Letter writer Charlie Mansfield makes a valid point. He argues that the Samoan electoral system does not represent a true democracy, as only a matai can contest the general elections.

Section 8 of the Electoral Act 2019 states that a person is qualified to run as a candidate for elections if that person: (c) is a holder of a registered matai title for the Constituency the person intends to represent. This traditional yet archaic requirement still stands even though for the last 35 years, every Samoan has been given the right to vote.

Not every Samoan had the right to vote before 1991. In terms of both eligibility for election and eligibility to vote at elections, a dual system operated until 1991. Of the 47 members of parliament, 45 were required to be matai elected by a system of matai suffrage, while two were non-matai representatives elected by individual voters under a system of qualified adult suffrage.

The introduction in 1991 of universal non-compulsory suffrage to elect the 45 matai MPs transformed the electoral system by entitling all persons aged 21 years and over to vote for matai candidates in their electorate, thereby ensuring that all citizens have equal political rights in the election of parliament and that all members of parliament represent, and are responsible to, their constituency and to the overall Samoan population.

Fast forward more than three decades, there are now 51 seats, five arbitrary seats for women to improve gender representation in the country, the individual seats have been abolished, there is one voter roll and everyone votes by constituency where all candidates are matai.

The traditional argument for only a matai to be able to contest the election remains that being a matai means that the person knows about service to his or her village. The problem with this notion is that not all matai serve. Being a matai gives a person a higher social stature and in most cases. In a traditional Pacific or Samoa setting, matai or chief do not serve, they are served.

This is reflected in the performance and the attitude of many parliamentarians who feel they are not accountable to the people who have voted them in. It has also been argued that anyone in Samoa can become a matai. This takes us back to the problem of matai titles being up for sale. This has been a concern.

Mr Mansfield in his letter highlighted, “It would appear (by someone) that matai are considered to be of a higher IQ than the average Joe/Joy in the street and more capable of being a parliamentarian? Isn’t it time that the people of Samoa decide who runs the country, to have the right to stand for parliament? 

“How about someone with a doctorate in engineering, a doctorate in philosophy a Bus driver or someone who grows taro for a living?  Why would they require a title?  Does the sudden granting of a title make someone more capable of representing the people in the area where they live?  It’s called full emancipation.”

Should a person’s ability to be a parliamentarian and be a true representative of the people be dependent on his social standing as a matai? There will always be the traditional viewpoint that matai are best suited as they are leaders within the village setting. The alternate view is of true democracy where social standings should not hamper the political ambitions of someone who genuinely wants to help the voters and move the country forward.

The idea may seem contentious and controversial to some. This is something lawmakers can consider in the future after holding consultations and referendums with the public and getting their thoughts on the issue.

What do you think? Should all Samoans have the right to contest for a seat in parliament?