Samoa's Cultural Democracy: E Togi Samoa 'ae U'u le 'Afa
The above Samoan malapropism is derived from the alaga’upu (proverbial expression): “E togi le moa, ae u’u le ‘afa.” (Letting go of the chicken and yet still pulling the ‘afa (sennit/tether))
The literal meaning of the expression is based on a tethered moa (chicken), usually one that is raised as a pet or a wild one that is being tamed or trained. And so the expression describes the owner, in the case of the former, relaxing the sennit to give the bird more freedom, and with the latter, for the slow and gradual process towards complete and eventual domestication and independence. The common goals of freedom and independence are evident in both cases hence in the thematic content of this post and article. One of the several applications and contexts of the expression refers to someone who sets out to do something while, at the same time, maintaining indecisiveness or a dilemma, often from a lack of courage and confidence.
The malapropism is used as the central analogy, much less a metaphor, in this writing to represent what has been happening in Samoa for years. The analogy aptly describes ongoing concerns and/or apprehension among many of us collectively, as Samoans, with regards to our country’s experience and encounter with outside or foreign influence. The gist of the concerns lies in the marginalization and the undermining - if not a complete usurpation - of our native customs by foreign or palagi control (no offense intended). More importantly, the analogy also represents what is now happening in Samoa with the so-called “three bills” currently in the process of being approved and passed in Parliament. The bills are presented as amendments to our Constitution.
The socio-political and cultural contexts of the analogy are fitting and timely. The chicken is Samoa, the ‘afa represents customs and traditions and the holder represents the Government.
Samoa is the chicken wishing and desiring to be free from the shackles of its past, including its customs and traditions. However, this desired freedom is not necessarily a total, absolute and complete one but that which is gradual, careful, measured, thoughtful and judicious. In due course, when all the conditions are right, the ‘afa will eventually be severed and the chicken will finally be free - tamed and trained in its democratic-oriented environment. Though such an end is untimely and ill-suited now, and even in the foreseeable future, it will eventually and ultimately become inevitable. Change is the only thing that’s constant, says one Greek philosopher.
Conversely, the present government’s seeming preoccupation and timidity with outside influence suggest an uptick in xenophobic attitudes and paranoia especially in the government’s derogatory and racist palagi references. These attitudes and concerns may play a part in the proposed bills, tinged with not so subtle nationalistic and ethnocentric sentiments.The irony is that we have lived with these concerns in a little over half a century since our independence in 1962. We have managed to cope and adapt to some of the changes in a ping pong fashion between the accommodation of our customs and the assimilation of western/outside influence resulting in our unique localized political culture which, effectively, is a cultural democracy.
Our unique political system represents a profound dichotomy and conflict and, at times, an embarrassing predicament. The latter is true in real time as tensions build from the controversies surrounding the three bills and being played out on the political stage among the institutions of government and other social actors. The objective of the bills, according to the government, is to promote, advance and hopefully preserve our prized customs and traditions, all within the more modern fabric and matrix of the existing democratic underpinnings of the national political system.
My position in this treatise posits and advances more the principles and fundamentals than any futile nitpicking on the details of the bills. The dichotomy of Samoan culture and Democracy has been scrutinized in academic and socio-political circles for decades. The consensus, if there were any, had always been a fickle and slippery one. Compromise has often been the catalyst if not the solution. Overall, however, the coexistence and balance between the two systems have often tipped, expectedly, in favor of democracy and its more universal ideals and tenets. In light of that fact, therefore, the government’s goal for the three bills, in my view, is ambitious at best and blatantly overbearing at worst. The galvanized forces against the amendments, especially the legal community, speak to the bills’ overreach.
Our unique political system represents a profound dichotomy and conflict and, at times, an embarrassing predicament. The latter is true in real time as tensions build from the controversies surrounding the three bills and being played out on the political stage among the institutions of government and other social actors. The objective of the bills, according to the government, is to promote, advance and hopefully preserve our prized customs and traditions, all within the more modern fabric and matrix of the existing democratic underpinnings of the national political system.
