 session. The family start the session in two minutes. Please bear with us. Thank you. So good day everyone and welcome to the fourth webinar of International IDES Democratic Development in Melanesia. So today's webinar will have us thinking what is happening to democracy in Melanesia. So in the next hour and a half, we were discussing the state of democracy in this region, particularly the countries of Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, based on the IDES Global State of Democracy in Dices. So my name is Naila Prieta. I am a program officer with the Asia in the Pacific program of International IDES and I will be your host and moderator for this session. Before we start, I would just like to ask everyone to please be mindful of some house rules. So during the session, please keep your microphone on mute and your video turned off. If you have any questions for our speakers, please use the chat box that you see on your screen. There will be opportunities to provide comments, share your ideas and ask questions later in the program. This webinar is also live streamed on IDES Facebook page and links to the resources that will be shared here will be shared after this session. So on this webinar, an overview of the state of democracy of the three Melanesian countries from the Global State of Democracy in Dices or GSOD will be presented after which our guest experts from Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands will each provide a commentary. Their thoughts on do this data provides a picture of the current challenges and opportunities for democracy in these countries and given the challenges what reforms should be considered. After the commentary, we will have an open discussion. So we encourage our viewers and listeners to stand by and join the open forum later. I believe you can also provide your questions and comments on our Facebook page. To start off the webinar is a presentation of the Global State of Democracy in Dices and overview of the respective GSOD profiles of the three Melanesian countries. I am pleased to introduce Ms. Lina Rikila Tamang, our Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific of International Idea. In this capacity, Lina oversees the regional programming and country programs in Myanmar, Nepal, Fiji, Bhutan and the Philippines. Prior to this, Lina served as Country Manager of our program in Nepal, creating and supporting constitution building initiatives in the country. Without much further ado, I hand the floor over to you, Lina. Thank you very much, Naila. And also my thanks to everyone attending and to our three speakers who have agreed to comment on the state of democracy in Melanesia. So my task today is to present to you with the International Ideas Global State of Democracy in Dices, the database, so that ideally after my presentation you would have a good sense of what is it, where you can find it from and what you can do with it. Whether you are a researcher, policymaker, media or civil society representative, political leader or simply someone willing to keen to understand about this data. I hope you can see my screen. Is it moving? Yes. Let's see now that whether it's moving forward. Oh, yeah. So we have four different products under the umbrella of Global State of Democracy project. One is the biannual report, Global State of Democracy report, our flagship report, which will be launched the next in the coming November 2021. And the TSOD indices is that the statistical data that provides the basis for the report. And in addition, we have global COVID-19 monitoring tool, as the name indicates, tracks the impact of the pandemic on democracy and human rights worldwide. And lastly, we also produce the global state of democracy in focus applications, which are short, matic or regional analysis on state of democracy. And all these products can be found from International Ideas website. So let's dive into it. How do we measure democracy through, and what do we measure when we say that we do measure democracy? And here we have our global state of democracy framework. I think it's important to start with our definition of democracy, which is very simple, popular control of decision makers and equality of citizens in exercising that right. So this definition has implications on how we categorize democracies, hybrid and authoritarian regimes. And I will come to this point after a few minutes. We have the five main attributes that we consider as the building blocks of democracy, represent fundamental rights, checks on government, impartial administration and participatory engagement. And these are further divided into 16 sub attributes and 116 indicators that form the basis of data. So for example, here, fundamental rights is divided into access to justice, civil liberties and social rights and equality. And social rights and equality, for example, is further divided to measure social group equality, gender equality and basic welfare. So our goal aim is to provide a nuanced picture of state of democracy in any given country, recognizing that the country may do well in some aspects, and less well in some other. And it is important to make all these different aspects visible, and it's not very productive to reduce any country's state of democracy, let's say, to one one symbol score. The indices cover a period of 45 years from 1975 to 2020. The latest data is now uploaded since June, covering 2020. So last 45 years. And we consider it important to provide this sort of a historical perspective. I think it's true that we can say that yesterday was not better on what it comes to many of the attributes worldwide, even when the last five to seven years have no doubt seen declines, erosion, and even backsliding of democracy in many parts of the world, also in Asia and the Pacific region. Indices include 165 countries, and since 2020, data also includes Solomon Islands and VG for the first time. And you may ask why only now from 2020? The answer is that when the indices were founded, we included countries, only those countries that had more than one million people. Another criteria was availability and accuracy of the data that we needed. But after much lobbying of our HQ from this part of the world, and also after checking that the data that we needed would be available, even if there are some weaknesses on that front, these two countries were added, and hopefully soon we can add some more islands into our databases. So how do we measure? What you saw the indices can be its index of indices is underlying data is drawn from well high quality datasets, including the varieties of democracy we them, which constitutes majority of the data we draw from, but then also all these other other datasets and databases that are there. And all the code books and anyone really into the data and aggregating and indices you can find our proper state of democracy code book from the website and where it's explained in detail. So the types of political regimes in our indices, we divide simply democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. And as was indicated or alluded by our definition of democracy, we consider the representative government is the main attribute when we look at when we do this categorization of the political regimes and the requirement of minimally competitive multi-party elections qualify as democracy. And then further on of the democracies, we do categorize the democracies as per the performance levels to high performing democracies, mid-range performing democracies and low or weak performing democracies, according to the different values. So I wanted to give you a glimpse of what can you do with the database and how you can use it yourself. Here is a world map of the of the databases where you can hover around the map and you can see Russia, hybrid regimes, Iceland as a high performance and China authoritarian regime. You can look at the representative democracy, how the world looks like as color coded, and then go to clean elections and their example is Mongolia as high performing on what it comes to clean elections. And when you hover around the map and you come to say Russia, you click and then you get to the beach where all the data can be found. Another way of presenting is to compare with the countries. Sorry, this was already there. I need to go to the next one. So here, if you select Africa, it will and representative government, it will show you the historical development since 1975 up to 2019. This one, you can add the sub attributes, clean elections, inclusive suffrage, free political parties, elected government, and see the see the trends. And then you can also compare with the other regions. So sub regions in Africa say, how about West Africa? How does it compare with the data from North Africa, for example? Move forward with my slides. There. So these are the country profiles. This is how a country profile looks like if you download it from the website. And you can there look also each of these attributes separately and over time. And there on the page, you can also find a narrative detailing the most recent democratic developments in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. As you can see, Fiji is considered a weak or low-performing democracy as per our indices. Many of the attributes are under the yellow, which is medium with medium performing, except social rights and equality, which is very weak or low-performing and the participatory engagement, which is overall red or low-performing. And the sort of a performing score is on the inclusive suffrage. Same download country profile, also weak performing democracy, where also the low-performing also on social rights and equality, but also on impartial administration, and in particular on incomes to persons of corruption. But then on the other hand, performing on what it comes to not only to inclusive suffrage, but also on elected government and civil liberties as per the data that we have received. And Solomon Islands, again weak or low-performing democracy, categorized as democracy, where we have yet again social