Traditional Leaders and Governance in Micronesia

Haglegam, J. R., et al. Traditional Leaders and Governance in Micronesia. Australian National University, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, 1998, https://doi.org/10.25911/5f20075e274dc.

In this exceptionally insightful report, John Haglelgam, who served as the second President of the Federated States of Micronesia, explains the relationship between traditional and western governance in the FSM, Palau and the Marshall Islands.

President Haglegam's primary observations, organized by island groups, were:

Palau

Traditionally, power was vested in the heads of two alliances of villages. These alliances were involved in constant fighting for domination. In Palau, the senior women in the chiefly clan select the paramount chief.

During US Naval and Trust Territory Periods, traditional leaders were given formal roles in their respective island municipal councils. At that point, the chiefs bluntly told their people whom they should vote for. Sometimes the chiefs would attempt to use their customary power to select the candidates to stand for election. The American district administrators would not always follow their advice but they consulted with the chiefs frequently. This consultation process gave the chiefs a real sense of respect and participation in the governance of their people. It also lent legitimacy to the American administration in the eyes of the people. In Palau, the highest chief of Koror was elected mayor of that municipality which effectively fused his traditional chiefly power with the authority of his elective position. He served in this position for over twenty years.

With the end of the TTPI, in Palau, a council of traditional chiefs was created to serve as adviser to the president. So unlike their counterpart in the FSM, the Palauan traditional chiefs have a formal role at the national level, albeit in advisory capacity. However, the council has complained that the president ignores their advice on policy matters. We should keep in mind that the power to advise does not carry with it the power to modify or formulate policy. So the Palauan traditional chiefs’ power to influence public policy is minimized by granting them only advisory power.

Yap

Traditionally, on Yap, the power of the chiefs was decentralized and subjected to elaborate checks and balances built into the customary political relationship.

During the US Naval and TTPI Periods, the traditional leaders were given formal roles in their respective island municipal councils. the chiefs bluntly told their people whom they should vote for. Sometimes the chiefs would attempt to use their customary power to select the candidates to stand for election. The American district administrators would not always follow their advice but they consulted with the chiefs frequently. This consultation process gave the chiefs a real sense of respect and participation in the governance of their people. It also lent legitimacy to the American administration in the eyes of the people.

Since the end of the TTPI, In Yap, the traditional leaders have formal roles in the government. The Yap state constitution created two councils of chiefs: one for the main islands of Yap and one for the outer island chiefs. These councils are empowered to review and disapprove an act of the state legislature if it violates custom and tradition. They have disapproved a few appropriation bills as violative of custom and tradition. The legislature cannot override the veto of these councils but can incorporate their objection in the bill and return it for their review. So far the councils have used their power sparingly. The councils have also expanded their power to review policy of the executive branch which has forced the governor and his cabinet to justify their policy to the councils. In addition, the whole state administration is accountable to the two councils. They have effectively used oversight hearings to question state policy. The two councils are in essence public watchdogs, making sure that elected officials and bureaucrats are doing their job. However, their effectiveness is limited because the members are relatively uneducated.

In Yap, the support of the two councils plays a very important role in the election of the governor and the lieutenant governor. Since the implementation of the state constitution in 1984, the two councils have essentially selected the candidate for governor and lieutenant governor and stopped others from opposing them. The effect is that the councils’ preferred candidates for the two top elective offices always run unopposed. Some traditional chiefs in the outer islands have been known to cast votes for people who stayed away from voting. They were observed opening ballots for voters and instructing them to vote for certain candidates. The chiefs feel that it is their right to instruct their people which candidate(s) they should support and vote for. Only few Yapese expressed opposition against the traditional councils and individual chiefs’ involvement in the election. Most take an ambivalent attitude and laugh it off as practical joke. This attitude is an expression of a deep- seated feeling that voting is a foreign concept imposed on the Yapese by the outside world. They do not consider voting as a right of every Yapese. The councils, individually or jointly, have forced members of the state legislature to resign. In one instance, a particular member who had made a public remark against the traditional chiefs was forced to resign by one of the councils. The traditional chiefs’ role in governance in Yap is so important that a popular joke, perhaps with a lot of truth, has it that no Yapese will miss the governor and the lieutenant governor if they get lost at sea.

