The two factions of the FAST government seem resigned to resolving their political differences through the rule of law.

The majority faction awaits a court hearing on charges laid by the police against its leader and chair while the FAST minority faction awaits its alleged challenge to being booted out by a majority faction.

While common sense suggests awaiting the outcome of these procedures, HRRP Opposition raises an interesting view of the country being ruled by a minority government and question its legitimacy. To put the matter beyond doubt, should not a vote be taken in parliament to determine who commands the confidence of the majority of parliamentarians?

Article 32.2[a] of the constitution requires the head of state to appoint as prime minister a member who commands the confidence of a majority of parliamentarians.

Further, in Articles 26. 1-2, the head of state is required to act on the advice of the caretaker prime minister. In this case, the advice could be to dissolve parliament and hold snap elections or convene parliament and allow the speaker to conduct a vote to determine which individual commands the confidence of the majority of parliamentarians. Is our democracy mature enough to take on that course of action?

While waiting for the courts, it’s worth reviewing for your readers some of the recent political crisis. In the first 45 years of independence, the head of state played a critical role in the political crisis. In the last 15 years, party machineries have assumed a more active role.

A series of political crises in 1975, 1982 and 1985 showed how the long-time head of state and Tama’āiga, Mālietoa Tanumafili II played a decisive role in the outcome. In 1975, a 53-year young prime minister died and Article 32.2[a] of the constitution was supposed to kick in. Since there was no prime minister in place to advise, the head of state appointed another former prime minister and Tama’āiga.

An unhappy Opposition acceded from the point of view of custom but not before a dissatisfied member (Le Tagaloa Leota Pita Ala’ilima) told Parliament, Afai o le a le lagi, [pe] lima minute mai le taimi lenei [ae] tu’umalo le Palemia o lo’o iai nei, o le a le ala e fai a’i?

E toe fai foi (sic) le finagalo o le Ao o le Malo e toe tofia ai se tasi o Sui, po o le tatau ona siligia le tofa ma le faautaga (sic) ma le faatuatuaga (sic) o le Maota lenei?

‘Supposing the present prime minister dies in five minutes, what is the procedure then? Will the head of state again step in and select the next prime minister or seek the opinion of this house?’ The vocal objector was a lone wolf but his sentiments were shared by colleagues whose constitutional right had been breached.

In 1982, Sāmoa saw four consecutive prime ministers, Tupuola Efi, followed by Vā’ai Kolone, Tupuola Efi and Tofilau Eti Alesana respectively. In March, the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) contested the election and in April, their leader Vā’ai was elected prime minister with 24 votes against 23 for Tupuola’s group. In June, HRPP’s number dropped to 23 when the court annulled an election result for Vaimauga East. The HRPP government hung on by the skin of its teeth through the Speaker’s casting vote.

But in September, the court upheld a charge against Vā’ai of treating and Tofilau became leader. With its number down, Tupuola’s group (23) poised ready to strike. Article 33.2A of the constitution is clear.

The controversy was  over who appoints? While the article states, ‘the Head of State shall appoint’, HRPP interpreted that the head of state shall appoint ... a member of Parliament who commands the confidence of the majority of members. In other words, the head of state appoints after Parliament votes on who commands the confidence of the majority.

Instead, the head of state appointed Tupuola Efi. HRPP retaliated by boycotting the swearing-in and rejected the olive leaf offer of two ministerial portfolios.

In December, HRPP regained their original number (24). Since it could not take the head of state to court on the interpretation of the constitution, HRPP petitioned him to convene parliament to vote a member who commands the confidence of the majority. Instead, the head of state dallied and HRPP positioned itself to strike from inside Parliament.

On 21 December, Tupuola’s group presented their budget for its first reading. When it came to vote for the next reading, HRPP used their majority to reject it thus compelling the head of state to swear in Tofilau on 30 December, the fourth prime minister in 1982.

There was another crisis in 1985. By this time, Vā’ai had joined forces with Tupuola and in December and they defeated Tofilau’s HRPP budget. Instead of calling for fresh elections as advised by Tofilau, the head of state snubbed him and appointed Vā’ai as prime minister. In the subsequent 1988 elections, Tofilau’s party romped home and remained til his death in 1998 and until defeated in 2021.

2021 hung parliament: Snap election or parliamentary vote for a majority leader.

Under the current head of state, Tuimaleali’ifano Va’aleto’a Sualauvi II, when it appeared that there was no clear winner, his call for fresh election was challenged by FAST and subsequently upheld by the court. When no clear majority emerged close to the end of the mandated number of days for parliament to meet, he sensibly called on parliament to meet with the view that MPs would exercise their right to appoint a member who commands their confidence.

Unfortunately, on advice from caretaker prime minister, this decision was reversed by another call which was subsequently over-ruled by the court.

Assuming the reasons against a snap election are acceptable to all, what options remain for resolving the perceived illegitimacy of a minority government rule? It impinges on how mature is Samoa’s democracy? Do nothing and await the court rulings or 2026? How about testing it with a proposal to vote, open enthusiastic debate and when all is said and done, vote?

Can FAST (majority and minority) and HRPP politicians confidently say we tested our political democracy and we’re still here to tell the tale?

Dr Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano was a former Adjunct Associate Professor in History at the University of the South Pacific.