At the Intersection of Chieftainship And

Journal de la Société des Océanistes

141 | juillet-décembre 2015 Nouveaux regards sur les chefferies fidjiennes

At the Intersection of Chieftainship and Constitutional Government: Some Comparisons from Micronesia À l'intersection de la chefferie et du gouvernement constitutionnel : quelques comparaisons de Micronésie

Glenn Petersen

Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/jso/7434 DOI: 10.4000/jso.7434 ISSN: 1760-7256

Publisher Société des océanistes

Printed version Date of publication: 15 December 2015 Number of pages: 255-265 ISBN: 978-2-85430-126-7 ISSN: 0300-953x

Electronic reference Glenn Petersen, « At the Intersection of Chieftainship and Constitutional Government: Some Comparisons from Micronesia », Journal de la Société des Océanistes [Online], 141 | juillet-décembre 2015, Online since 15 December 2017, connection on 02 May 2019. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/jso/7434 ; DOI : 10.4000/jso.7434

Glenn PETERSEN*

ABSTRACT RÉSUMÉ Indigenous Micronesian political forms closely paral- Les formes politiques indigènes de Micronésie sont très proches lel those of eastern Melanesian and Polynesian societies. de celles des sociétés de Polynésie et de Mélanésie de l’est. La Chieftainship integrates aspects of land tenure, kin grou- cheferie intègre certains aspects de la propriété foncière, des pings, status hierarchy, and ideologies of the supernatural. groupements de parenté, des statuts hiérarchiques et des idéolo- Because so many aspects of social and political economy gies de la surnature. Dans la mesure où ces institutions sont à meet in these institutions, chiely politics have traditio- la croisée de tant d’aspects de l’économie sociale et politique, les nally been responsive to popular pressures; there is in politiques menées par les chefs tendent, traditionnellement, à fact, if not necessarily in myth, very little that is auto- tenir compte des pressions populaires ; quoi qu’en dise le mythe, cratic about them. he primary debate in the Federated dans les faits, elles ne sont que très marginalement autocra- States of Micronesia has not been about the importance of tiques. Le débat central parmi les États fédérés de Micronésie chieftainship, but whether the people are better served by ne concerne donc pas l’importance de la cheferie, mais la ques- including chiefs within their constitutional government tion de savoir si le peuple a intérêt à ce que le gouvernement or keeping them outside it, where it is believed they can constitutionnel inclut les chefs, ou s’il vaut mieux les en exclure, more efectively exercise the checks and balances the people partant du principe qu’il sont mieux placés pour garantir le wish to maintain. contrôle et le contre-point que le peuple souhaite maintenir. Keywords: Chieftainship, constitutional govern- Mots-clés : cheferie, governement constitution- ment, Federated States of Micronesia nel, États fédérés de Micronésie

hough Micronesian societies’ traditional go- European-based socio-political forms. here just vernments have their roots in cultural history may be some proit in comparing Micronesian shared with Fiji and Polynesia, they do not attract responses to the dilemma of maintaining chiely much attention. his is unfortunate, because politics in an era that loudly, if not necessarily there is much to be learned from Micronesians’ scrupulously, shouts out the inevitability of de- experiences integrating the dynamics of chief- mocracy, or at least quasi-democratic forms. tainship with parliamentary rule. My aim here During the course of the irst millennium bce, is to describe key aspects of traditional Microne- voyaging peoples made the leap from Near Ocea- sian polities, to explore some of the reasons why nia to Remote Oceania, heading out from the So- Micronesians have opted to retain these, and lomon Islands, east (to Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa), to challenge claims that such traditional forms south (to what are now known as Vanuatu and and practices are inherently incompatible with New Caledonia), and north (to Pohnpei and Kos-