rights and equality in the category of low-performing and the participatory engagement, again in reference in particular to direct democracy and local democracy, but also high-performing on what it comes to representative democracy, representative government, and media in decorative under the checks on government. I am simply sending here the data and the picture and we have invited our commentators to give us the analyze this and give us the sort of what might be underlying here of the data and explaining some of this data. This is simply another way of presenting the same data that you can also generate from the database this way of looking at it. So here, for example, we could look at three political parties considered a medium, the former on political parties. As you can see, it is the head of the Asia and the Pacific average, but behind the world's average of world's democracies. Sorry, we're there. And of course, Asia and the Pacific average obviously includes democracies and non-democracies alike. You can also make comparisons when you go to the indices database. Here, we are comparing representative, one of the attributes representative government from 1975 to 2020. Here, Fiji is the red one with obviously the periods of non-democratic government being reflected in the data. We do have Papunikini with a little bit there. And we have Salomon Islands, perhaps the most consistently moving towards on what it comes to representative government. And you can use the data and generate similar type of charts on all the attributes as well as the sub-attributes and make the comparisons between countries or between country and the region or country and sub-region or the country and the world and see how your own country, for example, looks like or compares with the others. But main importantly, you can also compare your own on what it comes with itself in terms of the timelines. And here, I don't have a slide about but you could also look at the data only from the last, say, sorry, 10 years and generate a picture where you can see more in detail the development over the last five years or 10 years or so. So I wanted to end there. These are the, again, the resources that are all available in our website. And as mentioned, global state of democracy report, which is drawing on the on the indices but also then includes more sort of a qualitative analysis of the data is to be launched in in 2020, sorry, in November 2021, looking at the data of of 20 up to 2020. Very much. And I hope I managed to explain the indices so that you would be visiting our website and try your hand and look at the look at what what you can do with the with the data that is available. And as always, we welcome any feedback or observations on on the data and what you can find from the website. Thank you. And back to you, Nila. Thank you so much, Lena, for that comprehensive presentation. And definitely, there's so much to unpack from those data. So now it will, you know, we will turn over to our guest speakers for for their respective reactions on this data. So please let me introduce first our first speaker, Romulo Nayakalevo from Fiji. So Romulo is a human rights lawyer who was served the Pacific region for over 10 years. He used to be the program manager for governance and legal affairs with the Melanesian spearhead group, Secretariat in Vanuatu. And has also served as a human rights advisor with the Secretariat for Pacific Community and the Regional Office of the Human Rights Commission. So Romulo, aside from this role, has also served on nonprofit boards such as the Save the Children and Scripture Union Fiji. So Romulo, over to you. Thank you very much. Nila for your gracious introduction. Thank you also, Lena, for introducing and explaining a little bit more about the state of governance indices that we've all here to learn a little bit more about as well as to see how they are applied in our country context. Before I start, I acknowledge also the panel members, the Professor Thasises from the Solomon Islands, as well as Ms Serina from Papua New Guinea. I acknowledge also international IDA staff, Adi, Lena, Nila, and Rajen who are also facilitating today's conversation. First of all, thank you again for your introduction and I align for the insights that provide the basis for our discussions today. Lena, allow me to briefly digress and congratulate of course the Fijian men's seven-steam for their second Olympic gold medal and for winning a smashing final against our Pacific one hour of New Zealand in a sizzling, male-biting final in Tokyo last night. Following that victory, I must admit that for a brief moment I completely forgot about the COVID pandemic that groups my nation as I wanted to run out and celebrate with the rest of Fiji. But then my eyes fell on my computer and I realized the celebration left to it. So again, congratulations team Fiji and all the best to our other Olympians, including our women's sevens rugby team playing today. I take the opportunity of course to congratulate International IDA for the launching of this updated global state of democracy indices. At a time when it is crucial to measure state progress and to shine a light on state practices, this indicators provide a tangible framework by which we can assess a state's governance practice and provide the basis for holding governments accountable within the acceptable norms and standards. The indices provide valuable and timely information that seeks to measure various key indicators of the state of governance around the world. I recognize that we may not have sufficient time in this presentation to do an in-depth analysis of the results, but the audience is also invited to have a read of the indices, make comparisons with other countries as Lena had shown us this afternoon, or regions and seek clarification if needed with the team at IDA, including the Pacific Office both in Canberra and here in Suva. As a governance practitioner in the region, I find that these indices are valuable tools to assess our progress individually as Pacific states and collectively as a region. It provides a benchmark on areas that need improvement or to be strengthened to ensure greater accountability in all aspects of governance, particularly around the rule of law, open and transparent government, excuse me, open and transparent government as well as the realization of fundamental human rights, especially in this COVID period. The comparative aspect of the indices means that we can measure our progress to other similar states in the Pacific or across the world and see how far we fare in our progress towards creating a more democratic society. Moreover, these indices undoubtedly will inform the status of governance, especially in this COVID period, and hopefully guide policy and lawmakers, practitioners, diplomats, academic students, political commentators, civil society organizations that don't have communities and government enthusiasts on measurable outcomes and areas that need to be improved to ensure solid governance practices within our states and region. For the purposes of our presentation, we have been provided four guiding questions and I intend to address those four guiding questions in my presentation on the status of governance in Fiji. The first set of general information or signposts is to comment on the data that has been presented in the context of Fiji. As Lina has alluded to and has shown by the data, Fiji is considered a weak low democracy country on international ideas map of global indices. Fiji's governance trend as captured in this data is an interesting one from 1975 to the year 2000. What the data shows is that from the period up to the 1987 coup, Fiji's governance indicators demonstrate a steady growth trend of about 0.5 on the upper scale, whereas since 1987, which can be attributed to the coup and related incidents, the government governance trend on average demonstrated low performance to lower mid-term performance. This trend picked up again from the period of 1992 and declined again in 2000, picked up again from 2002 and then declined again in 2006. These periods commensurate with the period of political upheaval and political transition in Fiji. At the onset, we can see the link between political instability, volatility, uncertainty, and of course, weak governance. The focus of today's discussion is on the 2020 global state of democracy data, which is influenced by the government's response to the COVID pandemic. So that then leads me to the next signpost, which is what are the challenges and opportunity for democracy in your country. The greatest challenge for most of our democracy, democracies, including Fiji, is both our adherence to the rule of law, the ability of state institutions to fulfill the statutory functions and roles, and the broader respect for fundamental rights and freedom by the state. In other words, it comes down for me to leadership and how those that exercise power are able to exercise it within the confinements of the rules that are in place. Fiji continues to confront and navigate challenging times brought about by an evolving legal order and now exacerbated by the forces of a raging pandemic that continues to pose as an existential threat. As history shows us that in trying or perilous times, national decisions are made, often made, in the name of human security, but at the cost of basic rights and freedoms. While constitutional safeguards are in place in Fiji and state institutions that oversee the protection and promotion of human rights are functional, there remains many challenges associated with the realization of basic rights and freedom. Fiji's constitution protects economic, social, and cultural rights, as well as civil and political rights. The caveat, though, is the limitations around both the economic, social, and cultural rights and civil and political rights. Moreover, Fiji is the only Pacific country to have ratified all nine core human rights treaties, including both the covenants on civil and political rights, as well as the economic, social, and cultural rights. So