When Gifts Matter: Understanding the Role of Gifting in Solomon Islands Constituency Politics

WHEN GIFTS MATTER: UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF GIFTING IN SOLOMON ISLANDS CONSTITUENCY POLITICS A Comparative study of East AreAre and East Honiara Constituencies by Tony Aruhane Hiriasia A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Copyright © 2016 by Tony Aruhane Hiriasia School of Government, Development and International Affairs Faculty of Business and Economics The University of the South Pacific March, 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work would have not been possible without the help of individuals who have given me guidance, assisted me to collect or have provided the necessary data for the writing of this thesis. Firstly I would like to sincerely thank my supervisor Associate Professor Gregory Fry of the School of Government, Development and International Affairs (SGDIA), University of the South Pacific (USP). He has provided a wonderful guidance during the course of my writing and this work would not have been possible without his insightful comments and critiques. I greatly appreciate his help and time spent editing this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Allan Max Quanchi from the School of Social Sciences (SOSS) and Dr. Gordon Nanau from the SGDIA in assisting to set me on the right path in the initial stages of this work. I greatly appreciate your input. I also want to thank Terence Wood for the permission to use information from his database on Solomon Islands election results. I also want to thank the staff of the Solomon Islands Electoral Commission (SIEC) who assisted by providing me election and other relevant data. Likewise, I want to thank Ray at the Solomon Islands Parliament Library for the access to invaluable information kept at the library. I want to thank all the respondents in East Honiara and East AreAre who had taken the time to fill in my questionnaires. Your views are greatly appreciated. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife Hilda Foasi Hiriasia and my three children Tony, Paul and Placida for assisting me in so many ways especially as I had mostly worked at home. You have contributed to this work and I am proud that you have stood by me in the course of this writing. This work is dedicated to you. Thank you and God Bless iii ABSTRACT The discussion of the corruption and governance problem in Solomon Islands has often been related to a gifting culture assumed to be characteristic of Melanesian politics. Scholars and critics have been divided over the argument that gifting in modern politics derives from the traditional gifting cultures of Melanesian societies. Some scholars relate the poor choice of leaders (especially parliamentarians) to traditional notions of leadership which are assumed to have permeated the adopted political structures and processes. A key feature of traditional politics used as a basis for this argument and assumed to have continued in the modern politics is the well- known practice of wealth distribution in order to maintain political support and loyalty. On the other hand, some scholars argue that the gifting common in modern politics results from the economic realities faced by voters. They argue that in the harsh economic environment of rural constituencies where there is little economic opportunity and activities, voters will always exchange their political loyalty for gifts and incentives they are offered. They therefore argue that the gifting as it happens in modern politics is purely an economic activity. However, this thesis argues that the influence of tradition and culture on modern politics has been misunderstood by the supporters of the cultural argument as well as those who have maintained an economic argument concerning the gifting practice in modern politics. Using empirical evidence from the study of gift giving and voting in AreAre society and the urban constituency of East Honiara, the thesis argues that while these societies do have a strong gifting tradition, the gifting practice is seldom a means on its own to gain political power and authority. In these contexts where gifting is kin-based and serves as a basis for resource pooling, the gifting practice complements leadership and consolidates the relationship between kin members through interaction. Gifting is therefore the evidence of the kin or existing relationship as opposed to the argument that gifting generates a new political relationship between a giver and the recipient. It is this aspect of traditional socio-political organization that persists in AreAre and more generally in Solomon Islands contemporary politics and influences political iv alliances and voting behaviour. Kin relationships more than gifting determines voting behaviour within these societies. v LIST OF ACRONYMNS AG Auditor General BSIP British Solomon Islands Protectorate CBSI Central Bank of Solomon Islands CFC Christian