In response to ‘Ikani Taliai’s letter, it is crucial to examine the leadership of Tonga’s past three prime ministers—Akilisi Pohiva, Pohiva Tu’ionetoa, and Siaosi Sovaleni—and their failure to uphold democratic principles. The question is not merely about the King’s involvement in governance but whether Tonga’s elected leaders have demonstrated the ability to govern democratically and effectively. A critical review of these leaders’ performances suggests that, far from proving democracy’s strength, their tenure has exposed its weaknesses when not accompanied by strong institutional safeguards.
Akilisi Pohiva: A Critic Who Failed as a Leader
Michael Field, Kalafi Moala, and Dr. Malakai Koloamatangi have all provided extensive evaluations of Akilisi Pohiva’s tenure, noting that while he was an effective critic of the monarchy and its influence, he ultimately failed as a democratic leader. Pohiva spent decades as the face of the pro-democracy movement, yet when given the opportunity to govern, he struggled to transition from opposition politics to responsible leadership.
1. Authoritarian Tendencies: Despite championing democracy, Pohiva frequently acted in ways that contradicted democratic norms. His administration was characterized by a refusal to engage with opposing views, even within his own party. Reports indicate that he often sidelined those who disagreed with him, demonstrating a governance style closer to autocracy than democracy.
2. Lack of Administrative Competence: Pohiva’s governance was marked by inefficiency and mismanagement. His administration failed to implement policies that strengthened democratic institutions, instead prioritizing loyalty over competence. His inability to manage the economy or address pressing national issues like corruption and poverty raised serious concerns about his leadership capabilities.
3. Disregard for Institutional Integrity: Pohiva’s tenure saw increased tension between the executive and other branches of government. His attempts to undermine the civil service and control the media contradicted the very principles of transparency and accountability he once advocated.
Pohiva Tu’ionetoa and Siaosi Sovaleni: Failures of Representative Leadership
If Pohiva’s administration was marked by inefficiency and autocratic tendencies, his successors, Pohiva Tu’ionetoa and Siaosi Sovaleni, continued the trend of failing to uphold democratic governance in different ways.
1. Pohiva Tu’ionetoa: Weak Leadership and Political Patronage
Rather than strengthening democratic institutions, Tu’ionetoa’s leadership deepened political fragmentation. He engaged in political patronage, ensuring that those loyal to him received positions of power regardless of competence.
His government’s handling of public funds and response to national crises raised ethical concerns. The lack of transparency in decision-making undermined public trust, further weakening democracy.
2. Siaosi Sovaleni: Centralization of Power and Incompetence in Crisis Management
While initially perceived as a reformist, Sovaleni has struggled to maintain a government that represents the people’s interests. His administration has been criticized for centralizing power and marginalizing dissenting voices within the government.
The Danger of Unchecked Power in a Unicameral System
Given these failures, the question arises: if Tonga’s elected leaders have struggled to govern effectively with limited power, what would happen if they were given full control in an unchecked unicameral system? The prospect is alarming for several reasons:
1. Concentration of Power: The failures of Pohiva, Tu’ionetoa, and Sovaleni illustrate the dangers of centralized power. If a unicameral system were to replace the current constitutional monarchy, there would be no effective checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power.
2. Lack of Democratic Maturity: Tonga’s democratic institutions remain fragile. The past three administrations have shown that democratic governance is not simply about elections but about building institutions that promote accountability, transparency, and effective governance. Without these safeguards, a unicameral system could lead to authoritarian rule rather than democracy.
3. Potential for Corruption and Nepotism: Given the history of political patronage and mismanagement, granting a single governing body full control could exacerbate corruption. Without an independent judiciary or constitutional monarch as a counterbalance, there would be little to prevent abuses of power.
The Pro-Democracy Movement and the Risk of National Disunity
Our opposition to the pro-democracy movement is not a resistance to change but a measured effort to ensure that Tonga does not succumb to the same disunity, ideological division, and governance failures seen in many democratic nations today. Several factors make democracy a riskier option for Tonga:
1. The Separation of Church and State: Under democratic systems, there is a clear separation of church and state, which could replace Tonga’s traditional model where faith and governance are intertwined. This shift may lead to the erosion of religious values that have historically guided Tongan leadership and social unity.
2. Ideological Divisions: Democracies worldwide have been plagued by deep ideological divisions on issues such as LGBTQ rights, gender roles, and secularism. These debates have often led to national disunity, social unrest, and policy gridlock. Tonga, with its strong cultural and religious foundations, risks similar fragmentation if democracy is allowed to take full control.
3. Avoiding Governance Failures of Other Democracies: Many democratic nations today are struggling with economic instability, political corruption, and weakened national identity. If Tonga adopts a purely democratic system without strong institutional safeguards, we may inherit the same problems that currently afflict many Western nations.
An Alternative Path for Democratic Reform
Rather than pursuing a complete transition to democracy, the pro-democracy movement should consider the approach advocated by Piveni Piukala and his faction, who support democratic reform under the monarchy. This perspective recognizes that good governance and democratic principles can be achieved within the current system, where power is shared between the monarchy and the prime minister as the representative of democracy. By strengthening this dual structure, Tonga can foster transparency, accountability, and effective leadership without risking the disunity and instability that often accompany drastic political shifts.
A Call for Responsible Democratic Leadership
Tonga’s democracy movement was meant to bring about accountable, transparent governance. However, the failures of recent prime ministers indicate that democracy in Tonga is still in its infancy and requires stronger institutions, not just elected leaders. If those given partial power have already struggled to govern effectively, shifting to a system where they hold unchecked power would only worsen the nation’s challenges.
The debate should not be about whether the King or elected representatives should hold power—it should be about ensuring that whichever system governs Tonga is capable of delivering good governance. Without responsible leadership and institutional safeguards, neither the monarchy nor a unicameral system will serve the people’s best interests. Tonga must prioritize stability, unity, and governance that reflects its cultural and religious heritage rather than blindly following the democratic models of other nations.
Mr. Senituli Penitani is a John Maxwell leadership trainer and coach living in Utah. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect the views of Talanoa ‘o Tonga.