Fiji's role in protecting human rights is not just founded in the constitution of Fiji, but that which is also prescribed under international treaty laws. While permissible limitations of rights are recognized in international human rights law, these limitations must, one, be prescribed by law, two, on grounds permitted in relation to the right concern, and three, a reasonable, necessary, and proportionate means for pursuit of a legitimate objective. So any derogation from fundamental rights must adhere to the permissible limitations provided by law. Fiji's governance indices are predominantly mid-range performances, which is indicative of the evolving state of the rule of law or by law, the strength of state institutions, and the protection and promotion of basic and fundamental rights. Interestingly, what the indices also show is that except for one, which is inclusive suffrage, Fiji ranks below the global average on each of the measurable indicators. And particularly, a lowest indices is from attribute five, which is participatory engagement. The indices are informed by publicly available information, and as Alina had also alluded to, the other sources that informs the data to drop the indices that speak to the governance indicators that is being mentioned. Fiji's rankings, as follows, and interestingly, you will also find if you click on to the Fiji link. In terms of high performance, we have only one indices on high performance, as I alluded to, which is inclusive suffrage, or the right to vote regardless of circumstances, gender, race, etc. Most of our performances are mid-range performance, and I will look at that very briefly, mindful, of course, that I don't have a lot of time to be able to do a deeper analysis of that. But attribute one, which looks at representative governments and its sub-attributes, which includes clean elections, free political parties, and elected government, public information which informs this attribute shows various actions against political parties, or political party representatives that may affect the work of political parties, party officials, and politicians from these political parties. In terms of attribute two, looking at fundamental rights and its sub-attributes, which includes access to justice, civil liberties, but on the third sub-attributes, Fiji records a low performance, which is on social rights and equality. And it draws from the data with references to the court cases before the courts and the rulings made by the magistrates and the High Court respectively on the legality or otherwise of the legal powers exercised by senior officials, including the Prime Minister, to restrict freedoms and rights among others in the early days of the second wave of the pandemic. The restrictions on civil liberties include arrests for curfew breaches and related breaches of the Public Order Act, which also looks at how certain segments of the community have been investigated and charged for breaches of the Public Act include social or online postings. Attribute three checks on governance and its sub-attributes, which includes media integrity, judicial independence and an effective parliament. And it shows that there's a continued functioning of all these key institutions in Fiji despite the pandemic. It is important that in any society built on democratic values and ideals that we both have strong and functioning parliament and judiciary as two arms of government that provides the checks and balances on each other. A functioning and an independent judiciary is often the final best of rights of people. The courts must readily be accessible for people to seek legal relief and remedies on decisions that may be unjust and imposed without proper consultations. Parliament's role in legislative oversight must be strengthened and parliamentary process must enhance not diminish democracy. The role of the media dubbed the Fourth Estate is equally important, especially in our current pandemic in highlighting crucial information and important news to the community. Attribute four which looks at impartial administration and its sub-attributes which includes predictable enforcement and absence of corruption. These measures how state agencies have acted to enforce the rule of law and prosecute corrupt practices and behaviors. To avoid corrupt behaviors it is essential that there is great accountability and transparent decision-making process that encourages public participation and scrutiny. And of course mindful as I alluded to Fiji is performing within the mid-range performance. And the final attribute which is participatory engagement and its sub-attributes which includes civil society participation and electoral participation. Fiji of course is low on direct democracy and local democracy as alluded to by the data. Fiji's government trends indicates that the need for both government and citizens to keep working to strengthen the state of governance by which citizens are able to hold government accountable within the framework of rule of law and good governance while the state ensures open and transparent governance with citizenry participation in the affairs of the state. Fiji has the opportunity based on their synthesis to work towards improving each of the five attributes measured herein. While the results of each attribute may also change depending on the available information what is obvious based on the current state of governance is to keep improving in all the crucial areas highlighted in the indices. Second, the third signpost is what reforms do you think is needed to improve the country rating. To improve the country rating on any of the governance indicators it is important for decision makers and the citizenry to see how they can actively and openly engage each other on all matters that affect both the governed and the governed, the governors and the governed or the duty bearers and the rights holders. The state as a duty bearer has the responsibility to protect and promote human rights and citizens as rights holders must be able to claim these rights within the existing legal framework. As alluded to earlier citizenry engagement with the government including through the media must also be safeguarded and protected. Any free society must be able to have a free press and free thinking individuals who can dissent lawfully on aspects of governance without fear and rank or and participate in decisions that impacts on their basic rights and freedoms. At a time when information is crucial on COVID-19 on medications and treatment health restrictions and protocols etc, accessing this needed information from government or relevant sources is equally important and needs to be readily available where possible and safeguarded by the state. Freedom of expression, the rights to information are crucial and needs to be protected and realized especially in this time. People must not be persecuted or intimidated simply for holding an opinion or expressing themselves in a manner that may be contrary to the majority views. Descent must be encouraged and safeguarded in a democracy. State institutions must be able to exercise restraint as well as perform their duties without fear or favor. There must be a strong emphasis on the rule of law and not ruled by law. The law must not be used as a tool for oppression to silence dissidents, to intimidate opposition or to consolidate power. The principles of good governance predicated on open, fair, accountable and transparent decision must be on the basis must be the basis for any just, equitable and fair society. Moreover, the role of civil society and faith-based communities as important partners to government and of government, especially at a time when more hands than one is needed to provide social welfare, counseling or comfort for those in need in our communities. Pandemic and natural disasters, among others, often show the heart of communities and the role of the CSOs and FBOs ought to be encouraged and supported within acceptable health protocols in place. Given the prolonged closures and related health protocols in place, mental and psychological impacts can weigh on sectors of the population. Therefore, necessary support systems must be in place to counter the psychological and mental cost of a prolonged lockdown and other restrictive measures. Intimidation and violence against CSOs. Sorry, Ramalor. I hope we can wrap up soon. That's okay. We have more time later for, yeah, a discussion. Thanks. Thank you. I will wrap up. I'm coming to the end of it now. Okay. So while I note the data to inform the global site of governance indicators for Fiji's up to the first quarter of 2021, the trend may indicate a decline or democratic backsliding should the COVID response remains in a state of flux. Given Fiji's weak democratic indices, it is important that this situation is arrested to prevent further decline and to do and to do there is a need for stronger collective citizenry participation, whether it is by online platforms, the media or talkback shows and programs and government-supported platforms for dialogue and reciprocal engagement. The opportunity exists to build better governance architectures and structures that can weather the COVID crisis. Various civil liberties have been limited owing to the existence of the current pandemic, which includes freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Heavy and the tactics must give way to dialogue and mutual respect for rights, freedoms and the rule of law. At a time when the freedoms and rights can be easily sacrificed on the altars of convenience and security, there must be stronger oversight into the roles of the state and its agencies, while independent institutions tasked with human rights oversight must be diligent in holding the states accountable for its human rights practices. As also as I wrap up, as parting though for international idea, it is important to recognize that as long as the pandemic persists, the more efforts must be made to monitor and track the state of governance across the world. And for all of us, especially our governments, is that how we all come out of this pandemic will depend on how we manage our state of governance in the pandemic itself. As our Fijian rugby team reminds us at the end of every game of victory, we are the song we have overcome. We can overcome if we consider our humanity, strengthen our governance process and remind ourselves that we are in, we are all in this together, both the government and the government. