Henrietta P. Emerson and Dr. Ray C. Christensen, Political Science

In most literature on the political systems of American Samoa and (Western) Samoa, the two countries are rarely grouped in the same study despite their shared cultural identity. An unincorporated territory of the United States, American Samoa tends to be classified with other U.S. territories which include Guam, the Northern Marianas, and the Virgin Islands (Cook 1995; Van Cleve 1993). Meanwhile, Samoa, an independent state since 1962, is more commonly compared to other independent Pacific island states (Lawson 1996; White and Linstrom 1997). While different colonial experiences clearly point out the reason for this separation, the inherent pervasiveness of Samoan tradition or fa’asamoa warrants greater attention to American Samoa and Samoa as grouped political subjects. My goal was to examine tradition in the context of the matai system and how it has changed western institutions and how it, in turn, has been changed by western institutions. In order to do this, I examined the influence of and extent to which the matai system, has been incorporated into both Samoa’s governmental institutions. Moreover, I looked at existing literature and conducted extensive interviews with Samoans living in Samoa and American Samoa in order to gain insight on both western and native perceptions of the changes within the matai system over the years. Through this case study, I hoped to expose some of the universal problems of democratization in societies where tradition, e.g. chiefdoms, regardless of outside influences, still hold legitimate authority.

Traditional political organization in Samoa is centered on the matai system, where chiefs are the chosen leaders of the family and is their representative in village councils (fono). The matai system entitles every extended family rights to customary land, a village residence, and an inherited title which is ranked and recognized on the ancestral fa’alupega (dignity roster) of Samoans. Matai titles may be passed down or be shared and all members of the family have an equal right to become heirs according to their personal suitability, service, leadership, and support from family members. While matais are ranked as either an orator or high chief, nevertheless, the power and respect of a matai can be enormous. As one Samoan noted, “he is the apex of all matters and affairs…nothing is official or legal without his knowledge and sanction…he has all the power and many privileges (Keesing and Keesing 1973, 100). Matais are however, very accountable to their families and his title may be revoked if his family’s interests have been breached.

Although both countries’ political systems are now structurally based on western forms of government, the actual operation of “democracy” is more culturally defined. Their legislative systems, in essence, are an institutionalization of the traditional authority because of the stipulations made specifically for matais. For instance, American Samoa has a bicameral legislature consisting of a Senate and House of District Representatives. The constitution stipulates that all members of the Senate must be a high chief, and are elected to the Senate by district matai councils. District representatives, however, are popularly elected. All adults are guaranteed the right to vote in elections. (Western) Samoa’s political system is modeled after the Westminster system, with a popularly elected unicameral parliament, a Prime Minister, and separate Head of State. Its constitution requires that all members of Parliament must be matais.

Through this incorporation of matais into government, several features of western institutional norms have changed fa’asamoa, most notably with the institution of political parties, campaigning and title proliferation. Whereas typical decision making in a party setting involves lobbying, secret ballots, and majority rule, a matai setting confronts decision making with open debate and consultation, ending in consensus. However, in a system where political parties are made up entirely of matais, the goal of open discussion and consensus is clearly in default. What is more, where these family representatives are now constituent representatives, the power of social, but more specifically familial networks during campaigns can become intrusive and potentially cumbersome. For example, during the 1991 elections, one candidate discloses that “candidates are being approached with requests to pay for all sorts of things, from medical expenses to children’s education” (Reuters North American Wire 1991). While Samoan tradition sanctions lafos, or presentations which convey respect, condolences, thank you, or congratulations, such contributions of money, fine mats, tinned fish, corned beef, or even titles have been labeled as forms of bribery during elections. Although by Western standards such presentations seem inappropriate in an election setting, Samoans continue to practice this tradition.

Institutionalized tradition has also changed the western institutions themselves, specifically regarding matais as elected legislators. Whereas title sharing or splitting has naturally arisen out of common family disputes, the more dangerous reason has been for electoral purposes. In (Western) Samoa, suffrage was limited to registered matai until 1991. Until then, title proliferation increased dramatically. Whereas in 1964, there were 1,230 registered voters (eligible voting matais), in 1984, it was found that almost “70% of all male Samoans 25 years or older held titles, (which was) double the percentage of 30 years earlier” (Howard 1989, 237). Currently in (Western) Samoa, there are over 25,000 registered matai titles in a population of 160,000 (US Central Intelligence Agency 1998). That amount to nearly one matai title to every 6.4 people! Inductive explanations for these trends are obvious. Taken from a democratic perspective, the increase in the number of chiefs available for an electoral or any leadership capacity might indicate not only a growing interest in participation in government but also a concerted effort by Samoans to deal with political and/or family affairs. From a more conservative point of view, it can be argued that title proliferation undermines the traditional requirements than come with titles as well as the prestige earned (not created) therein. Democratic processes are clearly inherent in fa’asamoa since opportunities for leadership and participation are always open. However, when institutionalized, the pervasiveness of tradition changes both the outcome and operation of those institutions.

In an effort to preserve tradition, both American Samoa and (Western) Samoa have provided for institutions that would augment the heritage of the matai system. In doing so, changes in fa’asamoa have been made in an attempt to adjust to those political institutions and vice versa. This may be, as for many new democracies, merely a simple evolution of political culture. But does this path of evolution necessitate the forfeit of legitimate traditional authority or is it possible to enmesh Western institutions with the complexities of tradition? Considering that in South Pacific countries such as Fiji and Vanuatu where the legitimacy of traditional chiefs is constantly under question, matais in Samoa are secured by both traditional and institutional esteem. Such is a sure indication that in the very least, chiefdoms can survive in a democracy. A Samoan proverb states, “Seu le manu ae taga’i i le galu” which means, “catch the bird but beware of the wave.” Without abandoning fa’asamoa in its strictest sense, Samoans have willfully designed western institutions to accommodate their own political culture.

Works Cited

• Central Intelligence Agency. 1998. World factbook page on Western Samoa. At 10 August 1998.
• Cook, Rhodes. (1995). U.S. territories. Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 53 (33): 2601.
• Howard, Michael C. (ed.) 1989. Ethnicity and nation building in the Pacific. Tokyo: United Nations University.
• Keesing, Felix M. and Keesing, Marie M. 1973. Elite communication in Samoa: A study of leadership. New York: Octagon Books.
• Lawson, Stephanie. 1996. Tradition versus democracy in the South Pacific: Fiji, Tonga, and Western Samoa. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
• Meleisea, Malama. 1987. The making of modern Samoa. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pacific Studies,University of South Pacific.
• Reuters North American Wire.(1991). Voters demand favors in W. Samoa’s first one man one vote poll. 5 April 1991. Accessed through Lexis-Nexis. 10 August 1997.
• Van Cleve, Ruth G. 1993. The application of federal laws in: American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands. Washington D.C.: Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor.
• White, Geoffrey M. and Linstrom, Lamont. (eds). 1997. Chiefs today: Traditional Pacific leadership and the post-colonial state.
• Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press.