Why the King’s Involvement is a Regression, Not Evolution
The recent Talanoa ‘o Tonga opinion piece by Seni Penitani, “Pushing the Boundaries: Did the King of Tonga Turn Back on Democracy?”, attempts to defend King Tupou VI’s increasing involvement in governance by positioning it as part of a natural evolution of Tonga’s democracy.
However, this argument romanticizes tradition to justify political regression, ignoring the historical trajectory of Tonga’s democracy movement and the very real dangers of backtracking on reforms.
At its core, the piece reflects a diaspora-driven nostalgia that paints an idealized version of Tonga’s traditional structures, despite the realities of contemporary Tongan society. The notion that those advocating for a stronger democratic system are inherently anti-monarchist is not only false but a deliberately misleading narrative that has been weaponized to stifle necessary debate.
Tonga’s democracy movement was never about abolishing the monarchy—it was about ensuring a constitutional monarchy that serves the people. If we are to understand why the King’s increasing executive involvement is not a sign of progress but a step backward, we must confront the deeper psychological, cultural, and political barriers that continue to obstruct the democratic aspirations laid out in the 2009/2010 reforms.
THE MISPLACED ROMANTICISM OF DIASPORA TRADITIONALISTS
One of the greatest misunderstandings shaping this debate is the tendency of the diaspora—particularly second-generation Tongans raised abroad—to freeze Tonga’s traditional structures in time. To many who have never lived in Tonga or have been absent for extended periods, the Tonga of today is indistinguishable from the Tonga of their parents or grandparents. This is not unique to Tongans—many migrant communities hold onto an idealized homeland, believing that tradition must remain unchanged to preserve identity.
The Talanoa ‘o Tonga article is a clear example of this diasporic nostalgia. It assumes that the only way for Tonga to maintain its identity is by allowing the monarchy to continue exercising executive power, as though political authority is inseparable from cultural integrity. This ignores the lived reality of those who have fought for democratic rights, accountable leadership, and an evolved constitutional order in Tonga.
While it is true that Tonga’s traditional structures are deeply embedded in national identity, democracy in Tonga is not a foreign concept. The democracy movement was led by Tongans, for Tongans—not by outsiders, not by colonizers, and certainly not by those who view democracy as a Western construct. The attempt to paint democracy advocates as opponents of tradition is both historically false and politically dangerous.
THE FALSE NARRATIVE THAT DEMOCRACY ADVOCATES ARE ANTI-MONARCHIST
One of the most pervasive and misleading narratives in Tongan political discourse is the claim that advocating for stronger democratic institutions equates to being anti-monarchist. This is a deliberate mischaracterization, often used to discredit reformers while justifying the retention of traditional hierarchies that no longer serve the best interests of the people.
Tonga’s democracy movement was never about dismantling the monarchy—it was about creating a modern constitutional monarchy, where the King serves a symbolic and national unifying role, while elected representatives govern with transparency, accountability, and legitimacy. The reforms of 2009/2010 were a compromise—they reduced the King’s direct involvement in governance while preserving his constitutional role as head of state, similar to other constitutional monarchies that have successfully balanced tradition and democracy.
Those who argue that the King’s recent interference in governance is a natural evolution of Tonga’s democracy are ignoring the fact that this was never the intended trajectory of reform. Instead, it represents a regression—a return to a political psychology that refuses to accept that traditional structures can evolve without dominating governance.
REGRESSION IN POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY: WHY TRADITION MUST EVOLVE, NOT CONTROL
The King’s increased involvement in executive governance is not unconstitutional under the current framework. However, this does not mean it aligns with the spirit of the reforms that the democracy movement fought for. It reflects a failure of political psychology—a refusal to embrace adaptive tradition and instead retreat into cultural inertia.
Cultural inertia, a sociological concept, describes how societies resist change due to deep-seated identity fusion with traditional structures. Tonga is experiencing this firsthand. The continued insistence that the monarchy must retain executive power, despite democratic progress, is a symptom of a national identity that refuses to evolve in ways that serve modern governance.
Democracy, at its core, is not a rejection of Tongan values—it is a mechanism to ensure fairness, justice, and opportunity. The failure to separate mechanism from identity has fuelled cognitive dissonance among many Tongans, including those in power. When democratic reforms are framed as an attack on tradition, it creates defensive reactions that prevent meaningful progress.
The King’s reassertion of direct executive power is not a neutral act. It signals to the people of Tonga that their democracy is fragile, conditional, and subject to reversal when tradition is challenged. This is not evolution—it is a step backward.
MOVING FORWARD: A CALL FOR PROGRESSIVE LEADERSHIP
If Tonga is to honour the vision of its democracy movement, it must confront the false dichotomy that places tradition in opposition to democracy. A true constitutional monarchy—one that respects both Tongan identity and democratic governance—must be centred on the following principles:
- The monarchy should be symbolic and national, not executive and political. The King should serve as a cultural and national figurehead, while governance is conducted by elected representatives who are accountable to the people.
- Adaptive tradition must replace cultural inertia. Traditions evolve, and democracy must be reframed as an extension of Tongan values rather than a foreign import.
- The false narrative of democracy versus monarchy must end. Advocating for a stronger parliamentary democracy does not mean opposing the monarchy—it means refining it to fit Tonga’s evolving needs.
- The King’s role must be re-evaluated in the spirit of the 2009/2010 reforms. The reforms were not about preserving a dominant monarchy in governance—they were about shifting toward a people-centred system.
- Diaspora perspectives must be grounded in contemporary Tongan realities. Those who live in Tonga, those who have fought for reform, and those who understand both the political and cultural dimensions of governance should be the voices leading this discussion.
A NATIONAL CONVENTION TO CHART THE FUTURE
To ensure Tonga does not regress further, progressive leadership is needed from both the monarch and the government. A national convention or commission should be established to address cultural inertia, clarify the role of the monarchy, and dispel the false narrative that democratic advancement threatens cultural identity.
Tonga’s previous monarch demonstrated leadership in ushering in the 2009/2010 reforms. The current monarch has the opportunity to build on this legacy, reinforcing a monarchy that strengthens the nation by adapting to its people’s needs.
The government should lead the call for this initiative, ensuring that the future of Tonga’s democracy is shaped by open, inclusive dialogue.
CONCLUSION: A DEMOCRACY WORTH DEFENDING
Tonga’s democracy was hard-won, but its psychological and cultural barriers to progress remain formidable. The monarchy’s increasing involvement in executive governance is not progress—it is a warning that Tonga’s political identity remains captive to its past.
Tonga must reject the false narrative that democracy and monarchy cannot coexist. A strong constitutional monarchy is possible, but only if Tonga’s democracy is allowed to grow—unhindered by regression.
Mr. ‘Ikani Taliai is a political commentator. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect the views of Talanoa ‘o Tonga.