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. Thank you so much Romulo. So it's my pleasure to introduce our next speaker to give her views on the data presented on Papua New Guinea. It's nice to see you again, Serena. Oh, it's good to see you, Naila. So Serena is a member of the Board of Advisors of International Idea. Serena is also currently the CEO of the Digital Foundation and she co-founded the Voice Inc, a living youth development organization which she co-founded while attending the University of Papua New Guinea. Serena is also very quite active in the nonprofit sector which sits on the board of several organizations including, of course, the Voice, Family PNG and Lowy Institute's PNG Australian Network. So Serena, over to you. Excellent. Thank you so much. So thank you, Idea, for the opportunity to be able to comment on the 2020 GSOD index and findings from Papua New Guinea. I will be basically what I will be saying in our comments that are my own and do not represent any of the organizations that I am a part of. I've divided my comments into three key areas that we were asked to do around commenting on the data set that was presented, thoughts on challenges and opportunities, and areas that I think needs to be focused on to improve our quality of democracy. So I'll speak to that and I'll try to talk within the timeframe that was given. So firstly, I just want to say where PNG has ranked, it's currently at the same similar to PG, mid-range performance as of the GSOD 2020 index. We have maintained an unbroken record of democratic governance since our independence in 1975. National elections are held regularly. The judiciary has significant independence and the media and citizens are also free to criticize the government. The area that we are performing very low in, as Nina had pointed out, is in impartial administration and this isn't surprising because it's quite well known that PNG has and struggles at very high levels of corruption that we have in the country. When I think about the process of democratization across states like ours, I think it's always really important to just point out at the beginning, across the world, all nations started off with tribes. Papua New Guinea, exactly the same, actually probably one of the most tribally diverse nations in America. From tribes, we evolved into having kingdoms what the rest of the world did and then we had governments as a result of very corrupt kingdoms. For Papua New Guinea, we've literally just gone from a tribal nation straight into government where we never really had centralized authority. I think the state here continues to struggle with, one, exerting its authority, number two, building its capability and in doing so, building more legitimacy across the board. As someone that has lived through very transformative periods in Papua New Guinea, I've literally been able to experience and I think a lot of my peers that are also joining online as well would be able to say we're literally experiencing and living in this transition of the democracy. I think that the results that have been pointed or have been published in the 2020 findings are very specific because it's meant to be quantifiable and it's meant to help us actually see the trends that we can look to to see is democracy, are we seeing backsliding or are we seeing progress. And since 1975, if you actually do the trends over time, you'll see PNG, it has dropped but not significantly, not to levels where we can say we are fully experiencing democratic backsliding. So I'm just going to speak quite briefly to just the trends for the five attributes from the GSOD report. Firstly, in terms of representative government, PNG is scored 0.49 and inside representative government, we have things like measures of clean elections, inclusive suffrage, free political parties and elected government. I think that the ranking that has been given, the score that has been given is quite accurate. In terms of clean elections, it just continues to be an area that we go faces a major challenge and I'll speak to that a bit later inside my presentation. But in 2020, the autonomous region of Boganville had its first general elections and it had elected Ishmael Torama as the president. So we're seeing there that there is definitely this culture of ensuring that elections are held, that people do participate. We continue to struggle obviously with building stronger political parties. But again, that is the process of people participating in democracy and that's kind of reflected a bit further down and I'll speak to that. But otherwise, I think that that's quite an accurate score that has been given. In terms of fundamental rights, we scored 0.55 and this is an area I think that we do quite well on in terms of the constitution and shining all these fundamental rights. But we struggle very much in terms of the actual enforcement of breaches of fundamental rights. Access to justice continues to be a problem. Civil liberties are protected. Obviously, we're living in the through the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and constitutions would have been tested during this time across the world with emergency regulations coming into the fore and government trying to control and restrict the movements of people. And in Papua New Guinea in particular, where you have very low levels of literacy, there's a lot of misinformation that's out there and also a lot of lack of trust as well especially when you have high rates of corruption. The government has really struggled with ensuring that people were adhering to the emergency regulations and the control measures that were in place. We've just been quite fortunate that we haven't had levels of cases increasing. There has been an increasing strain on the health system and the health care system, but we haven't seen the number of deaths that are being experienced in other countries. And I think of Fiji at this time as well that's dealing with the COVID-19 Delta variant. I think under fundamental rights, the area that we also really struggling is around gender equality. And this is across the board in terms of female participation. It's what you can see right now in Parliament where there's zero women that have been elected in, but also the rates of violence that women and children continue to experience. So that's just one thing that we have to continue to work on. For number four, the fourth attribute in terms of checks on government, we scored 61. In 2020, PNG passed a law in February to provide protection for whistleblowers. In November 2020, we unanimously passed the Bill to Establish the Independent Commission against corruption, so ICAC. So there is work being done at a higher level to try and put in place other institutions that will help with providing those checks and balances. So I think that again, the ranking is quite reflective of where we were in 2020. In terms of impartial administration, we scored very low there, 0.38. Again, not surprising at all. Transparency International Corruption Perception Index ranked PNG 142 out of 180 nations. So systemic corruption continues to be a challenge. It's something we need to address so that we can improve the quality of our democracy. Finally, around participatory engagement, as you can see from the findings, PNG continues again to struggle in that respect. And I always find the irony in this because as a Melanesian country, consensus-building and ensuring that people are part of decision-making has always been how we've operated. It's our ethos since time immemorial, but I think just under the structures and the systems of the state, we still are struggling. And again, I'm going back to that example that I had said earlier where we never really had centralized governments and people have been very used to just working in more closer clusters. So I think this is the culture of democracy and this is something that we really have to see improvements on, particularly in a time now where we're living in the digital age. There's more connectivity, there's more access, plus we're experiencing a youth bulge. So young people will want to contribute to the democracy and hopefully we're going to see some trends, better trends in the future. So in terms of challenges and opportunities, PNG is facing a triple crisis, not dissimilar from the world. COVID-19 is really the biggest sort of issue that's out there. And we as a country, you know, currently have 17,000 cases, 192 deaths. So you compare that to the rest of the world. Again, I said we've just either were not accounting for cases, which actually we know is a challenge for us. Or we've just also been quite lucky, but we'll have to just watch and see the Delta variant. And that's definitely going to have an impact in the way that we report for 2021 what the actions the governments will take. I think secondly, the thing that we are also also struggling with is political instability and indecisiveness as well that we're seeing at a political level. Parliament was adjourned in April this year. It was reported there was due to COVID-19, but we also know that there was also a vote of no confidence that was going to happen as well. And we're seeing now that we cannot bend the rules to suit our purpose, even to create more stability. So I think that's something that we're going to have to watch. Also, one of the biggest, I think, things that will just be on the radar in terms of a challenge is the fact that our PNG has not conducted a census. The last one that was done was more than 10 years ago. So it would be a big challenge for us in terms of the lead up to our 2022 elections, and it's definitely