My position in this treatise posits and advances more the principles and fundamentals than any futile nitpicking on the details of the bills. The dichotomy of Samoan culture and Democracy has been scrutinized in academic and socio-political circles for decades. The consensus, if there were any, had always been a fickle and slippery one. Compromise has often been the catalyst if not the solution. Overall, however, the coexistence and balance between the two systems have often tipped, expectedly, in favor of democracy and its more universal ideals and tenets. In light of that fact, therefore, the government’s goal for the three bills, in my view, is ambitious at best and blatantly overbearing at worst. The galvanized forces against the amendments, especially the legal community, speak to the bills’ overreach.
Samoa, having gone through tumultuous times and experiences during the colonial period, finally became the first nation in the Pacific to gain its independence. Before that, it had been administered and/or governed - through mandates and charters - by other foreign powers like Germany, New Zealand, the United States (in American Samoa), and the United Nations. Samoa was generally known during the first decades of independence - and likely still true today - as the “best kept secret in the Pacific”. The accolade has its roots in our resolve to preserve and maintain our customs and traditions in the face of western influence. This attitude or desire was even endorsed by the founding fathers of Samoa’s fledgling experience with democracy leading up to - and including - independence. This is proven by the addition in the preamble of our Constitution a provision whereby Samoan customs were to be foundational in the newly independent nation. The provision has been strengthened by certain acts throughout the years. In other words, we have managed to still hold and control the chicken by regulating the ‘afa, at least in measured and piecemeal fashion.
As part of our new national model of representative government, the new western-style written Faavae (Constitution) was also adopted, patterned and modeled after those of many new democracies of the time, with the United States of America as being the bellwether and trendsetter for the popular decree. As in most other democracies, a constitution is considered the supreme law and therefore the lifeblood of a country’s administration. Democracy is a broad, convoluted and sometimes controversial concept. Many hail it as the ideal political model because it honors and gives preference and priority to the individual - versus the group or community - among its many other values. The phrase “the people”, democracy’s main mantra, may be collective in reference, but it’s the individual’s rights and freedoms that underpin it all. This is at the core of many problems and conflicts we have with the present issues. The government’s own human rights protection platform is sounding more and more a preference for communal rights than individual rights and thus becoming an interesting paradox in its modern context.
In plain and simple terms, Samoan culture in its most basic framework, is not conducive to democratic ideals and reforms. Again, while the former is based on values and priorities of the group and community as a whole, the latter is based on the values and priorities of the individual. Moreover, and relatedly, is the fact that a status-based society (versus merit-based) notably inherited status as in the faa-matai, is an enemy to democracy. The main issue at stake is equality for all and the rights and freedoms of each individual. These seem to be claimed by the government as palagi values - and not Samoan - when they are in fact universal human values. Our challenge as a nation therefore has always been the merging of the two into a workable system. Sometimes it has been near seamless, like the universal suffrage vote in 1990, but other times it’s a headbutt like the present Bills 2020. For some seemingly contrived reason, the present government has been hardcore on its advocacy of the primacy of our customs and traditions. And so it continues to work on both strengthening and shortening of the ‘afa in order to keep the chicken at arm’s length. While this manulautī (goal/target) is impressive and seems noble to some, it can also be a double-edged sword. The chicken is heavily restrained as a result and at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.
