Fifty years ago, a lone parliamentarian stood up in the house and voiced his objection to being denied his right to determine who has the confidence of the majority to lead and form the government.

Fifty years later, that same parliamentary right is under the hammer. Given the present impasse within the ruling FAST party, can parliamentarians confidently say they have exercised their democratic right to openly debate the leadership issue under the constitution?

In other words, will the parliamentarians be allowed to do their job of voting for an individual who commands their confidence in accordance with Article 32.2[a] of the constitution and get on with the business or will they be stifled by party bickering? Will FAST solidarity hold and stay in power?

Last week, I summarised the evolution of the selection of prime ministers in times of political crisis, initially by one Tama’āiga head of state to another Tama’āiga prime minister (and heir apparent) to non-Tama’āiga parliamentarians.

The two factions of the FAST government have taken their differences to the courts. The majority faction awaits an outcome on charges laid by police prosecutors against its leader and chair while the minority faction awaits its challenge to being expelled from the party. The HRRP Opposition leader naturally raises the spectre of the legitimacy of a minority government and calls for a vote of no confidence (VONC).

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 machinery has assumed a more active role, and the role of head of state was severely scrutinized and tested in the 2021 elections.

All of his proclamations were challenged by political parties and subsequently upheld by the courts including the last which led to the court reversing its earlier ruling by legitimizing the marquee ceremony.

The reason against a snap election seems clear, the country cannot afford it when the 2026 general elections are just around the corner. What options remain for resolving the illegitimacy claims? Do nothing and await the court rulings or 2026 general elections or is Samoa’s democracy mature enough to entertain a VONC proposal?

When Le Tagaloa Leota Pita Ala’ilima stood up fifty years ago to protest the denial of his right to determine who has the confidence of the majority, he was deliberately exercising his right of freedom of expression and displaying to the world that democracy is alive in Samoa. That right is again on display and despite many past promises to call one, a VONC I suspect has never appeared in parliament’s agenda. If a VONC appears on Tuesday (25 Feb), it may be a historical first. 

Is Samoa’s democracy mature enough to entertain it, conduct enthusiastic and lively debates, and then vote? How solid is FAST’s solidarity against the HRPP challenge? Given the political experiences and lessons of the last 50 years, there is every reason to believe leaders will emerge wiser and stronger from the baptism by fire and move the country to address the increasing cost of living and unsustainable losses of talent.

Dr Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano was an associate professor of History at the University of the South Pacific.