going to have an impact on our score. And I think just the last thing I want to just talk about was just the contracting economy and how that's also impacting as well on jobs, on people, on local agency, on business. These are certain policy decisions of the government, the current government when it came to certain, you know, like our Polgera, stowing negotiations on the special mining lease, you know, also on around the LNG projects. These are all very big challenges that will also have an impact on the state of the embarrassing the country. So just the final point around what reforms do I think we need to do to help improve our country rating. One policies are one thing we're really good at doing it. Actually, PNG has very comprehensive laws, and we are signatories to important international conventions. We need to focus on implementation. So that's the key challenge here is implementation and funding of these important institutions. For instance, ICAC, that needs to be funded. Two, we need to be serious about addressing corruption. And three, we need to stop politicizing institutions and let them do the work for us. It would be amazing if I don't mention just the recent buzz in Australian media, recently in PNG as well, around our largest bank, Bank South Pacific, that was embroiled in allegations of facilitating serious money laundering between PNG and Australia. And it's now the subject of enforcement, regulatory enforcement by our financial intelligence unit. But I think the bizarre twist was with the central bank, governor coming out to disassociate himself from and the bank from the unit that was actually conducting the investigations. And I think that this is the test of a democracy when you pass important reforms like anti-money laundering laws and other being tested. Being able to see it all the way through the penalties will actually show whether we're serious about addressing corruption in this country. And we can have a lot of potential, but if the systems aren't working, then we'll continue to fail and both are behind. So those are just my thoughts. And I think he put it in the comments. Thank you so much, Serena. There's plenty of issues there to discuss further later on. Before we go through that, I would, of course, very pleased to introduce our last but not certainly the least speaker to share his thoughts on the state of democracy in Solomon Islands. We have here Associate Professor Thirst Issues Tara Kabutaulaka. I hope I pronounce your name quite correctly, sir, who is also the director of the University of Hawaii Center for Pacific Island Studies. So Professor Thirst Issues is a political scientist who was written extensively on governance and geopolitical issues in the Pacific Islands with focus on Solomon Islands. If prior to joining the University of Hawaii, he was a fellow at the East West Center for six years. And prior to that, he was also a lecturer in history and political science at the University of South Pacific in Fiji. Professor, go ahead. Floris, now yours. Thank you, Nyla. And thank you to Idea for inviting me. And it's great to be here to participate. I also want to begin by congratulating Fiji on the win last night. I was watching the game and so thank you to our one talks from Fiji for lifting the Pacific, especially at this time. So what I'm going to do is go very quickly through the attributes that have been provided and make commentary in the case of Solomon Islands. And listening to Papua New Guinea and to a certain extent Fiji as well, listening to the case in Papua New Guinea in many ways Solomon Islands is like a smaller version of Papua New Guinea. A lot of the challenges that Papua New Guinea has, a lot of the reforms that have happened in Papua New Guinea over the years are often repeated in the Solomon Islands, but at a much smaller scale. And I think that's a reflection in part of the similarities in terms of the diversity of cultures and people that we have in those two countries. Papua New Guinea, of course, is really, really huge. Solomon Islands very small, but also very diverse. We have 87 different languages. English is my fourth. And so that's I think worth stating. What I'm going to do is go through the questions that have been provided and comment on the data that's been provided. And then I'll talk very briefly while doing that, some of the challenges and opportunities that Solomon Islands has and what reforms should be made and then look at 2021 and moving forward. In terms of the attributes that have been provided in the report and thank you to idea for this, I find them really useful in reflecting not only on Solomon Islands, but the rest of the Pacific and the rest of the world. In terms of the attributes that have been provided, Solomon Islands performed quite well in terms of representative government, particularly in terms of inclusive suffrage and elected government. And that's not surprising given that voter turnouts in the Solomon Islands have always been really high. Even during the period when we had conflict in the Solomon Islands between the late 1990 to about 2003, election turnouts have always been really, really high in the Solomon Islands. But I want to raise a couple of things in relation to this. First is the question, what motivates people to go out and vote? Is it because they want to participate in the electoral process and therefore in government, or is it because they think that they could benefit in a different way from participation in the election? And I would like to say that in the case of Solomon Islands, I think it's a bit of both, that people go out and vote because they want to participate in the electoral process, but also because they gain on the side from candidates or the hope that they will gain when candidates do get into office. And if that is the case, then it raises the question that participation does not always mess up democracy or it's not always because of what we think it is. And so something to think about when we see high election participation in these places, particularly Solomon Islands. The other thing I want to bring up is that the electoral systems that we have, and I'll come back to it when I talk about reforms. So Solomon Islands has a first-past-apost system. And if you look at the election results that we've had since independence actually, a lot of the members of parliament who eventually win usually receive less than half of the votes cast. That means that they do not necessarily represent a majority of the people of Solomon Islands. And so that's something that we need to look at when we are looking at this, that many of the members of parliament, and Solomon Islands has 15 members of parliament, many and in some cases, most of them receive less than half of the votes cast during elections. And I think we need to look at that. The other thing is political parties. And my understanding is that political parties are supposed to help organize ideas and then persuade voters that they are the alternative government. Like the case of Papua New Guinea, political parties in the Solomon Islands are pretty weak. And because of that, so there are two parts to it. One is the way in which political parties are organized. They are relatively weak. A lot of them emerge just before elections. And so that creates a whole lot of issues about campaigning and so forth. In 2000, Solomon Islands introduced something called the Political Parties Integrity Act, which is supposed to strengthen political parties in their participation in elections. It hasn't worked so far. And so the question arises, what are the weaknesses of the Political Party Integrity Act? And whether or not it has facilitated people's participation in elections or it has influenced election processes and outcomes in the way that the active textures of the political of the act wanted it to. And so there's a need to look at the Political Parties Integrity Act. I think the active textures of that act were looking at similar legislation in Papua New Guinea and looking at how it could work in the case of Solomon Islands. And the other side of it is that even if we do have strong political parties, the question arises, how well do voters understand the political parties and how they participate in it? For most voters in Solomon Islands, I would argue that their choice of who they elect is not necessarily because that person belongs to a political party or not. It's more because that person is related to them or there is a potential that that person, when he or she gets into Parliament, will give them something in return. And so looking at democracy and looking at how it operates at a very local level in these countries and what are the factors that influence people's participation or refusal to participate in the governance process. And so looking at political parties on one hand, but on the other hand, looking at voters' understanding of political parties. On fundamental rights, Solomon Islands did not do very well particularly on social rights and equity. And I think the reason for that are similar to issues raised in places like Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Access to justice in Solomon Islands is often complicated and expensive. And so a lot of people can't afford it. Not only because they can't afford lawyers, but because they can't afford to go to where these services are available. And many times they are available only in urban centres or in places far away from where most people live. And so those kinds of issues become important to look at. More recently, particularly in the past two years, with COVID-19 and state of emergency, which is still going on in the Solomon Islands. Although Solomon Islands does not have community infection of COVID-19, the government has been very strict. And therefore it raises questions about the responses to pandemic, just like responses to natural disasters, as Romulo mentioned, responses to pandemic and issues of human rights. And in the case of Solomon Islands, the cases that they've had so far have been restricted in the quarantine