How the leaders

declined to decide

Constitutionalism in Mic ronesia: By Norman Metier.

Published 1985 by Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University-Hawaii Cam pus, Laie, Hawaii. ISBN 0- 939154-390. 396 Pp.

Meller’s account of the 1975 Constitutional Convention of Micronesia is a personal memoir of the constitutional making process set within an island context.

This process marked an im portant step in the dissolution of the American-administered Un ited Nations Trusteeship which existed for nearly forty years.

American emphasis on politi cal egalitarianism stood in sharp contrast to the hierarchial na ture of most Micronesian societies. Unlike the decolonis ing process experienced in other Pacific islands, the dele gates to the Constitutional Con vention “had no comparable opportunity ... for making choices between alternative systems of government other than the paradigm already pro vided under the American ad ministration. ”

Once the alternative to inde pendence was decided upon by the islanders themselves, “all parties accepted the premise that the Micronesians would write their own constitution,” though the United States would

finance a major share of the convention itself.

The primary purpose of the convention was to draft a con stitution for the future govern ment of Micronesia which would “guarantee to all the citizens of Micronesia a form of government which permits the free democratic expression of their views.”

Such an auspicious task not withstanding, the enabling legislation enacted by the Con gress of Micronesia mandated that ninety days be allocated for the convention to complete its work. In Meller’s estimate, “it was feared that without a fixed term, the Convention would be under no pressure to reach any consensus. ”

The method of electing the delegates was curious, yet the composition of the convention itself reflected both public and private sector interests with a diversity of opinion among the various island delegations.

There was little doubt, how ever, that the “political socialisation” of the delegates to the American principles of would have its effect in the production of a “unique all- Micronesian constitution.” The question as to whether the formalistic structure and proce dures of the convention with its subject matter committees would be compatible with the “characteristic informality of

Micronesian ways” proved to be illusory.

Indeed, Meller’s concern as an experienced consultant was that “Micronesians do not take any congeniality to the making of hard, conceptual decisions.”

Instead they are most apt to avoid them whenever possible, “to temporise, and only when absolutely necessary, to re spond with definitive action.”

The Palauan delegation, in Meller’s opinion, was the most demanding. At the outset, the Palauans presented to the con vention a series of proposals that amounted to a virtual ulti matum.

The reality of Palauan post uring was that the other dele gates “mutually encouraged each other to rely moderately when the Palauans resorted to their intemperate address. ”

Such group strategies were a clear response to the fact that “all were dependant upon de veloping consensus” within the decision-making process so as to assure positive convention reception of such proposals.

Substantive issues focussed on whether the of the islands should be centralised or de centralised in both authority and in revenue-raising power.

Eminent domain and alien ownership of land were, like wise, of paramount concern to the convention.

The absence of “radical

ideology” which would invoke revolutionary changes in rule was conspicuously absent. To the contrary, the status of traditional leaders under the proposed constitution seemed to elude a satisfactory solution.

In the words of one future Ponapaen title holder “some of us are bom to rule and some of us are bom to serve.” At the outset, it was decided that it was not proper for the convention to decide what role and position the chiefs should have in the future government.

At the same time, however, it was felt that any future constitu tion with any sense of legitima cy could not omit any mention of traditional leadership or the place of custom.

Though these important questions were consigned to the chiefs themselves, the mat ter was “temporised” until the convention could wait no longer.

In the lengthiest committee

proposal and report, the collec tive wisdom of the convention’s delegates consigned the matter to each of the respective district constituencies to decide the matter with the proviso that some provision be made for “an active, functioning role for the traditional leaders within local government.”

In the end, full discretion on the formal accommodation of the chiefs and custom was left for the people themselves to decide. Consequently, the con vention preserved the legitima cy of the constitutional process without having to confront the conservative forces of tradi tionalism.

In spite of all the foreseen and unforeseen obstacles to consensus, the ratification of the Micronesian constitution became a reality. If nothing else, the tedium of such a process is revealing in both the content and style of the au

thor’s narrative.

William

Tagupa.