Chuuk

In Chuuk, the most powerful traditional leaders were the village chiefs; n the outer islands of Chuuk, each island had its paramount chief. In Chuuk, the traditional political system was too fragmented to forge a consensus for inclusion of traditional leaders in the legislature; there was no traditional basis for including traditional chiefs in the legislature.

Approaching the end of the TTPI, Chuuk never had a cohesive traditional structure that linked all the islands into a political unit. Even on each island, the highest political units are the villages and each village had its own highest chiefs. The Chuukese felt that the traditional ground of their chiefs’ formal inclusion in the government did not exist and that it was better to confine them to their traditional base in the village.

In Chuuk, the traditional chiefs have little influence on the governance and politics of the state. Traditionally, the basic political power in Chuuk was, and still is, the head of the lineage. The heads of the lineages have more influence on the voting process than the highest ranking village chiefs. Generally, the lineage heads control elections in Chuuk and decide their outcomes. Each might specifically instruct the members of his lineage regarding which candidate they should support. Sometimes he would divide his lineage support between two or more candidates. The factors that can prompt lineage support are: personal, social, traditional, and other relationships to the candidate(s); and a promise of support, usually financial, by the candidate. A candidate who garners enough support from the lineage heads usually wins. This reduces the influence of the traditional chiefs on voting in Chuuk. It has also polarized and fragmented politics in Chuuk and prevented the emergence of consensus among state leaders. These problems make governance difficult and utterly chaotic. Chuuk is now the most problematic state in the FSM in term of good and responsible governance.

Pohnpei

In Pohnpei, the power of the traditional leaders was exercised by a paramount chief in each of the five kingdom. In Pohnpei, the Germans took away the high chief’s power to give and take land from the people in his kingdom. This was substituted for a land tenure system that gave freehold title to the head of the family, which in effect destroyed the traditional matrilineal land tenure system, creating a patrilineal system in its place. This had little impact on the customary power of the traditional chiefs in Pohnpei. Like chiefs in other parts of Micronesia, they continued to rule their people as they had before the colonial periods.

During the US Naval and TTPI periods, the traditional leaders were given formal roles in their respective island municipal councils. Pohnpei created a legislature that had two chambers: a house of nobles and a house of commons

In Pohnpei, the state constitution does not make specific mention of a formal role for the traditional leaders. Like Chuuk, Pohnpei lacks the traditional base for a chiefly role within the state borders. The paramount chiefs were, and still are, the undisputed rulers in their kingdoms. The traditional chiefs in Pohnpei have created their own council which has allowed them to exert influence on state policy. In Pohnpei, the traditional chiefs can still play a crucial role in swaying election results in favor of a particular candidate. Every candidate seeks blessing and support of his traditional chief(s). It is definitely better to enter a race with the support of at least one’s own chief(s).

Kosrae

Traditionally, on Kosrae the power was centralized in a very powerful ruler. The Kosraean and Chamorro cultures have been completely destroyed by western influence and the dramatic depopulation that both places experienced in the post-contact period, severely limiting any role for chiefs carrying forward to the present.

Marshalls

In the Marshall Islands, the most powerful leaders were the two paramount chiefs, one heading each of the two island chains—the Ratak and Ralik; these two paramount chiefs had absolute power. The customary power of the Marshallese chiefs could expand or shrink depending on personal bravery, cunning, or other personal attributes. So in the view of the Marshallese leaders, the first president had the traditional base and legitimacy to the highest office.

During the US Navy and then TTPI Period, traditional leaders were given formal roles in their respective island municipal councils. Ahead of the end of the TTPI, the chiefs in the Marshalls played a decisive role in the rejection of a proposed constitution, which would have incorporated all districts into a single nation.

Today, in the Marshalls, the traditional leaders are accorded a formal role in the national congress. As members of the national parliament, the Marshallese chiefs have a direct impact on policy and governance.