centres. And so questions arise. What kinds of rights do people have in quarantine centres around Honiara? Chexon government, we've scored Solomon Islands quite high in terms of media integrity. But then the question arises, yes, there is media freedom in Solomon Islands, but what is the quality of the media that we have? And I think quality of media reporting is equally important as we assess these things. Judicial independence parliament, effective parliament, Solomon Islands parliament has performed quite well in most cases. The parliamentary committees have worked quite well. Independence judiciary has also performed reasonably well. Impartial administration, that's a big issue. And like Papua New Guinea and to a certain extent Fiji as well, corruption is a huge challenge in Solomon Islands. Not only actual corruption of the cases that have been prosecuted, but also perceptions of corruption. So the mere perception of corruption has often affected the way in which governments function and also the way in which citizens interact with government. Solomon Islands in 2018 enacted the Anti-Corruption Act. And as a result of that act, there was the establishment of the independent commission on corruption. However, that act has not worked well as well as we wanted to. Just this morning, in the Solomon Star, Sir Albert Kabui, who was the former governor general, came out in the media saying that there is a need to review the Anti-Corruption Act because it has not worked in the way that we wanted it to. And again, just like Papua New Guinea, one of the challenges associated with corruption is the politicization of nearly every aspect of Solomon Islands institutions. And so that raises the question about public service and the need for reform within public service. Because we've seen, particularly since the 1990s, up until now, an increasing politicization of the public service. In terms of participatory engagement, Solomon Islands scored in terms of participatory engagement. The trend in civil society participation in Solomon Islands over the years is quite interesting. And I suppose I was looking at the civil society participation trend. And you will notice that from the 1980s up until the 1990s, you see Solomon Islands more civil society participation in Solomon Islands. And I think that is in part a reflection of the way in which civil society organizes itself within the country, as well as government responses to it. There is more organization in the 1980s up until recently. Local democracy trend over time is also interesting. And Solomon Islands hasn't participated, hasn't scored very well. Now, let me quickly comment on a number of things in terms of reform. I mentioned a whole lot of things. But I want to point out a couple of things. One is the need for electoral reform in the Solomon Islands. And electoral reform that enables people to participate much better, but also ensures that those who eventually represent them in parliament are elected by a majority of the voters. And along with that is voter education. And that's something I understand that it's difficult and longer term. But ultimately, who we elect into parliament depends not only on the institutions that we have, but also on the voters that we have. And then the second thing is public service reform. I think that's something that is very important. People have talked about it in the Solomon Islands for a long time, but we haven't seen it since independence. Political Parties Integrity Act needs to be revealed. The Anti-Corruption Act, as the former Governor General recently talked about. The other thing that I wanted us to think about is the intersection between economic development and democracy. And I think that's very important that people have access to economic development opportunities so that they can ensure they participate in democratic processes. And as I mentioned earlier on, the increasing politicization of Solomon Islands institution I think will over time corrode democracy in Solomon's. 2021 and moving forward, I think the biggest challenge now, like elsewhere in the world is COVID-19. Solomon Islands, as I mentioned earlier on, still doesn't have community infections. But if we do, it will be disastrous. It will have huge implications on governance. It will have huge implications on economic development. And people are really fearful. Government is very cautious. And we're looking at things that are happening in Fiji and Papua New Guinea with great concern. Papua New Guinea, in particular, because we share a border with them. And some of the infections that we've seen in the quarantine have come from Papua New Guinea through boats that are coming in from lay. So far, the government has been able to control that. But how long we'll be able to do that is another issue. And the pandemic is a serious one like everywhere else. So I'll stop there and we'll open it up for discussions. Thank you so much, Professor. So yeah, there's so much to discuss, I think, with our presentations. But I can see from your commentary and from Serena's and Romulus that there are indeed similarities between the three countries in terms of the data that we have presented and the experiences of your countries as well. And so I think this is the best time now that we can open up the floor for questions or comments from our audience. But I think I would like to go first to raise a question among our three very good speakers and experts. I think Serena mentioned this already and I just want to follow up between the three that under yes, of course, under fundamental rights is that very specific in the data. But as we know, a common issue among your countries is the underrepresentation of women and politics. And Serena mentioned this that there's no there's no women MP. And I think with Salomon, you only have a couple of MPs, very less than 10% representation. Fiji probably a little bit higher, but it's not as high as we want it to be as well. So my question is, what do you think would be needed to be done? What are the factors that needs to be addressed to at least, you know, find a way to increase the representation of women in politics? Serena, would you like to go first? Sure, Naila. So I mentioned it because I mean, obviously in PNG, we do have this big problem with women not being represented in parliament, particularly this parliament. And I think that the problem is like there's so many factors that are involved. But I think already with the current push that way for temporary special measures to have women go in through sort of desert seats, there's very split thinking on it here. And it's it's highly political, like it's, you know, people get emotionally charged when they're talking about it. I think for me, I'm very pragmatic. Really, parliament is there to represent the people and to represent the interests of the people and to make sure that voices are heard. I'm in support of temporary special measures. I think it is important because we are seeing especially on our social indicators, PNG is falling behind, especially around health and education. That is not the job of women, obviously, to raise these issues on the floor of parliament. But I think a diversity of different views will help to ensure that the debate is more robust. But in order for Astros to do that, you need to make sure that councils are working, that the whole bottom up process is also there. And I think that's going to be the challenge for us even in trying to put in place such a reform. But really, it is a it is a challenge. And we're going to see in 2022 how women begin to mobilize and organize them. But I think that hopefully, we're going to start seeing some shifts. I'm always very hopeful and popular because of the youth culture we are experiencing. Obviously, it is a it is a risk and a threat. But it's also an opportunity because I think the younger generation thinks a bit differently and has higher expectations of the type of society they want to live in. So it's a structural problem. But we're going to have to see what happens in the lead up because I think this government has been quite supportive and very special measures. And that's what we're hoping to get you. Thanks, Irina. Professor Artur Cichus, do you want to add anything else? In the case of Solomon Islands, I think there are currently three women in parliament, which again does not represent the population of women in the country. And like in Papua New Guinea, there have been discussions of temporary special measures to allocate certain number of seats for women. And like in Papua New Guinea, it has invoked a lot of debate, a lot of emotions, a lot of discussions. I do not see leadership coming from the current government in terms of putting that in place. And so I'm not sure that that will happen before the next election in 2023. And the women who have, you know, I think there are four now, just one election or the by-election earlier this year. The women who are now in parliament have managed to get into parliament either because of organization of women groups. And they have been quite strong prior to elections. And so supporting those groups, I think, is important. And there have been assistance, I think, from UNDP and DFAT and other organizations to help organize women's groups, educate voters, and so forth. But the other two came into parliament as a result of their husbands, either who were in parliament, one of them died. And so his wife was elected in his constituency. The other one, interestingly, the husband was kicked out as a result of corruption. He was taken to court. He was kicked out. He disqualified. And then his wife contested and won. So interesting dynamics in the south of this. Thank you, Professor. Romulo, do you want to add anything else? No, thanks. You know, it's important also to recognize that in the context of Fiji, it's really the political party system that not only encourages but also strengthens facilitates women's political representation. And what we've seen at least in this parliament and the previous parliament, which