* Baruch College, City University of New York, [email protected] Journal de la Société des Océanistes 141, année 2015-2 256 JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES rae). here must have been multiple voyages in political scientists attribute to the modern nation- each direction, conducted by several diferent but state, Westphalian-based international relations, closely related populations, and these peoples car- and Grotian political theory. here is perhaps ried with them a range of interrelated languages, even greater irony in the specter of metropolitan cultural beliefs, and social practices. he modern powers insisting on replication of their own poli- populations of Eastern Melanesia, Fiji, Polyne- tical practices as a condition of decolonization. sia, and most of Micronesia are descended from Underlying my approach here is my sense that in these ancestral stocks and for all the apparent everyday life virtually all systems of politics and go- diferences in their languages, cultures, and socie- vernment operate at some degree of variance from ties, they manifest important and fundamental whatever theoretical frameworks they are supposed commonalities1. he overarching socio-political to be based upon. (“Utopia”, that is, a place where form scholars refer to as chieftainship thrives eve- there is absolute coherence between the theory and rywhere in these islands and plays a central orga- practice of government, exists, in homas More’s nizing role in the social lives of their peoples. original sense of the word, “no place”). Contem- Each of these societies has undergone not only porary state-organized governments are inherently its own speciic historical developments but also neither more nor less likely to perform according to experienced ongoing and recurring linkages with theory than chieftainships, and problems attribu- the societies of multiple other islands. Because ted to the alleged ineiciencies and inequalities of they also share some fundamental precepts and chieftainship are likely to be the result of conlicts because they must ultimately provide viable go- between competing forms of government, rather vernments to their peoples, it possible to point than the necessary consequence of one type of go- to certain recurring themes. Among these are vernment or another. notions of deep and indelible ties between leaders and land; leaders’ status rooted in kin groups; precedence within and between groups based to some extent on seniority of descent; dynamic ties Some elements of Micronesian socio- between leaders and the natural and supernatural political organization worlds (often known by some cognate of “mana”); and reciprocal notions that gifts must be given to Traditional social life in Micronesia is characte- leaders for both religious and practical reasons and rized by the region’s dispersed matrilineal clans, that leaders must bestow gifts on their constituents which exist virtually everywhere in the area2. As for similar reasons. here exist everywhere in the I have demonstrated at length in Traditional Mi- region well-developed ideologies of hierarchy cronesian Societies (Petersen, 2009), these seem to or rank, but the behavioral signs of hierarchical have irst taken form on Pohnpei and Kosrae in organization vary greatly, from quasi-egalitarian the eastern Carolines, then difused to the rest of to seemingly authoritarian. In all these societies, the Micronesian islands, probably because of the however, no matter how despotic they seem to adaptive advantages they confer in a region that be, multiple checks and balances are provided is home to the western Paciic’s typhoon spaw- by variant versions of key mythological charters, ning grounds and beset by enso-driven droughts. competition for status within and between kin he dispersed character of the clans means that groups laying claim to chiely positions, rivalries on each Micronesian island or community are for local precedence, and the practical exigencies resident subclans and lineages of multiple clans, of demography, political and martial skills, and and each clan has subclans and lineages planted idiosyncrasies of individual personalities. on multiple islands and communities. Ethnologi- Many foreign political scientists, as well as some cal accounts tend to stress Micronesia’s matriliny members of these societies, argue that the govern- as its key distinction, but it is in fact the dispersed mental institutions comprising chieftainship are nature of these descent groups that is most salient. fundamentally incompatible with the state-or- hese clans and lineages are in classical ethnolo- ganized and more or less democratic political gical terms “conical” in organization and in fact it processes introduced into the islands by foreign the archetypal model of conical clans, developed colonial governments. his perspective seems ab- by Marshall Sahlins (1958, 1968) and reined by surd on its face, since there are not many political Patrick Kirch (1989), even more closely than Po- processes less democratic than the forcible impo- lynesia’s descent groups. he clans, along with the sition of foreign rule, but this contradiction has lineages that constitute them, have multiple func- not kept scholars and bureaucrats from decrying tions and characteristics, but for present purposes the benighted politics of chieftainship as consti- two of these are of greatest relevance: the ways tuting the greatest impediment to the salvation in which clans that successfully assert settlement

