A question of suffrage

If, as promised, a referendum on independence is held in New Caledonia in 1987, the question of suffrage is fun damental.

Almost certainly, a suffrage limited to Melanesians (as formally demanded by the FLNKS) ul/ould produce a vote for independence. Almost cer tainly, a suffrage open to all French citizens resident in the territory (as strongly hinted at by Prime Minister Jacques Chir ac during his recent visit) would produce a vote to remain French and, very probably, an increase in the current ten sions between the communi ties.

No compromise suffrage grounded on an objective basis, such as birth in the territory or residence for some minimum period, could be chosen with out the appearance (and, very probably, the reality) of a view to the result desired.

There is probably no objec tive basis for determining who could vote which would not cause one of the principal com munities to fear that the re ferendum had been fixed in advance against its own in terests, thus risking either an other boycott by the Melane sians or a Rhodesian-style un ilateral declaration of independence by the

Europeans and, in either case, a general breakdown of law and order.

In these circumstances, con sideration should be given to a suffrage grounded on a single subjective basis the willing ness of each French citizen resident in New Caledonia to declare irrevocably that his or her future rests with the territory and to accept the risks which flow from such a declaration.

The right to vote could be limited to those Caledonians, regardless of their ethnic origin, prepared to accept that their French nationality would terminate and be replaced with Kanaky nationality in the event that a majority of Caledonians prepared to make the same commitment chose independ ence. Under such a system, all Caledonians who consider themselves, above all, Caledo nian would vote and no one else.

While no compromise could be fully acceptable to all con cerned, this would offer the

possibility of producing a re ferendum which would attract the participation, and a result which would enjoy the respect, of major segments of all Caledonian communities.

Melanesians might accept that non-Melanesians prepared to pledge their futures irrevocably to the territory should have a right to vote.

On the other hand, non- Melanesians would have trou ble supporting an argument that they should be permitted to determine the future of the territory if they refuse to pledge their own futures to it.

It is possible that, if a referen dum were so structured, both sides could see themselves as potential winners.

Such a solution would be profoundly democratic, permit ting the Caledonian peoples themselves to determine who would vote on the future of the territory.

John V. Whitbeck

Place de la Concorde, Paris