are the products of a new electoral system, is that through the party membership as well as through the party structure, that's where they've been able to push for women representation. You know, Fiji statistics that in 1995, about 4.3 percent of women were in parliament. But in 2020, that has gone up to 21.6 percent. With our current 51 settlement, we have more than 11. We have 11 women members of parliament. In the government side, there's about six or five. In the opposition side, there's about six or six or five. And most of the women in the government side are cabinet ministers or assistant cabinet ministers. So you'll see how the party structures and places the women representatives also determines in a lot in many respects their electability as well as their role when they are in parliament as members of parliament. Yeah. So, you know, the whole issue of, I'm sorry, was debated, was discussed, but we find that in working through the current structure of the political party system, that's been also an open door to push for women's political participation. And of course, recognizing the great amount of work that women's groups and NGOs have also put in to raise more awareness on the issue of women's political participation. Okay. Thank you so much, Ramula. So perhaps you can take a look at our chat feature here. If anybody of our participants, listeners would like to pose a question. You can use the chat function or use the raise hand function. Those also on Facebook, feel free to also comment there as well. I think we have, okay, we have a question that came in from Facebook. So the question is how big a concern is social media in relation to democracy? Is it worth looking at? So this question came from Sheldon. Sheldon, to which country would you like to address the question or all three of them? Perhaps we can just assume that there will be the three of them. So Ramula, would you like to start? Thanks. Thanks, Naila and Sheldon. That's a very, very important question. For me, I see that social media is crucial, if not fundamental to our whole system of democracy, where especially in, you know, democracies like ours that are in transition, where there often is intimidation, where there often is suppression of freedom of expression, robust debates and discussions on topical issues that people often tend to rely on social media to translate or to transmit the necessary information that they would like to put on the public platform as well as conversing. So in my perspective, social media is important and they provide a useful platform for engagement, for citizenry participation and for dialogue on a whole range of issues. And I find that it is not only citizens that have used social media effectively to raise concerns, to highlight issues of governance, to pinpoint challenges of governance by government, but also government themselves has used social media in terms of facilitating information as well as sharing information. And particularly in this time of pandemic, people are resorting to social media to get the information to ensure informed choices around vaccines, etc., etc. So, you know, going forward, there needs to be a lot more robust spaces created for social media and there must be a lot of restraint from trying to regulate or overregulate social media in this respect. But, of course, there is a recognition that, you know, there needs to be certain policies in place that could guide, you know, and prevent the issues like online bullying and other forms of vices that are also propagated on social media. But to answer Sheldon's question in a runabout kind of way, it is big, it is important and it is crucial for any democracy, particularly here in the Pacific. Thanks. Okay. How about you, Professor Tresichu, still have any take on this? Yeah, definitely. And Vinaka Ramulo for that. I agree with Ramulo that social media is huge and you find it everywhere. I come from a part of the Solomon Islands where I never saw a car until I was 12 years old. Kids from my village still don't see cars. It's that remote, but they are on social media. They jump the car aids right into the internet aids. And so the challenge is this. Yes, social media can be very useful. And Pacific Islanders have used it, whether shop talk in Papua New Guinea or any of the social media platforms around the Pacific. But at the same time, while it provides us the opportunity to participate, it also provides the opportunity to be misused as well. And we've seen it particularly with COVID-19, not only in Pacific Island places, but here in the US. And so my thing is this, I think that we should embrace it. But we should also in the longer term, prepare our people on how to use it. The technology is going to come. It's here already. The technology is going to keep changing. And Facebook will be strong age in the next couple of years. Something else will come up. And so the question then arises, are Pacific Island countries training their next generation on how to use these platforms responsibly? And what that means is that here we have all these social media technology, but we don't see them in our curriculums. Are we introducing how to use these things properly through our school system so that in 10 years time, we have a population that is not only technologically literate, but technologically responsible as well. So those are my thoughts. Thank you, Professor. How about you, Serena? Yeah, so definitely a very important question. And I mean, for Papua New Guinea, we've seen great transformation with the liberalization of the telecommunications sector 2007. It was the year that we had the second mobile company, Digital Cell, actually my current employer, come into the country. And it's really shifted things in terms of creating spaces for dialogue and without spaces for participation and dialogue in environments where government acts like in a very closed way and it's not easily accessed. It's been fundamental. And we've seen shifts now in political culture, people that are anti-corruption activists that have used social media as a platform to then contest elections have now gotten in. And I think it's not only about political participation, but it's also about the digital economy. And that's been one of the greatest advantages of social media, particularly Facebook, allowing local entrepreneurs to rise, trade with each other. And that's really what we need to see shift for Papua New Guinea, countries like mine, where the extractives industry dominates the economy. We have to start building a more inclusive economy and telecommunications allows for that. It will also allow for the quality that we need to see as well in terms of our democracy and people participation. So I also had another question that had come through from my chat and I just wanted to just raise it here by one of the Papua New Guinea audience that asked me to comment on the last five years and what we've seen in terms of the trends. I think for me, really what I'm interested in is seeing the engagement of people and local actors, how we are becoming more democratic in terms of our culture. And I'll keep talking about young people till the guys come home. But they're so important in terms of being able to build up a more inclusive culture that actually values the values of democracy. And this also comes back fundamentally to the individual and where do we place the individual, how they're able to think for themselves and act in their own accord. In 2016, we had very big riots across our university's protests and against the government of the day. And we saw the mobilization of young people actually having an impact on the 2017 elections and PNC that was in power and lost a number of its critical seats. And that really is the part of the youth and mobilization and what they're able to do when they come solidly behind the cause. For us, though, the problem is how do you sustain that type of action? How do you sustain those important spaces for critical discussions around reform? So we begin shifting the culture and the politics away from the individual big men towards actually what are the policies that are going to help take this country forward? What's the policies that are going to help take our region forward? Because a stronger Pacific means a stronger Australia. And I think at a time where we're seeing also China begin to play a more active role in our region in terms of trade and using aid across, you're also seeing now that clash of communist controlled government, authoritarian government versus democratic ideals. And young people are watching this debate happen on Facebook. But really, how are we going to control that narrative and explain to young people the type of principles, the type of culture, the type of economy that's needed to help improve their quality of life? At the end of the day, it's about the quality of life of the individuals. And that's a whole shift that has to happen. But I think with the Pacific, I'll go back again, the strength lies with the youth, and we really have to harness that. Thank you so much, Serena. We have a question here from Avinash, a former colleague. Welcome back, Avinash. Please go ahead. Thank you, Nala. You can hear me? Yes, we can perfectly hear you. Sorry, I can't show my face because my hair is very long. It's okay. Thanks for the opportunity. I know I think two of the panelists are Professor Tassis and Ramulo. My question is to Professor Tassis. I just felt that I was in his classroom ages ago because what he mentioned, what he outlined, almost sounds the same. There's rampant corruption and the problem with the voting system problem. It seems that hardly much has changed. I'm wondering what good has happened over the years in terms of democracy and especially in relation to democracy. He mentioned that CSOs have, they play a good role or the important role. It seems that CSOs have been playing such a good important role that people have all of a sudden become too much dependent on them or they see them as the alternative to the state. He also mentioned the last thing. He