1. Palau and the Marianas were settled from the west a nd Yap probably from the south, but these societies were profoundly afected by inluences from the Eastern Carolines (Petersen, 2006). 2. Even Kiribati has clear evidence of matrilineal clans pre-existing more recent inluences from Samoa. CHIEFTANSHIEP and constitutional government (micronesia): 257 priority on any island or in any community pro- On the high islands, with much larger (though vide chiefs for all the other groups residing there, not necessarily denser) populations than the atolls, and ways in which the ambiguities of genealogical hierarchies based on genealogical seniority and sett- seniority promote efective leadership within the lement priority can become quite elaborate. Smal- ruling lineages and communities. ler, local communities with their own cross-cutting A fundamental precept of Micronesian life is chiely hierarchies are subsumed into larger para- that the irst kin group to settle an area or island mount chiefdoms that may include dozens of these thereby establishes title over it. But in Epeli smaller units, sometimes with intermediate-level Hau’ofa’s sense of a “sea of islands,” Micronesia groupings as well. Competition among the larger has always been a sea of immigrants, as its cha- chiefdoms resulted in increasing levels of organi- racteristic dispersed clan pattern clearly demons- zation, and additional forms of rank developed, trates. he nature of Micronesian communities including but by no means limited to specialists of relects the fact that they survive only by creating many kinds. On some of the largest islands, inclu- and maintaining close ties to other islands and ding Pohnpei, Yap, and Palau, federations appeared. communities. his means that even though the Moreover, all these communities and societies irst settlers and their descendants claim (and are maintained patterns of councils where, depending usually believed to possess) fairly well-established on population size and other factors, either the en- title to the land, they need to attract new mem- tire adult population or representative leaders from bers with ties to other places. According to both lineages were free to speak their minds. While Mi- Micronesian mythology and reality, nearly eve- cronesian political styles call for low-key discussions ryone has come from somewhere else. But after in public venues (indeed, Palauans refer to politi- arriving, visiting voyagers can quickly become cal discourse as “whispering”), the ability to gauge settlers, even while retaining ties to fellow clan public opinion is considered a vital element of com- members in the communities from whence they petent leadership, a point to which I shall return. came (which is of course the reason they are en- he multiple and cross-cutting lines of authori- couraged to settle). he primary means of enti- ty in Micronesian communities thus produce an cing visiting voyagers to settle is to provide them efective series of and checks and balances. hese with rights to land. Having received title to the were thoroughly formalized in some societies; on lands they settle, newly arrived groups are made Pohnpei, for instance, there were three parallel to feel secure enough to remain and to thus share lines of chiely titles within each of the para- with the resident population the advantages of mount chiefdoms, each with its own source of their ties to other islands and communities. authority enabling it to confront and challenge his is why in virtually all Micronesian societies the others under certain circumstances. there exist dual kinds of titles to land, the rights It is also the case, of course, that violence, on the claimed by the irst settlers (“residual” rights in part of both individuals and groups, had a signi- Goodenough’s 1951 terminology) and the rights icant role in Micronesian political life. Stories of claimed by the later occupants who actually reside assassinations of chiefs are not unusual and ser- on and cultivate the land (“provisional” rights). ved to remind leaders of the dangers that abusive In other words, a community seeks new mem- behaviors can pose, as well as threats from rival bers precisely because they bring with them ties (especially junior) kinsmen. Moreover, local oral to other places, ties the original settlers hope to histories, ethnohistoric accounts, and ethnogra- multiply in order to improve their community’s phic reports tell us that warfare was a signiicant security. But because the new settlers bring with factor in Micronesian life. It is my own sense them already-existing clan and lineage organiza- (Petersen 2014) that the many aspects of martial tion, they possess already-established patterns of spirit that run through Micronesian culture – and hierarchical relations. hat is, in order for Mi- this is especially seen in the many forms of dance cronesian communities to persist and thrive they performances that incorporate forms of mock must incorporate competing organizations. combat – are intended to warn potential foes that In each and every Micronesian community a community is able to protect itself at least as there are two cross-cutting forms of chiely au- much as they are evidence that Micronesian com- thority. here is the territorial chief, who is head munities spent a good deal of time and energy of the kin group – clan or lineage – that claims actually engaged in combat. In many Microne- to have originally settled the land, and then there sian societies, war leaders possess rank, status, and are also the chiefs of all the other kin groups that authority that is distinct from leaders whose au- have subsequently settled there. Micronesian thority is based on genealogical ties to ancestors. communities have, almost by deinition, mul- Again we encounter the separation of powers, tiple chiefs who derive their authority from dife- which in turn provides checks and balances. ring sources, some from the land and some from A much broader point follows from this. Mi- their kin groups. Simple checks and balances, cronesian political rhetoric combines emphases on then, are inherent in the nature of Micronesian both humility and the power of leaders. Chiefs are socio-political organization. simultaneously accorded the greatest respect and 258 JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES expected to behave with true modesty. here are, succession is often disputed. he ensuing rivalries of course, exceptions to this, but tensions between in turn generate the sorts of competitive practices status and humility are fundamental to nearly eve- that low from the status anxiety Irving Goldman ry aspect of Micronesian socio-political style. (1955, 1970) long ago described in Polynesian societies. Would-be leaders must continually prove themselves; they are rarely entirely comfor- Seniority table with their claims to titles; and together with close family members and allies they must engage almost ceaselessly in the competitive feasting that here is a second way in which Micronesian clan characterizes so much of public life. organization shapes the nature of political life and, In Micronesia this status ambiguity is only some- again, this derives from an older Oceanic pattern. times a matter of public record, but it plays conti- I am referring to the ways in which ambiguities nually behind the scenes, and in combination with of genealogical seniority promote efective leader- the dual and often ambiguous notions about land ship within the ruling lineages and communities. tenure it contributes materially to the dynamic Micronesian political theory stresses the impor- character of chieftainship I am describing here. tance of seniority of descent, as is typical of conical clan organization, but precisely because this principle has inluence on so many aspects of life Land and Political heory it possesses signiicant potential for doing harm. If chiely succession were entirely automatic, and Complex webs of ideas, assumptions, and histo- birth order was its sole determinant, then com- rical traditions shape relations among Microne- munities would face the recurring danger of ha- sian land tenure, lineages, chieftainship, and ving incompetent heirs occupying crucial leader- political life in general. But this richly textured ship positions. hey would ind themselves with fabric does not, in fact, difer all that much from chiefs unable to guide them, or to listen thought- aspects of European and American political tra- fully to wise counsel. While a great many factors ditions. I turn for a moment to Western political determine the actual processes of succession, one thought in order to provide a context for unders- fundamental contradiction in the process pro- tanding some of the subtleties of Micronesian vides the ambiguity and tension necessary to truly life. he era of the English Revolution provides dynamic political life. And that is the ambiguity modern political theory with much of its basis for inherent in Micronesian concepts of seniority. considering relations between property – or more hese concepts depend on competing notions of speciically, land – and political life. In Two Trea- what in English can be glossed as “older.” I have tises of Government John Locke provided both his heard Pohnpeians, when pushed beyond custo- contemporaries and subsequent generations of mary reticence into asserting a right of authority, thinkers with some timeless arguments regarding say, “Ngehi me laud.” hey could mean by this “I the appropriate nature of government. In his irst am senior” or “I am older,” meaning either that treatise Locke challenged arguments in support of they are genealogically closer to an apical ances- what is now known as “the divine right of kings.” tor or chronologically older than the individuals his notion held that the legitimacy of the king’s they aare sserting their claims against. hat is, in rule derived from his authority over all the realm’s a matrilineal society there are built-in ambiguities lands as a consequence of his succession from or tensions between an older, genealogically senior Adam, to whom God had granted dominion over woman’s younger brothers and her sons. Her bro- all the earth. Rather than directly disputing the thers are a generation older than their sisters’ sons, speciic character of a king’s antecedents, Locke while at the same time her sons are genealogically instead denied that “Property in Land gives a Man senior to their mothers’ younger brothers. Each Power over the Life of another” and reasoned that category can legitimately claim to be senior to the “no Man could ever have a just Power over the other. And despite many claims to the contrary Life of another, by Right of property in Land or by interested individuals, both methods of recko- Possessions” (Locke, 1960: 205-206, I.iv, 41-42). ning who is senior – genealogy and chronology In the second treatise Locke developed this prin- – are regularly asserted by pretenders to a chiely ciple further, maintaining that title3. While this may seem in the abstract to be a somewhat trivial distinction, it is in fact utterly « every Man has a Property in his own Person […]. central to much of political life. Because there are he Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, almost always several potential successors to an we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever he then re- important title as a result of this ambiguity, chiely moves out of the State that Nature hath provided, and