Perhaps the best example of the chasm and variance between the two systems, is the fact that the village level, which represents local government, is based and operated almost exclusively on the traditional system of fa’a-matai, while the national Parliament - notwithstanding its all matai composition - is operated mainly on the more modern democratic principles and ideals. The two cannot be any more dissimilar and incompatible. For example, the Village Fono Act is essentially antagonistic to the overall Constitution. And there is no simple or easy solution to the problem. The two - local and national governments - keep pulling and tugging at each other. The chicken (country) pulling to acquire some freedom at one end, and the government exerting unbridled power and control at the other yanking the rope of customs and traditions. The result is a semblance if not a full blown cultural democracy. It is fine as far as I’m concerned. The challenge is to find a balance. The more important challenge, however, for us and our government is to go at it measuredly with wisdom and resourcefulness. Tread lightly and not rush in. Consider other viewpoints and not be intransigent. Have a national dialogue.The government should not always wield and insist on its representative mandate as an excuse to exercise unfettered authority. Representative does not necessarily equal popular or democratic in an ideal context. I do believe that what the government has done with the introduction of these bills is nothing short of a rasion d'etat where openness, justice, transparency and honesty have been compromised for purely political reasons while using customs and traditions -- disguised and bundled -- as parts of a genuine national interest.
Even religion, another one of our pervasive and prized bedrocks, is more democratic and individual than communal. Our national Christian orientation espouses individual and personal accountability more than a communal and collective one. Of course we can be collective and communal in our religious obligations and neighborly responsibilities, but it’s still individual and personal in our accountability and ultimate finality according to the Bible - that everyone will be judged singly and individually. What we need to understand - as offensive as this may sound to some - is that democracy will eventually rule the day, whenever that will be. It’s akin to a battle between a terminal illness and the body’s immune system. The struggle can be long and hard but the latter oftentimes will ultimately succumb. The ‘afa will eventually have to be cut and the chicken be set free.
The ongoing clash with democracy is typical in less developing countries and Samoa is no exception. But Samoa has in fact navigated safely so far through these rough currents of inevitable assimilations, until new laws become too radical and extreme if not contemptuous of the status quo and the Constitution. Such is the case with the present turmoil. Samoa needs to fai mālū le faiva (perform the task at hand with care) and - in the lyrics of a popular favorite - to aloalo malie lou va’a i lou sami lanu moana (paddle your canoe carefully in "your" blue ocean). Relatedly, the government can’t and shan’t regulate or legislate our culture. It is bad and demonstrably inept policy. Culture is a social phenomenon and therefore is in a constant state of change. It needs to evolve also. Moreover, each village is unique in its own socio-cultural paradigm. The chicken should be given room to breathe and roam, at least in progressive and manageable steps. It should not be shocked and awed by sudden and regressive pulls - and bills. The irony is that although the government asserts to be culture friendly, claiming that it’s trying to preserve Samoa’s customs through legislation, it is, at the same time, regulating and placing a yoke on some of our cherished cultural practices. According to the renowned leader, Mahatma Gandhi, “a nation’s culture resides in the hearts of its people.” If true, and I say it is true profoundly, then Martin Luther King Jr., another renowned leader of the same mold, completes the logic, contextually, when he said that “you can’t change the heart through legislation.”
Another important caveat is to refrain from using the so-called palagi accusation and blame. It is ignorant and destructive. It is racist and impolitic. The term palagi which used to exclusively mean “white man” has evolved to mean “foreigner” - all foreigners, including the Chinese. The government cannot keep using the palagi label and hope to exclude and excuse its very own most “important” benefactor. So when you're vilifying the palagi, you're also vilifying the hand or hands that are feeding you. We live in a global society. Our islands are linked to the outside world in many more ways than perhaps we’d ever liked or imagined. Our islands are no longer remote and isolated. And so as long as we keep using the palagi label in its repulsive and racial context, it only proves our inability to understand our political, let alone our religious and Christian connections and brotherhood to the rest of humanity.