Fellowship Church DBSI Development Bank of Solomon Islands EACEast AreAre Constituency EHCEast Honiara Constituency ELC Executive and Legislative Council GC Governing Council MP Member of Parliament PDU Project Development Unit RCDF Rural Constituency Development Fund RCLF Rural Constituency Livelihood Fund ROC Republic of China (Taiwan) SDA Seven Day Adventist SICOPSA Solomon Islands Community and Provincial Special Assistance SIG Solomon Islands Government SIGSCD Solomon Islands Government Support to Constituency Development SINPF Solomon Islands National Provident Fund SSEC South Seas Evangelical Church TLO Temporary Land Ownership vi GLOSSARY ara to fence off or block araha chief or leader arahana chieftainship or leadership arata the term refers to an institution, a plot of land and a group of people. Every AreAre individual is a member of a arata. Bigman a leader that is common in anthropological literature hutaa genealogy hutaanikeni genealogy through maternal link hutaanimane genealogy through paternal link iinoni the individual or person maitakina the blood and social relationship Maasina Ruru a movement that began after the World War Two (WWII) whereby leaders (mostly Malaitans) and followers sought self- governance from the British Colonial Government. Paina big or great painaha leadership. oohani the grave (shrine) of a common ancestor ri’oanamae taurihina contribution toward bride-price payment te’ete’e the most sacred site in a arata where the grave of the common ancestor is located. waiara (v) contributing toward events hosted by members of a kin group. vii waiaraha (n) the contribution given to members of a kin group toward important events. wantok the term derives from the English words ‘one’ and ‘talk’ and refers to a group of people who speak the same language. In other contexts, it could refer to Solomon Islanders. Wantokism giving preference to kin or close associates. viii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……….iii ABSTRACT ……….iv LIST OF ACRONYMNS …….....vi GLOSSARY ………vii CHAPTER ONE ………...1 GIFTING AND RESEARCH ………...1 AIM/PURPOSE ………...3 METHODOLOGY/ METHODS ………...6 CASE SELECTION ………...9 ARCHIVAL DATA ……….10 QUESTIONNAIRE AND SAMPLING ……….10 THE THESIS STRUCTURE ……….14 CHAPTER TWO ……….15 THEORIZING SOLOMON ISLANDS POLITICS ……….15 MELANESIAN BIGMAN POLITICS ……….15 LEADERSHIP TYPES IN MELANESIA ……….16 THE ENTREPRENEUR BIGMAN ……….17 KNOWLEDGEABLE LEADER ……….19 WARRIOR LEADER ……….22 MODERN GIFTING AND WANTOKISM ……….24 WANTOKISM ……….25 CLIENTELISM ……….26 WANTOKISM vs. CLIENTILISM ……….27 GIFTING IN SOLOMON ISLANDS MODERN POITICS ……….29 GIFT GIVING AND CORRUPTION ……….30 CORRUPTION-NORMS VS GOALS ……….30 CORRUPTION - PRIVATE VS PUBLIC ……….33 CORRUPTION AND DEMOCRACY ……….34 GIFTING AND THE RATIONAL AND CULTURAL APPROACHES ……….35 GIFT GIVING AND THE CULTURAL APPROACH ……….36 ix GIFTING AND RATIONAL CHOICE ……….38 DEFINING ‘CULTURAL THESIS’ AND ‘RATIONAL CHOICE’ FOR THE THESIS ……….40 CONCLUSION ……….41 CHAPTER THREE ……….43 KIN AND NOT GIFTS – THE CASE OF EAST AREARE ……….43 AREARE ……….43 AREARE IN POST INDEPENDENCE NATIONAL POLITICS ……….45 SOCIAL STRUCTURE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN AREARE ……….46 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LAND TENURE AND SOCIALORGANIZATION ……….47 LEADERSHIP (ARAHANA) WITHIN THE TRIBE (ARATA) ……….50 GIFTING IN AREARE ……….51 BIGMANSHIP ON MALAITA ……….51 LAND, AUTHORITY AND GIFTING IN AREARE ……….53 CONCLUSION ……….55 CHAPTER FOUR ……….57 CULTURE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EAST AREARE CONTEMPORARY POLITICS ……….57 KIN BASED ALLIANCES ……….57 KIN BASED SOLIDARITY ……….60 KIN BASED AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY ……….62 KIN BASED RESPONSIBILITY/OBLIGATION ……….64 KIN-BASED VOTING MODEL FOR EAST AREARE CONSTITUENCY ……….68 FEATURES OF THE KIN-BASED VOTING MODEL ……….71 HOMEBOOTH POPULARITY ……….71 KIN-BASED POLITICAL RIVALRY ……….76 STRUGGLE OVER STATE RESOURCES ……….78 POLARIZATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ……….83 IMPREGNABLE POLITICAL UNITS ……….86 CULTIVATING A VOTE BUYING CULTURE ……….94 x DUPLICATION OF KIN-BASED POLITICS BEYOND KIN BOUNDARIES ……….96 2014 ELECTION AND A BREAKDOWN OF KIN POLITICS IN THE SOUTH ……….99 CONCLUSION ……...105 CHAPTER FIVE ……...106 NEITHER KIN NOR GIFTS ……...106 EAST HONIARA CONSTITUENCY ……...106 POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE HONIARA CONSTITUENCIES ……...109 VOTING POPULATION AND SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS111 RURAL AND URBAN EXPERIENCES AND CONSEQUENT POLITICAL CULTURE ……...112 SUMMARY OF SURVEY FINDINGS IN EAST HONIARA ……...115 PERCEPTION OF GIFTING IN EAST HONIARA ……...116 A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS - EAST HONIARA VS EAST AREARE ……...121 VOTING BEHAVIOUR IN EAST HONIARA ……...122 POLITICAL GROUPS IN EAST HONIARA CONSTITUENCY ……...123 NEEDS AND GROUPING IN SQUATTER SETTLEMENTS ……...124 CHURCH AND POLITICAL AFFILIATION IN EAST HONIARA

Load more