3. When I irst began to encounter signiicant diferences of opinion about who was considered rightful successor to a title, I naively assumed that this was because people no longer understood their own cultural rules. I came in time to understand instead that these diferences are what make the system survive and thrive. chieftanshiep and constitutional government (micronesia): 259 left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned chiely lineage’s claims over land derive from it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it priority of settlement and descent, the claims of his Property. » (Locke, 1960: 328-329, II.v.27) lineages residing upon this same land derive from the labor they have invested in it. And although hat is, humans create property by conjoining Micronesians readily attest to the chief’s autho- their own labor with nature. rity over the land, they are equally vocal about It is necessary to stress here that there have been the lineage’s rights over it. A chief cannot alie- periods – eras, in fact – when republican and mo- nate a lineage’s land – remove it from them or narchical principles coexisted, as they also do in drive them of it – unless there is an overriding many contemporary Paciic island societies. As consensus within the community that the lineage Pocock’s he Machiavellian Moment (1975) fully has done something socially unacceptable or demonstrates, aspects of both these contrasting reprehensible to bring this upon themselves, or outlooks informed western political discourse clearly and repeatedly failed to discharge their ac- for centuries. Within a single European society, knowledged duties to the chief. As Goodenough then, there were competing notions about rela- notes, in Chuuk there may arise tionships between government and property. While these are not identical with Micronesian « a situation in which powerful persons and lineages perspectives on connections between chiely could take advantage of weaker ones. While this has government and property rights, they draw on happened, the entire community is likely to unite strikingly similar assumptions: concurrent, com- against a too frequent ofender » (1951: 60) peting notions about rights conferred by hereditary succession and by actually working the land. In short, there are two difering Micronesian Similar precepts inform traditional Microne- concepts regarding land rights, and the nature sian society. While the authority and the rights of Micronesian political thought cannot be un- of chiefs are sometimes attributed to conquest derstood unless both these viewpoints are com- (especially in the Marshalls), in general the prehended simultaneously. Unfortunately, most authority that inheres in a Micronesian chief of those who have reported on Micronesian by virtue of his oice is rooted in his descent chieftainship and land tenure have assumed that from ancestors who were the irst to occupy or the Micronesian statements about chiely autho- settle an island or place. Almost everywhere we rity and dominion that resonate with European ind that a community’s leading lineage or clan conceptions of the divine rights of kings consti- claims that its legitimacy as the pre-eminent tute the totality of the Micronesian perspective. group derives from this settlement priority, and And thus Micronesian chiefs are commonly por- the community’s chief is chief by virtue of being trayed as being in possession of rather awesome head of its leading descent group. he concept authority. But closer examination of the dyna- of residual title over land bears this out. What mics of Micronesian sociopolitical life tends to is owed to a chief – irst fruits, respect, and, in belie this stereotype. he only way to make sense some circumstances and to some degree, obe- of this disparity is to recognize the simultaneous dience – is owed to him because of his group’s existence of these two contrary notions. precedence. he chief’s eminence comes because Locke’s notion in the second treatise was that of his status as a senior member of the senior land became property – was separated out from group. Both the importance of seniority of des- nature – by the labor of those who worked it, cent and the importance of residual title over the and that property was thus imbued with the per- land are cited by nearly every Micronesian when sonality of those who created it. Land belonged discussing why a chief is a chief, what privileges a to those who cultivated it and could not rightly chief is due, and what responsibilities encumber or justly be taken from them. In order to pre- him. Whatever disagreements Micronesians may vent the unjust taking of land by those who were have about what constitutes chieftainship, and stronger, individual property owners joined toge- about which individual should occupy the oice ther to create governments, the original purpose (and there are many), they all know intuitively of which was to protect the property of those how and why one is supposed to become a chief. who consented to join together and thus foun- At the same time, we can see a shared notion ded the government. His logic lies at the heart that the descent groups that occupy land – the of subsequent theories of the “social contract”, people who work it, improve it, and derive their that is, that people consent to government and lives and identities from it – are also its rightful can therefore withdraw their consent and the- proprietors. And there is a common notion that reby act to change the government. the land derives its value from the work that a In the same vein, James Harrington, drawing lineage, and more important, its ancestors, has from Machiavelli’s claim that it was the pos- put into developing and improving it, making session of arms that assured people their rights it productive farmland, keep it yielding a living as political actors, and writing in the same era, to those who continue to cultivate it. While the insisted that the right to bear arms was in turn 260 JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES dependent upon individuals’ secure status as does capture the underlying tension between the owners of their own land4. A monarch exer- honor and deference chiefs receive, on the one cises limited sway over land-holding people, hand, and the sense of individual and lineage and they are not obliged to ight for him – their autonomy, on the other, that together charac- arms are their own. Forms of government rou- terize Micronesian political dynamics. Ten- ghly approximating democracy were possible sions between the rights and responsibilities of only where people held land in relative equality. government and the rights and responsibilities Under these circumstances, citizens possessed of individuals and families are characteristic of the human resources needed to disperse political political life everywhere, and constitute the basic authority in a diversiied and balanced way and were thereby enabled to establish and preserve a roots of the checks and balances that are the very stable polity. his in turn assured land holders stuf of politics. he essential similarities among security of tenure; they could pass their land on what appear on the surface to be quite diferent to their descendants, who were in turn assured forms of government are not always well under- not only of a place in political life, but also of the stood by political scientists. means through which to participate actively in it (Harrington, 1992; Pocock, 1975: 386-390). In a pre-industrial society based on a subsis- Criticism of contemporary chieftainship tence economy, each lineage’s rights over its own land enables its members to function as political actors. Under normal circumstances, resident li- Stephanie Lawson’s Tradition versus Democracy neages’ relationships with the community’s chief in the South Paciic (1996) provides one of the are deined by the lineages actual tenure over most systematic critiques of the roles chiefs play their land and possession of their own arms. In in present-day Paciic islands governments. Law- Micronesian societies, every adult male is a po- son examines the contemporary workings of tential warrior, as well as a freeholder, and chiefs government in Fiji, Tonga, and Western Samoa, are obliged to listen and to heed. hroughout seeking to demonstrate that “traditionalist em- Micronesia public politics are conducted via phasis” on chiefs, monarchy, and matai in these councils composed of the heads of all the local li- societies enhances and enforces the continuing neages. Freedom of speech seems to be the norm, rule of elites. “he concept of tradition,” she says, inasmuch as these councils engage in considera- tion of public business until all have expressed « is one of the most important components of an what they wish to say and then work hard to ideological arsenal which has been used to counter achieve consensus before any action is taken. the development of more democratic norms of politi- Finally, and most signiicantly, the tension cal conduct and organization. » between these two seemingly opposing political themes – of chiely rights based on hereditary au- In her view, indigenous claims about the conti- thority over land and lineage rights based on who nuing signiicance of tradition serve largely to works on the land – appears to relect another preserve elite power and privilege against claims central tenet of classical republican theory. By to “more extensive opportunities for participa- acknowledging their chief’s authority over their tion” on the part of “those without traditionally land, Micronesian lineages assure themselves that he will also be responsible for protecting it. derived political or social status” (1996: 5, Law- And because the chief is the leader of the entire son’s emphasis). community, and everyone in it acknowledges Underlying Lawson’s treatment is a misap- his authority, a threat to any one lineage’s land prehension about the presence and character means the potential mobilization, via the chief, of participatory politics as a key element in the of the entire community to defend it. In readily dynamics of chieftainship. Arguing that “a subs- acknowledging the chief’s authority over their tantial part of the history of democratic develop- land, Micronesians are not denying their own ment in the West has been about depersonali- proprietary rights, but instead, assuring them- zing political power, and vesting it in impersonal selves of their government’s protection of their institutions,” she contrasts the island polities in lands. his is very much, if not precisely, the way her case studies as marked by Locke explained the nature of government. It may well be that an interpretation based in « a much stronger personalized element in the asser- western political theory does not adequately or tion of tradition since its most authoritative bearers truly represent Micronesians’ understandings of are those whose status is largely (although not exclu- their own political systems. But I believe that it sively) ascribed. » (1996: 12)

