to development policymaking that puts the longterm interests of ordinary people, their environment and resource bases, ahead of considerations of private profit. Dealing with ethnic diversity and economic disparities requires more than institutional changes. It requires firm, fair, socially minded and ethical political leaders and accountability systems to ensure that leaders do not abuse power or become self-serving, and that those who engage in communal appeals, ethically divisive campaigns or discriminatory practices are penalized. It also requires public policies that are seen to be fair and equitable, and that do not advantage stronger interests in society (such as investors, owners of industry and employers) at the expense of more vulnerable groups, such as unorganized workers. Not least, it requires citizenship education at all levels to build understanding of what it means to belong to a shared society, as well as a sense of ownership of its vision. Finally, we need to be mindful of the fact that the world today has become a global village, and we are all global citizens, and need to think of ourselves as such. Migration into (as well as out of) the region is ongoing, which means not only that Pacific Island societies are becoming more diverse, but that Pacific Islanders living abroad are contributing to diversity in their host countries. The challenge for Pacific leaders is to be as inclusive, as 109

Development 57(1): Local/Global Encounters fair and as non-discriminatory to all who live here, as we would want government leaders in societies abroad to be towards our people who now call those societies home. A special challenge for Nauru and PNG has arisen in relation to the treatment of asylum seekers. The generosity and humanity shown by the Nauruan government and people

to those asylum seekers transferred to Nauru for processing under an insidious agreement with the Australian Government is noteworthy and illustrative of Pacific values. It stands in stark contrast to the Australian government’s harshly inhumane stance, and the Australian media’s derogatory portrayal of Nauru as a ‘hell-hole’.

Notes 1 Project leaflet: http://www.clubmadrid.org/img/noticias/2012/05/16/SSP_One_Pager_ENG_2012.pdf. 2 See PNG parliament votes to allow reserved seats for women, 6 December 2011, http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot .com/2011/12/png-parliament-votes-to-allow-reserved.html and also http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php? op=read&id=72404, accessed 26 June 2014. 3 In 2004, some 82,350 people were living in 182 squatter settlements in Fiji. (Naidu, 2009). The settlements are mostly located in low-lying, marshy lands subject to periodic flooding. Most settlements have neither proper latrines nor garbage disposal. 4 A PIFS paper on Security in Pacific Island Countries, authored by Ron Crocombe, also highlighted ethnic diversity and economic inequality as factors leading to conflict. See also Enhancing Pacific Security, A Report prepared for the Forum Secretariat for Presentation at the Forum Regional Security Committee Meeting at the Secretariat on 13–15 June 2000.

References Filer, Colin (2011) ‘The New Land Grab in Papua New Guinea: A case study from New Ireland Province’, State Society and Governance in Melanesia Discussion Paper 2011/2, Canberra: Australian National University. Club de Madrid (2009) ‘Call to Action for Leadership for Shared Societies’, Madrid: Club de Madrid, http://www .clubmadrid.org/img/secciones/The_Shared_Societies_Project_Booklet_160910.pdf, accessed 4 July 2012. Lee, Brendan (2014) Cook Islands Hopes for Deep-Sea Mining Boom (28 March), http://www.scidev.net/asia-pacific/ environment/news/cook-islands-hopes-for-deep-sea-mining-boom.html, accessed 29 June 2014. Naidu, Vijay (2009) Fiji Islands Country Profile on Excluded Groups (Draft Report), United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), July, http://www.unescap.org/ESID/hds/development_ account/mtg/EGM_Bg_doc/Fiji%20Islands%20Country%20Profile%20on%20Excluded%20Groups2.pdf, accessed 17 May 2010. Oxfam International (2014) Working for the Few: Political capture and economic inequality, p 32, http:// policy-practice.oxfam.org.uk/publications/working-for-the-few-political-capture-and-economic-inequality-311312, accessed 1 July 2014. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (2010) Sexual & Gender Based Violence, http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/ political-governance-security/conflict-prevention/sexual-gender-based-violence.html, accessed 3 July 2014. Regenvanu, Ralph (2010) The Traditional Economy as Source of Resilience in Vanuatu, http://milda.aidwatch .org.au/sites/default/files/Ralph%20Regenvanu.%20Traditional%20economy%20as%20a%20source%20of%20 resistance%20in%20Vanuatu.pdf, accessed 1 July 2014. Robins, Brian (2014) ‘Rio Tinto Unit Bougainville Copper Eyes Return to Panguna Mine in PNG’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 March 2014, http://www.smh.com.au/business/rio-tinto-unit-bougainville-copper-eyes-return-topanguna-mine-in-png-20140307-34cu4.html#ixzz365UobX6K, accessed 29 June 2014. Samson, Mellie (2014) PNG Seabed Mining Restarts Following Dispute Settlement (5 June), http://www.scidev.net/ asia-pacific/environment/news/png-seabed-mining-restarts-following-dispute-settlement.html, accessed 29 June 2014. Secretariat of the Pacific Community (2014) ‘Guaranteeing Women’s Legal and Human Rights in the Pacific Islands – Recommendations from the 12th Triennial Conference of Pacific Women and Fifth Pacific Women’s Ministerial Meeting’, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 20–25 October 2013, http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/embeds/ file/Brief%20Women%20rights.pdf, accessed 10 July 2014. 110

Slatter: Prospects and Challenges in Pacific Island States Slatter, Claire (2006) The Con/Dominion of Vanuatu? Paying the Price of Investment and Land Liberalisation – A case study of Vanuatu's Tourism Industry, Oxfam New Zealand, August, http://www.oxfam.org.nz/newsroom.asp? action=view&id=2110, accessed 30 June 2014. The World Bank (2014) Hardship & Vulnerability are Pressing Issues for Pacific Island Countries: World Bank, http:// www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/03/11/hardship-vulnerability-are-pressing-issues-for-pacificisland-countries-world-bank, accessed 2 July 2014. World Council of Churches (2001) The Island of Hope: An alternative to economic globalization, Dossier No 7, http:// www.oikoumene.org/en/folder/documents-pdf/dossier-7.pdf, accessed 2 July 2014.

*This article builds on an earlier contribution by the author to a Panel on ‘Shared Societies in the Pacific – Beyond Colonialism, Tribalism and Racism’ at the Club de Madrid’s Asia Pacific Forum in Tahiti, 5 July 2012, under the title ‘Shedding Our “Skins” and Sharing our Wealth’ http://www.clubmadrid.org/sspblog/?p=1421.

111