In summary, our path forward and destination as a country is guided by feats of our own making and our own ingenuity. It's the nature of the cultural democracy we have forged and shaped for ourselves. Let's go forward with confidence and courage. And allow me to be risible and say that we should not be a chicken about it. Our vernacular is replete with words of wisdom, caution and direction to help us navigate our course such as “ia seu le manu ae taga’i i le galu”(snare the bird but watch the wave). We can also “togi le moa ‘ae u’u le ‘afa” in the context of care, wisdom and foresight but should never be in the context of xenophobia and ethnocentrism. I am not advocating severing the ‘afa - not now or even in the foreseeable future. What I am saying, however, is to relax and keep it loose and flexible to give the chicken the same amount of freedom it already has and opportunity for more. Incidentally, while performing a sudden tug or a hard yank can be beneficial in saving and conserving the ‘afa, it is also detrimental to the welfare, health and more realistic independence (pun intended) of the chicken. Practically, if not the ‘afa that will be severed in the process, it’s the head of the chicken - killing it. The worst scenario will be that of a double whammy. The hard yank is represented by ANY bold and pushy legislation in the name of customs and traditions which thereby sets Samoa (the chicken) back from its forward path to real freedom and true independence.
As part of our new national model of representative government, the new western-style written Faavae (Constitution) was also adopted, patterned and modeled after those of many new democracies of the time, with the United States of America as being the bellwether and trendsetter for the popular decree. As in most other democracies, a constitution is considered the supreme law and therefore the lifeblood of a country’s administration. Democracy is a broad, convoluted and sometimes controversial concept. Many hail it as the ideal political model because it honors and gives preference and priority to the individual - versus the group or community - among its many other values. The phrase “the people”, democracy’s main mantra, may be collective in reference, but it’s the individual’s rights and freedoms that underpin it all. This is at the core of many problems and conflicts we have with the present issues. The government’s own human rights protection platform is sounding more and more a preference for communal rights than individual rights and thus becoming an interesting paradox in its modern context.
In plain and simple terms, Samoan culture in its most basic framework, is not conducive to democratic ideals and reforms. Again, while the former is based on values and priorities of the group and community as a whole, the latter is based on the values and priorities of the individual. Moreover, and relatedly, is the fact that a status-based society (versus merit-based) notably inherited status as in the faa-matai, is an enemy to democracy. The main issue at stake is equality for all and the rights and freedoms of each individual. These seem to be claimed by the government as palagi values - and not Samoan - when they are in fact universal human values. Our challenge as a nation therefore has always been the merging of the two into a workable system. Sometimes it has been near seamless, like the universal suffrage vote in 1990, but other times it’s a headbutt like the present Bills 2020. For some seemingly contrived reason, the present government has been hardcore on its advocacy of the primacy of our customs and traditions. And so it continues to work on both strengthening and shortening of the ‘afa in order to keep the chicken at arm’s length. While this manulautī (goal/target) is impressive and seems noble to some, it can also be a double-edged sword. The chicken is heavily restrained as a result and at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.
Perhaps the best example of the chasm and variance between the two systems, is the fact that the village level, which represents local government, is based and operated almost exclusively on the traditional system of fa’a-matai, while the national Parliament - notwithstanding its all matai composition - is operated mainly on the more modern democratic principles and ideals. The two cannot be any more dissimilar and incompatible. For example, the Village Fono Act is essentially antagonistic to the overall Constitution. And there is no simple or easy solution to the problem. The two - local and national governments - keep pulling and tugging at each other. The chicken (country) pulling to acquire some freedom at one end, and the government exerting unbridled power and control at the other yanking the rope of customs and traditions. The result is a semblance if not a full blown cultural democracy. It is fine as far as I’m concerned. The challenge is to find a balance. The more important challenge, however, for us and our government is to go at it measuredly with wisdom and resourcefulness. Tread lightly and not rush in. Consider other viewpoints and not be intransigent. Have a national dialogue.The government should not always wield and insist on its representative mandate as an excuse to exercise unfettered authority. Representative does not necessarily equal popular or democratic in an ideal context. I do believe that what the government has done with the introduction of these bills is nothing short of a rasion d'etat where openness, justice, transparency and honesty have been compromised for purely political reasons while using customs and traditions -- disguised and bundled -- as parts of a genuine national interest.