4. he reference here is to Machiavelli’s republican ideas (spelled out in he Discourses on Livy), and not to the more problematic program outlined in the much better-known he Prince. chieftanshiep and constitutional government (micronesia): 261

Yet it is clear that in these societies, as in Mi- Anyone who has spent much time in Paciic cronesia, the most politically salient aspects of island societies knows how rarely one encounters ascription are commonly seen in the manipu- unpolitical lives. lating (or selective reinterpretation) of genealo- his outlook is, I think, the consequence of a gies after the fact of succession to a chiely title. perspective that overemphasizes the place of insti- Indeed, I have had Micronesian chiefs explain tutions in political life. In this approach, “demo- to me that much of clanship’s viability lies pre- cracy” is mostly about government. Yet, democra- cisely in the broad net of men it makes eligible cy is more appropriately – or at least productively for titles, and this is borne out by ethnographies – understood as something considerably more describing situations in which it is obvious that extensive than a type of government. Sheldon ascription is not the most salient factor in ac- Wolin, who has devoted his distinguished career cess to titles (Alkire, 1989: 44-46; Kiste, 1974: to the exploration of democratic politics, main- 52; Petersen, 1982). Lawson makes the error of tains that granting unquestioning credence to these post facto claims, which in fact serve to legitimize, « democracy needs to be reconceived as something rather than prescribe, succession. other than a form of government. » (1996: 43) On the other hand, she also dismisses as little more than instrumentalist maneuvering the James Kloppenburg insists that claims put forward by elites about their rights to run things, that is, « democracy is not now, nor has it ever been, prima- rily a question of representative institutions » « the manipulation of tradition by indigenous elites in ways that enhance their own legitimacy by sanc- and suggests instead that it be tifying the political order to which they owe their privilege. » (1996: 12) « conceived as a way of life rather than a way simply of managing conlict and preserving order. »(1995: Again, I see several problems with this portrayal. 176) While it is certainly accurate in some senses, it is also a basic truism of social life that is hard- When Lawson does tackle the issue of just ly peculiar to Paciic islands politics; her asser- what it is that constitutes democracy, she actions evoke Jeremy Bentham’s powerful diatribe knowledges that the gap between theory and against “malefactors in high places” for whom practice “preservation of order is but keeping things in « is just as problematic in the West where democra- the state they are in: preservation of good order is tic institutions have largely failed to deliver on the keeping things in that state which, in proportion promise of greater equality for the mass of ordinary as it is good for the preservers, is bad for every people. » (1996: 27) body else” (Bentham, 1995: 112). Moreover, her analysis seems to indicate that the operation of If this is indeed the case (and I certainly be- political dynamics works only to justify the sta- lieve that it is), then it seems to me her entire tus quo, and rarely if ever constitutes a basic part argument founders. We are asked to believe that of daily social life in communities full of people Paciic island political cultures are predisposed trying to get things done. Lawson inds it proble- toward personalized and authoritarian govern- matic that ment and the instrumentalist manipulations of modern-day elites that prevent these socie- « ‘traditionalism’ can emerge and take on an expli- ties from reaping the fruits of democratic ins- citly ideological character that lends itself readily to titutions introduced by their erstwhile colonial instrumental manipulation » rulers. But if the societies in which this western political form has arisen cannot themselves pro- and that perly or fully implement it, then why are we bla- ming defects in the societies where it has been « tradition exhorts its participants to an attitude of reverence and duty toward the practices and values subsequently introduced for faults that appear to that have been transmitted from the past. » (1996: be inherent in the form itself? 17) It is precisely because the organization of daily life in most Paciic islands communities fosters his echoes much too closely those classic poli- an overwhelming amount of communication tical science attitudes describing among groups of citizens that positions such as Lawson’s are troubling. She is particularly « traditional society, in which vast masses live an unhappy with “claims of the ‘democracy-as-in- unpolitical life, embedded in customs and usages they digenous’ kind” and the question of whether need not understand. » (Merckl, 1967: 208) the island nations have “pre-existing democra- 262 JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES tic traditions that can provide a better basis for deal of contemporary political life in the region. contemporary political institutions than those Despite the relative magnitude of most Paciic imported from the West” (1996: 27-28). She ex- island nation-states’ bureaucracies, their govern- plicitly denies this possibility, however, insisting ments are not particularly oppressive. his must “those principles that irst gave democracy pride in some measure be attributed to a widespread of place as the most desirable form of govern- indigenous commitment to participatory politics ment are largely absent in the political practice” – that is, traditional democracy. of the countries she examines (1996: 30), and railing against

