Abstract:
The Samoan general elections held on 2 March 2001 returned the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) to of ce and Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi to his second term as prime minister. The HRPP, which has governed Samoa since 1982, won 28 of the 49 parliamentary seats. These are the bare facts that satisfy the international community as to Samoa’s liberal democratic credentials, but a close examination of the way elections occur in Samoa reveals that a much less liberal, less democratic and more traditional politics is at work than such election results might suggest. The independent state of (Western) Samoa was constituted in 1962. It embraced two systems of authority. One system was regulated by ’aia tatau (human rights) and the other by aganu’u ma agaifanua fa’a Samoa (Samoan custom). In simple terms, one system is urban and champions the right of the individual, while the other is rural and is based on the ancient right of family groups of fa’alupega. Most of us Samoans live within these extreme two limits. The two systems of authority are known and well documented in the region. They incorporate basic contradictions and Samoan academics have asserted that the rural-based value system is outdated and should be replaced because this is the root cause of confusion.1 Some proclaim that the problem may be linked to the fact that Samoans are living in two worlds. This breeds a kind of moral confusion. These two sets of principles can be selectively invoked to justify almost any action. Here I trace this process in the 2001 elections in the village constituency of Falelatai and Samatau, a constituency where I grew up and which I regard as my place of birth. My present study concerns the contest and transformation of village authority between these two systems of authorities in the Falelatai/ Samatau election. The focus is Falelatai. At a broader level, my subject is the modern transformation of authority systems in Samoa.
