that a no-confidence motion would succeed in removing Prime Minister Edward Natapei and the Vanua’aku Pati from government. To avoid this Natapei persuaded the acting president to dissolve parliament. Critics considered the dissolution a misuse of power and a ploy to remain in office, though the government claimed it was done in the interests of stability. New elections were due to be held on 6 July. Instability is a long-term feature of politics in Vanuatu, and is perceived to arise because of the abuse of power for personal advantage by individual members of parliament. It is common for members to cross the floor of parliament because a new party can offer more personal benefits than their old one. Legitimate reasons for crossing the floor, such as fundamental disagreements about policy, are rarely the motive for such defections. The lack of continuous government also contributes to corruption. A recent review of the national integrity system indicated that frequent changes of government in Vanuatu perpetuate institutional weaknesses, creating an environment in which corruption flourishes. Parliament’s public accounts committee, which is responsible for examining audit documents, is particularly vulnerable to disruption after frequent changes in government. The main weakness of the civil service is that it is not clearly separate from the executive. Changes in the executive lead to changes in the civil service, with appointments often based on family, business or political connections rather than merit. Similarly, appointments to the boards of statutory bodies are usually made at the discretion of a particular minister and, as ministers change, so do the boards. Appointments are often seen as patronage for political supporters. One notable example of mismanagement due to politicisation was the VCMB’s decision in 2001 to pay higher crop prices to farmers than they could actually sell it for. The decision was widely seen as a ploy to ensure popularity
216
for the UMP government in an upcoming election. Frequent changes of government are indicative of, and contribute to, wider systemic issues relating to public understanding of the role and operation of the political system. There is a growing perception that political leaders take as much as they can because they think that they will only be in power for a short time. It is possible that further regulation could be developed to inject more stability into Vanuatu’s system of government but, given the wider systemic issues, such measures are unlikely to be entirely successful. Instead education to develop public expectations of parliament, and to train parliamentarians and party members on their roles within a functioning democracy, is necessary. These issues cut to the core of corruption, since they involve the development of both political will to act within the bounds of power, and public will to ensure that leaders do so.
Vanuatu Maritime Authority The Vanuatu Maritime Authority (VMA) was established in 1998 with the primary aim of regulating and promoting the maritime industry. There have been rumours of political interference and mismanagement for some time, but their potential increased when the composition of the VMA was altered in 2002. Initially the VMA consisted of one ministerial appointee, and a number of senior civil servants, including the attorney general, the financial services commissioner, the commissioner for maritime affairs and several director generals. The Vanuatu Maritime Authority (Amendment) Act 2002 altered this so that the VMA is now entirely appointed by the incumbent minister. This change in composition led to a number of changes in VMA’s management. The commissioner for maritime affairs, John Roosen, left in April 2003, followed two months later by Marie Noelle Patterson, the
Country reports
GC2005 02 chap06 216
13/1/05 4:34:29 pm