« what some defenders of non-democratic systems Recent experience in Micronesia in the South Paciic have done in promoting the vali- dity of indigenous traditions against Western ideas An array of colonial administrations have ruled about democracy. » (1996: 34) the Micronesian islands. North of the equator, most of the island groups underwent successive From this perspective, it is specious to defend the rule by Spain, Germany, Japan, and the United political practices of these societies on grounds States before achieving self-government and in- that they entail indigenous forms of democratic dependence in the late twentieth century. Colo- action or that they have the right to pursue their nial rulers were ambivalent and unsystematic in own political destinies regardless of what Wes- their dealings with the chiefs, sometimes prop- terners think best for them. ping them up and at other times undermining Lawson is hardly alone in her analysis, nor am I in my critique. Among the persistent com- them. An as yet unpublished paper has underta- plaints about shortcomings of the roles chiely ken a comparative study of these processes in six politics continue to play in present-day Fijian diferent cases under American rule in the years government, we ind for example, Ratu Joni Ma- following World War Two, providing useful his- draiwiwi, who bears a high title and has also ser- torical perspective (Carucci et al., n.d.). ved as Fiji’s Vice President, observing that there is In the Marshalls, for instance, the U.S. admi- nistration established a Marshall Islands legisla- « little recognition or understanding by Fijians of ture. From the time it irst convened in 1950, the the full implications of democracy » (2006: 295) body found itself engaged in heated debate over land rights, with paramount chiefs’ claims “that As I have argued, though, even scholars from so- as of right they owned all the land” set against called democracies are themselves often unable to commoners who were “stating that land was held grasp the full implications of the political systems in common.” Disagreement about who wields they tout. Vijay Naidu believes that in Fiji authority over land continues (Carucci et al., n.d.: 7). In the Federated States of Micronesia’s « Chiely hegemony has been jeopardised with the Yap state the government includes Councils of divisions between and within confederacies, the vying Traditional Leaders from both the island of Yap for power among ‘younger’ chiefs, widespread disputes and from the outer islands, charged with matters over succession to chiely titles. » (2006: 300-301) of tradition and custom, areas which are broadly interpreted in contemporary life there. Many But it may well be that divisions, rivalries, and Yapese insist that their chiely councils exercise disputes are the lifeblood of any viable political veto power over all legislation proposed in the system. And as Stewart Firth observes, the call Yap state legislature that they, the councils them- for improved selves, consider to lie within the realm of autho- « governance is part of a wider globalizing message rity over tradition, and chiefs continue to exercise preached by aid donors and international institutions, considerable inluence over who runs for elective who see good governance as the best way to imple- oice. But on the whole, Carucci concludes, the ment globalization and the free market, and who chiefs’ roles remain in great lux (n.d.: 17) rather like to place the blame for failure not on global Palau’s constitution recognizes traditional lea- institutions but on national shortcomings in the deve- dership as possessing authority equal to constitu- loping countries. »(2006: 2) tional law. he national legislature consults with the Council of Chiefs; chiefs comment formally here are in all these cases more complex pro- on government actions. cesses, and more conscious political action, than Lawson and others seem to think. I am by no « Legal arguments about the scope of traditional means suggesting that tradition and democracy chiely power often rise to Palau’s Supreme Court are synonymous in Paciic island political cultures, [and] the two forms of governance are engaged in but any work that is framed in terms of tradition an ongoing dialogue and contest in managing Palau’s versus democracy is apt to misunderstand a great political life. » (n.d.: 20) chieftanshiep and constitutional government (micronesia): 263

Photo 1. – he fsm national capital complex in Palikir, Pohnpei, constructed in the 1980s, incorporates materials re- plicating the natural basalt columns used in the structures of Nan Madol, an ancient political center on Pohnpei, thus visually integrating traditional Micronesian forms with those of constitutional government (picture by the author)