said that there should be more relationship between economic empowerment and democracy. But given that limited resources for industries that Solomon Islands have, what do you think would be the economic opportunities that the government could create? Because the government, I think, may want to, but there are limited opportunities for them to create that. Thanks, Nella. Professor? Good to hear from you again. And thank you for those really wonderful questions. I think what we've seen and you're absolutely right that if you look back 10 years ago or even 20 years ago, nothing much has changed. Not only in the case of Solomon Islands, but we see it in many parts of the Pacific, except for places like Palau or some of the smaller island countries. And part of the reason for that and particularly for the case of the Solomon Islands is the political instability that we've had. A high turnover of government, a violent crisis from the late 1990s to 2003. We had 14 years of regional assistance mission from Australia and the rest of our Pacific Island neighbors. And during that time, it was mostly Solomon Islands was on recovery mode in the 14 years of Ramsey. And so that's part of the reason for that. In terms of economic development, I personally believe that Solomon Islands doesn't have a problem with resources. It has a problem with management. The Solomon Islands has a lot of resources that could be utilized for purposes of economic development. But we have had problems managing how we use that and also managing the money or the income generated from that kind of resources, whether it's fisheries, forestry, now increasingly mining at the moment. So those are all natural resource-based resources. There is also oil palm plantation. And increasingly, a lot of people are now getting into agriculture, but less support from government. And so it's how we manage the economic development that's important. And the reason why I mentioned the intersection between economic development and democracy, one of the reason is that many Solomon Islanders at the moment are too busy trying to survive economically. They don't have time to think about whether they are participating in the governance process and how they are doing it. Their daily engagement is figuring out what are we going to eat at the end of today. And so if we can improve people's livelihoods, then they can begin thinking about governance process and how they participate in that. I hope that answers your question, Nelson. It's really wonderful to see what I must say. Thanks. Thank you so much, Professor. We have a question here from Shailendra. Shailendra, go ahead. Thank you very much. Just a very few quick observations. Firstly, thank you, Adia. And thank you, speakers, for a very important session. And I found it really informative. I'm from a media journalism background. And these two are very closely linked, media and democracy. So I'm going to talk very quickly a bit about democracy, just some observations. I agree about the need for education on social media. There's a huge gap in the curriculum, not just at university level. University level is catching up to some extent. But what we need is a curriculum at the grassroots level at primary school, secondary school, because the learning has to start early and it has to be ongoing. And I think we were not under, we were not understating when we said that social media has a huge impact on democracy. And the impact is sometimes diabolical. I give you a very quick example about how mainstream media is affected by social media in our very region. First of all, mainstream media, they use social media. Yes, it's a very important tool for mainstream media. But because of the abuse of social media, what's happening is that governments in the region are passing draconian legislation in order to control social media. However, mainstream media are getting caught in the crossfire. The legislation also affects mainstream media, even though professional journalists are not abusing social media. So mainstream media also becoming restricted, which is a backward step as far as democracy is concerned. And then again, I really agree about the comment about media freedom. Sorry, the freedoms afforded to media is a measure of democracy, yes, but also the media output, the quality of the product, the news product. The problem in our region is this. Mainstream media organizations, they are not competitive, salary wise. So there's a huge accretion of professional journalists. It's not an easy solution. It's very easy to point out the problem. Finding the solution is much harder. So we've got a huge brain drain from journalism into other communication sectors. For example, government departments can pay much better salaries than the news media organizations. The other problem is that journalists are not very well educated. Many of them, maybe less than 50% at least in Fiji and some other Melanesian countries, less than 50% are university educated. So what we really have in journalism is an under qualified, under trained and inexperienced young journalist cohort forced to address some really, really complex issues. And this is something that needs to be addressed by more training in specific areas. Thank you. Thank you. We have a question here from, okay, just to probably take note that we have gone beyond our allotted time, but since, you know, this discussion has been really quite dynamic and productive. So I hope the speakers and our listeners are still on board if probably we can do another five minutes of discussion. Yep. I think there's a really good question here from Jayath on the, his comment is that Pacific nations are reached with their own traditional and religious structures of governance. However, in some cases, they have been pushed away with the acquisition that they are politicized. How important it is to include, demarcate or totally remove such models from democratic governance. So who among our speakers would like to take that on first? Professor Tersichos, do you want to? I think Romulo is the most qualified because of these experiences. Okay, Romulo, who is yours? Thanks. Thank you, Professor, for that hospital pass. It certainly is a very interesting question and it comes from, you don't know the need, particularly when we're looking at the political dynamics in Fiji, to be addressed because as the commentator has rightfully alluded to and of course I recognize that Mr. Jagger is a political party leader here in Fiji and recognizes that tensions and the struggles where the church and the religious institutions are accused of being politicized. I probably start on the notion that politics is everything, everything around us is can be defined, can be argued in the context of politics and it is important to be engaging in politics, whether it is the church, whether it is the traditional structures because politics ultimately is about the representative will of the people and the people in the Pacific, for example, are religious in the Pacific are cultural and it is very important to recognize that you bring religion and you bring culture into your politics and therefore these identities must be able to complement and strengthen our politics as opposed to be ostracized and marginalized and and say that, you know, they have no part to play because whether we appreciate that or not, when we go to, for example, a traditional Fijian village we and in a time of politics you'd look at the village members as a constituency but the village members are also part of a traditional and a religious structure and they cannot be disassociated from each other in that respect. I find that therefore it is important in the context of Fiji, in the context of the Pacific that religion and culture for the religious and cultural forms of governance needs to be encouraged and needs to find its synergy with our western political democracy or democracy, democratic process in itself. They for me complement and strengthen our political systems as opposed to weaken and diminish the value of the western democratic systems that we have inherited. You know our history books tells us that even before western democratic systems were in place we have functioning systems that were both traditional that were both religious and therefore in that light I find that they have a bigger part to play in strengthening our democratic and government systems in the Pacific and in the context of Fiji of course in that respect. Thanks. Thank you so much Romulo. I think we have to unfortunately end our session here. Thank you so much to everyone. It was such a really dynamic and also learning experience for me and I'm pretty sure to some of our participants as well. This fruitful exchange and I think 90 minutes to hours is not enough to really unpack all these issues but given the depth and scope of this exchange I certainly look forward to further discussions on how the democracies in the Melanesia can be strengthened and maintained. There are certainly issues that really need to be immediately addressed to avoid further backsliding but I think the ideas and the reforms that were brought forward here today are certainly food forethought so probably we'll see in the near future we'll probably continue and focus on on some of these reforms. Also on behalf of IDEA I wish to once again express our sincere thanks to our guest speakers, to Serena Romulo, Associate Professor Tersichus, to our Regional Director Lena for generously sharing their time and expertise and before we formally close this webinar I would like to ask everyone to probably switch on their video for a group screenshot so it's not photoshopped anymore or photo shoot so a group screenshot. Let Rajan take over from here. Thank you so much to everyone, to all our online participants and those listening and viewing from Facebook as well. Thank you. So we have few blank screens every night she's sitting here. All right another one sorry one two. All right thank you very much all are looking nice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everyone.