Even religion, another one of our pervasive and prized bedrocks, is more democratic and individual than communal. Our national Christian orientation espouses individual and personal accountability more than a communal and collective one. Of course we can be collective and communal in our religious obligations and neighborly responsibilities, but it’s still individual and personal in our accountability and ultimate finality according to the Bible - that everyone will be judged singly and individually. What we need to understand - as offensive as this may sound to some - is that democracy will eventually rule the day, whenever that will be. It’s akin to a battle between a terminal illness and the body’s immune system. The struggle can be long and hard but the latter oftentimes will ultimately succumb. The ‘afa will eventually have to be cut and the chicken be set free.
The ongoing clash with democracy is typical in less developing countries and Samoa is no exception. But Samoa has in fact navigated safely so far through these rough currents of inevitable assimilations, until new laws become too radical and extreme if not contemptuous of the status quo and the Constitution. Such is the case with the present turmoil. Samoa needs to fai mālū le faiva (perform the task at hand with care) and - in the lyrics of a popular favorite - to aloalo malie lou va’a i lou sami lanu moana (paddle your canoe carefully in "your" blue ocean). Relatedly, the government can’t and shan’t regulate or legislate our culture. It is bad and demonstrably inept policy. Culture is a social phenomenon and therefore is in a constant state of change. It needs to evolve also. Moreover, each village is unique in its own socio-cultural paradigm. The chicken should be given room to breathe and roam, at least in progressive and manageable steps. It should not be shocked and awed by sudden and regressive pulls - and bills. The irony is that although the government asserts to be culture friendly, claiming that it’s trying to preserve Samoa’s customs through legislation, it is, at the same time, regulating and placing a yoke on some of our cherished cultural practices. According to the renowned leader, Mahatma Gandhi, “a nation’s culture resides in the hearts of its people.” If true, and I say it is true profoundly, then Martin Luther King Jr., another renowned leader of the same mold, completes the logic, contextually, when he said that “you can’t change the heart through legislation.”
Another important caveat is to refrain from using the so-called palagi accusation and blame. It is ignorant and destructive. It is racist and impolitic. The term palagi which used to exclusively mean “white man” has evolved to mean “foreigner” - all foreigners, including the Chinese. The government cannot keep using the palagi label and hope to exclude and excuse its very own most “important” benefactor. So when you're vilifying the palagi, you're also vilifying the hand or hands that are feeding you. We live in a global society. Our islands are linked to the outside world in many more ways than perhaps we’d ever liked or imagined. Our islands are no longer remote and isolated. And so as long as we keep using the palagi label in its repulsive and racial context, it only proves our inability to understand our political, let alone our religious and Christian connections and brotherhood to the rest of humanity.
In summary, our path forward and destination as a country is guided by feats of our own making and our own ingenuity. It's the nature of the cultural democracy we have forged and shaped for ourselves. Let's go forward with confidence and courage. And allow me to be risible and say that we should not be a chicken about it. Our vernacular is replete with words of wisdom, caution and direction to help us navigate our course such as “ia seu le manu ae taga’i i le galu”(snare the bird but watch the wave). We can also “togi le moa ‘ae u’u le ‘afa” in the context of care, wisdom and foresight but should never be in the context of xenophobia and ethnocentrism. I am not advocating severing the ‘afa - not now or even in the foreseeable future. What I am saying, however, is to relax and keep it loose and flexible to give the chicken the same amount of freedom it already has and opportunity for more. Incidentally, while performing a sudden tug or a hard yank can be beneficial in saving and conserving the ‘afa, it is also detrimental to the welfare, health and more realistic independence (pun intended) of the chicken. Practically, if not the ‘afa that will be severed in the process, it’s the head of the chicken - killing it. The worst scenario will be that of a double whammy. The hard yank is represented by ANY bold and pushy legislation in the name of customs and traditions which thereby sets Samoa (the chicken) back from its forward path to real freedom and true independence.
UPDATE: December 16, 2020
This week, the Parliament has passed the controversial "Three Bills 2020", and this is what the Attorney General said while lauding the passage of the bills. This confirms what I have presented above about Samoa's own "cultural democracy":