Commenting on Micronesia as a whole, Carucci a charter for a proposed new Micronesian na- concludes tion-state. he 1975 ConCon’s outcomes were decidedly mixed, relecting competing outlooks « Chiefdoms that remain efective in the modern on the islands’ political status, and are only mar- context are not relics of the past, but systems that ginally relevant here. One item, however, is enti- local people – as well as chiely elites – ind relevant rely relevant, Article V, Section 3 of the 1975 and useful. his is not to say that melding tradition draft constitution speciied that and modern governance is easy. Traditional authority today in the Paciic as elsewhere must engage with « the Congress may establish, when needed, a issues of human rights, voter equality, and women’s Chamber of Chiefs. » rights. While the chiely ideal emphasizes generosity and redistribution, the reality has changed. Transpa- rency, nepotism, and corruption pose unique chal- he negotiations entailed in getting this item lenges when improprieties can be claimed as tradi- into the draft were intricate and marked by great tional rights. Yet Micronesia’s chiefs have also used ambivalence on the part of many of the dele- their authority in the service of the community by gates. his draft was ultimately adopted as the inluencing public opinion and government policy. » Federated States of Micronesia’s constitution in (n.d.: 26) 1979, but tellingly, the fsm Congress did not opt to establish a chiely chamber. In 1990 the fsm convened a second constitutional convention (Petersen, 1993, 1994). One key proposed amendment was to establish (rather A Micronesian Chamber of Chiefs than merely allow establishment of) the Cham- ber of Chiefs (Petersen, 1997). As the convention he history of proposals to create an explicit progressed it became clear that there was conside- constitutional role for Micronesian chiefs pro- rable opposition to the proposal. It was deferred, vides perspective on the Micronesians’ highly taken up and deferred again, then reconsidered, nuanced appreciation of checks and balances amended, and after much skilled negotiation it in their societies as a whole. In 1975, while the inally passed by a 27-1 vote. Opposition to it was islands were still ruled by the United States as the initially mounted by both several state delegations Trust Territory of the Paciic Islands, a constitu- and a number of individual delegates, but delegates tional convention assembled in Saipan to draft were not merely divided among themselves in their 264 JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES attitudes toward the proposed Chamber; many on a formal role in the national government would were personally ambivalent, at times pressing for not only have enhanced their power, but decreased the Chamber and at other points voicing doubts the dual character of the present-day Micronesian about its potential to serve the Micronesian people. scene, which now functions with Congress on the Opposition to the new Chamber was complex one hand and traditional politics on the other. – there was palpable fear of the chiefs’ political Keeping chiefs out of government seems to have inluence, but there was nearly equal desire to been a deliberate means of preserving both their have them play a formal role in government as role as protectors of the people and the traditional a check on the national congress. Delegates from structures of competing power blocs. For all that every state, no matter what their position on the the FSM Constitution portrays itself as a guar- proposed amendment, insisted that no one in dian of Micronesian customs and traditions, the Micronesia – neither the Congress, the Conven- Micronesian people see their guarantees situated tion, nor the people – could tell the chiefs what to elsewhere, and aim to keep them there. It is solely do. But no one suggested that the chiefs would be from this perspective, I think, that we can unders- inefectual, nor that they were irrelevant or ana- tand why it was only in Kosrae, where there are no chronisms. Rather, the crucial problem was the chiefs, that a majority actually voted in favor of place that the chiely system itself should hold in the Chamber of Chiefs, while in Yap, which most the contemporary Micronesian political scene. observers would agree has the most viable traditio- Some very sophisticated points of view were nal polity and the only state government with an expressed in testimony before the committee oicial role for chiefs already in place, the Cham- considering the proposal. he Chief Justice ber received its greatest opposition. of Pohnpei State’s Supreme Court argued that the institution of chieftainship itself would be threatened if chiely roles were made subject to western legal precepts. It was exactly this sort of Conclusion legislation, he said, that took away the powers of European monarchs. A Chuukese delegate poin- Micronesian societies share common his- ted out that codiication of chieftainship would torical and cultural roots with Fiji and other be likely to freeze the relative rankings of titles, eastern Oceanic communities. Chieftainship, lineages, and clans in place and thus destroy the land tenure, lineage structure, and the politics luidity that characterizes the entire system. of everyday life are all closely entwined, and he proposal was defeated overwhelmingly remain central to the survival of these new na- in the fsm’s 1991 Constitutional Referendum. tion-states. Conversion to Christianity, colonial Popular opposition to the Chamber of Chiefs, rule, and struggles for autonomy, self-rule, and however, is evidence not of chieftainship’s decli- independence have brought substantial changes ning signiicance in Micronesia, but of just the to local political dynamics, but have not erased converse. he fact that in the traditional lea- patterns that developed and proved efective ders’ presence the ConCon delegates could not over the course of millennia. bring themselves to gainsay the chiefs exempli- It is easy for political scientists and other scho- ies the dilemma. he chiefs retain tremendous lars, along with international aid agencies and inluence, of various types and springing from political operatives, to ind fault in the processes multiple sources. In general, Micronesian com- of chiely governance. For reasons that are short- munities have relied on the strengths of their sighted, chauvinistic, and perhaps narcissistic, too chiefs to guarantee certain defensive functions many observers tend to misunderstand democra- – in relation to threats from both abroad and cy and democratic processes, often attributing a the supernatural world – and most people are certain magical purity and efectiveness to them. thus inclined to support them. At the same time, In the Politics, a work that has certainly stood the however, people strongly resist any attempts test of time, Aristotle argued that in and of itself on the part of the chiefs to interfere too much democracy is not an especially viable form of go- in the everyday, domestic sphere of commu- vernment. In his analysis, rather, the true value of nity life. Micronesians accomplish these dual, democracy lies in the contributions it can make contradictory tasks with political structures in to mixed government, and held that it is in this which various leaders, factions, and communi- combination of government by the one, the few, ties ceaselessly compete with one another and and the many that we ind what he calls a suc- thus serve to check overweening ambition and cessful government, that is a real “polity.” Modern unwarranted attempts to exercise power. democratic states incorporate the one (the execu- As the entire thrust of the Chamber of Chiefs tive), the few (a legislature), and the many (the issue made clear, Micronesians have signiicant electorate), and have proved viable and resilient, reservations about the power of their national if hardly free from strife, and in contemporary Pa- government, generally perceiving the Congress as ciic island nation-states chieftainship constitutes entirely too strong. Permitting the chiefs to take a signiicant part of mixed governments. chieftanshiep and constitutional government (micronesia): 265

