CHAPTER 3: History and the Development of Government Systems

Traditional Political Systems

The political systems in Micronesia varied greatly from island to island, ranging from the more elaborate and stratified chieftainships of Pohnpei and Kosrae to the simple authority systems of the low atolls in the Central Carolines.

Pohnpei was fragmented into various polities for most of its history, although tradition tells of a period when the island was united under a dynasty known as the Saudeleurs. In more recent times Pohnpei was divided into five districts, each of them headed by a paramount chief (Nahnmwarki) who held title to all land in his district. His "talking chief" (Nahniken) was chosen from the second ranking clan in the district. These two figures stood at the head of parallel lines of high-ranking titled persons. The districts were broken up into sections (kousapw), each of them ruled by a sectional chief. The sectional chief received first fruits from all those under him, and he in turn was expected to pay the same kind of tribute to his paramount chief.

Kosrae's traditional political system was much like Pohnpei's but was more centralized. A single paramount chief (tokosra) ruled over the entire island, which was divided into several sections and more than 50 subsections. As in Pohnpei, the sectional chiefs paid tribute to the paramount chief while receiving first fruits from their people. Kosrae's chiefly system lapsed into disuse during the last century as a result of a sharp drop in the population. Today nothing of the traditional political system survives. Kosrae had a title system, but it was probably not as complex as Pohnpei's.

The high islands of Yap never had the strong, centralized authority system of the islands in eastern Micronesia. Political authority was most tightly organized at the village level, governed by a chief with a council composed of the heads of the other lineages. The fact that villages were ranked by caste made it easier to form sectional units, although these lacked the strong authority structures of the villages. The villages were traditionally grouped into eight districts, each headed by one of the highest ranking villages. In precontact times these groupings shifted depending on alliances.

Chuuk and the culturally related atolls of the Central Carolines had the least elaborate political organization. Each island was divided into several districts, with even the smallest atolls having two or three. The district chief was traditionally the head of the senior lineage in that district, but his authority over land and other community affairs was limited. In some cases one of the district chiefs might be recognized as chief of the entire island. When this happened, he never had the luxury of making decisions on his own. His role, instead, was to mediate between the other district chiefs to reach a collective decision on matters affecting the island.

Chuuk: Getting Used to Being Governed

Chuuk had always had a poor reputation among European seamen and copra traders for the belligerent nature of its people. "Living in Chuuk is like living over a volcano," wrote one Protestant missionary in the 1880's (Hezel 1995: 63). The tiny districts in Chuuk were constantly forming and reforming alliances to do battle with one another. Warfare was a chronic condition in precolonial Chuuk.

When the German district officer from Pohnpei paid his first visit to Chuuk in late 1904, he asked the people to turn in all their firearms. In a surprising show of compliance, the Chuukese surrendered over 400 rifles and 2,500 hundred cartridges without the least resistance. From early German rule through the end of the US trusteeship a decade ago, Chuuk remained a model of docile acceptance of colonial rule.

Chuukese may have found under colonial rule what they had never experienced before: unity and peace. Chuuk's traditional authority system was founded on small family units, with a lineage exercising control over a very limited land area on an island. As the land area under the sway of a lineage became more populated, it tended to fragment into still other fiefdoms. Chuuk was a divided society that never had the strong chiefly authority of Pohnpei or Kosrae. Its small districts could and did band together under traditional alliances, two or three of which are remembered in oral tradition, but these were impermanent and shaky arrangements aimed at gaining support in time of war.

With the coming of full self-government, the foreign rule that had unified Chuuk for years is gone. The Chuukese people, who lacked any form of centralized government, are now obliged to find some way to govern effectively. They must do so without the benefit of some of the political traditions that other states enjoy. Yap, with its strong village authority, had a legacy of common work to complete public projects: roads paved with stone, community meeting houses, village docks, etc. Pohnpei and Kosrae, with their paramount chiefdoms, had a long tradition of surrendering land and goods at the request of the chief for the good of the community. The high chiefs in both places once enjoyed, in effect, the power of eminent domain, for they could recall land allotted to people for their use.

Since political authority in Chuuk never extended far beyond the lineage, there was no opportunity to develop confidence in more far-reaching political systems. Today, under the modern government system, the people of Chuuk are being challenged to do this for perhaps the first time.

After about 50 years of regular contact with the West, during which period the islands received regular visits from warships to administer justice, Micronesia was finally annexed outright. Spain claimed the islands in 1886 and soon set up government headquarters on Yap and Pohnpei. Aside from the introduction of Catholicism, Spanish rule left no lasting mark on the islands.

When Germany purchased the Caroline Islands from Spain in 1899, fast on the heels of the Spanish-American War, it made an effort to develop its new colony. It appointed flag chiefs over those islands that had none, established chiefly councils, and succeeded in completing a series of public works projects on Pohnpei and Yap. Next the German government imposed a head tax paid in labor on all adults. The colonial government also sought to implement sweeping development reforms aimed at maximizing production on the land and eliminating the "wasteful" feasting that was so common in some places. These ended abruptly when a local uprising broke out on Pohnpei in 1910.

