The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

8th July 2016

One of the most important issues facing Pacific democracies is how to realise democracy’s promise to support inclusive development. I have been struck by the many common challenges that emerging democracies face, regardless of region, as outlined in Alina Rocha Menocal’s discussion on the complex relationship between democracy, state-building and development. However, I think her insights also bring to the fore some of the unique problems that the Pacific region faces.

The disconnect between democracy and development is placing established democratic systems under increasing pressure...

Recent democratic trends have been positive in some parts of the Pacific, particularly Tonga and Fiji (where national elections in 2014 marked a return to democracy following its suspension in 2006). But in the larger Melanesian states of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Solomon Islands democracy faces some major obstacles. These include the increasingly moneyed nature of politics, weak governance, corruption and poor development outcomes.

Before considering these issues, it should be noted that Pacific democracies are not ‘transitional’ in the sense of being part of the ‘third wave’ of democratisation. Pacific democracies were introduced as key components of post-colonial inheritances, and have generally proven resilient to significant pressures arising from state fragility, economic vulnerability and, in some cases, violent conflict.

Yet it is the longevity of some Pacific democracies that actually throws into sharp relief one of the biggest democratic challenges facing the region: the seeming inability of established democratic systems to support more inclusive forms of development, particularly in Melanesia which fares poorly on a range of development criteria.

The disconnect between democracy and development is placing established democratic systems under increasing pressure, eroding their integrity and risking their long-term legitimacy. In PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, political elites have sought, or are seeking, to ‘stabilise’ national parliaments through a raft of electoral, political party and parliamentary reforms. Part of the rationale for doing so has been to improve the development environment by giving politicians space to take a longer policy view. In practice, such reforms have appeared more focused on strengthening executive powers, and risk weakening accountability mechanisms (including the role of parliament), potentially paving the way for more authoritarian, corrupt and moneyed forms of politics.

The inability of democratic politics to deliver clear development outcomes has also been used to justify the introduction of constituency development funding (CDF) models. These give local MPs discretionary funds to deliver services directly to their constituents (bypassing central government). While such funds are common in Africa, South Asia and other regions, in Solomon Islands and in PNG they are much larger (relative to other forms of government expenditure) and regulated less closely.

There is a debate among observers of Melanesian politics about the merits of this constituency funding model (Vanuatu has yet to go down this path). Proponents of CDFs justify them as an expression of a grass-roots style of democracy prevalent in Melanesia, arguing that they foster direct relationships with MPs that go some way to connecting an increasingly inaccessible and otherwise absent state to communities (perhaps representing a least-worst option).

Opponents argue that CDFs reinforce clientelistic and moneyed forms of politics and are used by executives to consolidate their power. They argue that this weakens democratic accountabilities and hollows out already fragile state systems by bypassing central government and redirecting limited resources away from critical public goods.

A more pragmatic view is that the scale of such funds means they will now be impossible to remove politically, and that the real challenge is making them more accountable rather than seeking to wind them back.

In my opinion, one of the biggest costs of CDFs is that they undermine already weak formal states and narrow the development possibilities open to Melanesian societies. They privilege localised forms of development (solar panels, water tanks, outboard motors, school fees) over scaled, productivity enhancing national investments (transport and communications infrastructure, health and education) which are more likely to underpin transformational development.

... experience in Melanesia suggests that any reforms to democratic systems need to be coupled with a broader range of developmental policies...

Institutional experimentation, including reforms to ‘stabilise’ parliamentary politics and to extend CDF models, highlights how Pacific democracies are transitioning in their own ways. But experience in Melanesia suggests that any reforms to democratic systems need to be coupled with a broader range of developmental policies if they are to create more favourable and inclusive development environments. These must include long-term support for state-building and good governance, alongside ongoing support to empower citizens to undertake more developmental forms of collective action and political participation.

Supporting effective collective action is particularly challenging in a region that lacks programmatic parties, and where civil society is often marginalised from formal policy processes that are generally weak. Not only that, but key members of society lack representation in formal political institutions: the Pacific has the world’s lowest level of female parliamentary representation.

... the best bet would be supporting issues-based coalitions to work more effectively in democratic spaces to progress meaningful reforms.

So what approaches could help Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens? I’d argue that, given the structural impediments against large-scale state-led development approaches, the best bet would be supporting issues-based coalitions to work more effectively in democratic spaces to progress meaningful reforms.

A good Pacific example is the urban bus routes campaign backed by the Solomon Islands’ Young Women’s Parliamentary Group. This saw a civil society group with significant knowledge of formal parliamentary processes – and who enjoyed the formal patronage of the prime minister – lead a broad-based community campaign calling for more inclusive urban bus routes in Honiara. The group then leveraged this public support to successfully call for a special parliamentary committee of inquiry. Its findings provide a basis for a more inclusive public transport regime, although implementation remains a challenge. 

Image: Kristina Sogavare of the Solomon Islands' Young Women's Parliamentary Group (Irene Scott/AusAID, 2013)

0 Comments

Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.

Documents

Author

Julien Barbara

Julien Barbara

Dr Julien Barbara is a Research Fellow with the Australian National University's State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Program. His research examines post-conflict state-building and evolving development partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region, with a focus on democracy and governance. He is interested in how donors can support positive processes of state-building. Julien has worked in various policy roles in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Agency for International Development. 

Read more

Related items

What is transformative leadership?

Guest post in University World News

Opinion by Chris Roche15th April 2016

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Somaliland's route to peace

What can we learn from Somaliland's approach to peacebuilding? 

Opinion by Sarah Phillips12th December 2013

Shuffling the decks: quick fixes versus long-term stability

Guest post for Development Progress on 'post-conflict' DRC

Opinion by Suda Perera22nd January 2015
Opinion by Suda Perera19th December 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal29th March 2016

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

Politics - the problem and solution to poor services?

Why - and how - does politics trump everything else in service delivery?

Opinion by Claire Mcloughlin13th March 2014

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

The inclusiveness test: making change work

Guest post for openDemocracy

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal4th November 2015

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Developmental leadership: putting inclusiveness first

Inclusiveness should be the first step towards building more robust states.

Opinion by Seth D. Kaplan24th September 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014