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine that good Lawson Stephanie, 1996. Tradition versus government is peaceful government, free from tur- Democracy in the South Paciic, Cambridge, moil. But this does not strike me as especially plau- Cambridge University Press. sible. Good government is a product of checks and balances, and of divisions of power, and depends Locke John, 1960. Two Treatises of Government, Peter on an element of struggle. Whether the procedures Laslett (ed.), New York, New American Library. that organize productive opposition evolved in Machiavelli Niccolo, 1997. he Discourses on Westminster or were devised in Philadelphia, for- Livy, Translated by J.C. Bondanella and P. mal democracy does not really difer that much Bondanella, Oxford, Oxford University Press. from the structures of Micronesian, Fijian and other Oceanic polities. hey are all designed to be —, 1966. he Prince, Translated by Daniel Donno, driven by opposition and competition, and compe- New York, Bantam Books. tition begets cooperation; if they can do anything, Madraiwiwi Joni, 2006. Governance in Fiji, in chiefs and their people can, when necessary, coope- Stewart Firth (ed.), Globalisation and Gover- rate. Chiefs, like any politicians, have been known nance in the Paciic Islands, Canberra, anu e to exploit and behave in ruthless fashion. But their Press, pp. 289-296. status in their societies is in the end rooted in respect and afection, rather than the selish and, Vijay Naidu, 2006. he State of the State in Fiji, sometimes, seemingly mindless individualism that in Stewart Firth (ed.), Globalisation and Go- increasingly characterizes modern capitalist world- vernance in the Paciic Islands, Canberra, anu views. Chiefs and chieftainship, as part of a mixed e Press, pp. 297-315. government, ofers the societies that retain them viable, humane, and familiar alternatives. Petersen Glenn, 1993. Ethnicity and Interests at the 1990 Federated States of Micronesia Constitutional Convention. Regime Change and Regime Maintenance Discussion Paper BIBLIOGRAPHY Series 12, Research School of Paciic Studies, Australian National University. Aristotle, 1958. he Politics, edited and translated —, 1994. Calm Before the Storm? he 1990 by E. Barker, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Federated States of Micronesia Constitutional Bentham Jeremy, 1995. Rid Yourself of Ultrama- Convention. he Contemporary Paciic 6 (2), ria, in P. Schoield (ed.), Colonies, Commerce, pp. 337-369. and Constitutional Law: Rid Yourselves of Ultra- —, 1997. A Micronesian Chamber of Chiefs?, maria and Other Writings on Spain and Spanish in G. White and L. Lindstrom (eds), Chiefs America, Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham, Today, Stanford, Stanford University Press, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 3-194. pp. 183-196. Carucci Lawrence, Suzanne Falgout and Lin —, 2006. Micronesia’s Breadfruit Revolution Poyer, n.d. Micronesian Chiefs under Ame- and the Evolution of a Culture Area, Archaeo- rican Rule: Military Occupation, Democracy, logy in Oceania 41, pp. 82-92. and Trajectories of Traditional Leadership, ms. —, 2009. Traditional Micronesian Societies, Ho- Firth Stewart , 2006. Introduction, in Stewart nolulu, University of Hawai’i Press. Firth (ed.), Globalisation and Governance in the Paciic Islands, Canberra, anu e Press, pp. 1-6. —, 2014. he Possibilities of Violence and the Skills to Avoid It: On Warfare and Its Absence Goodenough Ward, 1951. Property, Kin and in Traditional Micronesia, Anthropologica 56, Community on Truk, New Have, Yale Uni- 2, pp. 315-326. versity Press, Yale University Publications in Anthropology 46. Pocock J.G.H., 1975. he Machiavellian Mo- ment, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Harrington James, 1992. he Commonwealth of Oceania, Edited by J.G.A. Pocock, Cam- Sahlins Marshall, 1958. Social Stratiication in bridge, Cambridge University Press. Polynesia. Monograph of the American Ethno- logical Society, Seattle, University of Washing- Kirch Patrick, 1989. he Evolution of the Po- ton Press. lynesian Chiefdoms, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. —, 1968. Tribesmen, Englewood Clifs, Pren- tice-Hall. Kloppenberg James, 1995. Democracy, in R.W. Fox and J. Kloppenberg (eds), A Companion Wolin Sheldon, 1996. Fugitive Democracy, in S. to American hought, Cambridge, Blackwell, Benhabib (ed.), Democracy and Diference, Princ- pp. 173-177. eton, Princeton University Press, pp. 31-45. 266 JOURNAL DE LA SOCIÉTÉ DES OCÉANISTES

Pour accompagner l’exposition Tatoueurs, tatoués, du musée du quai Branly, la Société des Océa- nistes a le plaisir de vous annoncer la parution du second volume de la collection « Dossier de la Société des Océanistes » : Tatouages d’Océanie. Rites, techniques et images de Sébastien Galliot, 36 p. avec de nombreuses illustration en couleur isbn version papier : isbn version électronique : 978-2-85430-117-5 978-2-85430-119-9

11,50 € pour la version papier 9,99 € pour la version électronique La version papier est disponible à la Société des La version électronique est disponible en ligne Océanistes ou en ligne sur http://www.ocea- sur http://books.openedition.org/sdo/98 nistes.org/oceanie/spip.php?article3891