Japanese rule, which began in 1914 with the seizure of the islands from Germany at the outbreak of World War I, continued for 30 years and left a much more lasting imprint on the islands. With the help of Okinawan and Japanese settlers, the government effected an economic miracle in Micronesia. Production for export reached such a level that the foreign administration of the islands became self-supporting. Although the local population was largely untouched by this economic boom, they were introduced to a variety of consumer goods and foreign customs that had a genuine appeal for them. Japanese authorities continued the practice, begun by the Germans, of appointing flag chiefs and setting up island-wide councils.

When the US took possession of the islands as a United Nations trust territory after World War II, the navy's official administrative policy was intentionally the opposite of Japanese policy. The US determined that it would embark on no ambitious development programs in the islands unless Micronesians themselves led the way. On the other hand, the blind faith of the US in democracy was so strong that it felt obliged to impose new political structures on island people. The three-fold division of government into executive, legislative and judicial was established. The first elections were held in 1947, but Micronesians used them as an opportunity to reassert their own political traditions. In these elections they reinstated the legitimate traditional chiefs who had been ousted by the Japanese administration.

The final two decades of US administration were years of accelerated development. Millions of dollars were pumped into the construction of roads, docks, runways and other infrastructural improvements. New schools and hospitals were constructed, and the government payroll soared as hundreds of new employees were added each year.

At the very time that public services were expanding and the cost of government increasing, Micronesia was preparing for self-government. The Congress of Micronesia, which was created in 1965, was conducting negotiations with the US on its future political status. Eventually it agreed to the Compact of Free Association with the US, an agreement that gave FSM full self-government while delegating to the US responsibility for its defense and conceding military rights in the islands. The US agreed to give a yearly subsidy to the FSM in exchange for these rights.

In 1978, three years after Micronesian leaders had ratified their constitution, the FSM was granted self-government by the US and the first chief executives were chosen in a popular election. The new nation began to function in that year, although it was not formally recognized by the US and other world powers until final approval of the Compact of Free Association in 1986.

The Modern Government

The modern government system operates at three levels: the national, state, and municipal. The national (FSM) government and each of the four states have their own executive, legislative and judicial branches.

The Congress of FSM is made up of 14 senators, four of whom are elected "at large." The president and vice president can be chosen only from these "at large" members of congress. The FSM national government was originally envisioned as conducting foreign relations and regulating immigration, trade, banking, shipping and national resource development. With time, however, it has expanded its supervisory role over such fields as education and health services.

The states have their own constitutions under which they operate. All have elected governors who serve a four year term, an elected legislature, and their own state court. The government structures at the municipal level vary from state to state. Municipalities may legislate for their own communities providing their laws do not conflict with those of the state or national government.

A major issue that FSM faces is how to integrate the traditional political system into the modern government apparatus. Yap seems to have been more successful in this respect than any of the other states. The two councils of chiefs in Yap, one for the main islands and the other for the outer islands, have, by law, veto powers over issues of custom and tradition. In Pohnpei there are periodic attempts to legislate a formal status for high chiefs in the government, but this is always voted down on the grounds that it would cheapen their traditional position to have them join the political fray. One could add that it would also render the elected officials impotent. Hence, the traditional and modern systems continue to operate separately of one another. Although traditional chiefs continue to be paid customary respect, their de facto authority in community matters seems to be eroding.

It is worth noting that, appearances to the contrary, traditional leaders did not enjoy absolute power over their people. Even in former times when chiefs had full title to the land, their power was subject to what we might call checks and balances. In return for the respect shown them and the tribute paid them, chiefs were expected to be generous in their apportionment of land and redistribution of tribute and other gifts to their people. Despite their status difference, chiefs were bound by the obligation of reciprocity. Failure to fulfill these obligations could lead people to withdraw their support for their chief, sometimes with disastrous consequences for the chief.

This relationship has been altered greatly today. When paramount chiefs on Pohnpei bestow titles, they are sometimes given in return a check for several thousand dollars or the key to a pickup truck instead of the traditional feast with yams, pigs and sakau. In such cases the obligatory redistribution is ignored. It appears that the traditional system has frozen in place, thus denying commoners some of the protection and benefits they would have received in former times. One must then ask whether the reciprocity between the elected leaders in the modern government and the people they serve is faring any better.

Another issue often raised is what role women should have in FSM's modern representative government at all levels. If women's political power were to be measured in terms of their seats in the legislatures or municipal councils, the picture would look very bleak. No more than four women have been elected to the state legislatures since 1978, and women have never held a seat in the national congress. This absence of female representation, however, must be seen in the light of the strict separation of men and women's roles that has until recently been practiced everywhere in the FSM (see Chapter 2). At this stage in the political development of FSM, one must look, as a sign of progress, to the complementary but less public roles that women are beginning to play in today's society. This will be expanded upon in later chapters.