(land) rights - for postcolonial/global times vis-à-vis the multifarious experiences
(impositions and appropriations) of Westphalian nation-state formation and Christianity.
Defences of Tonga’s relatively recent “status-quo” are dismissed by opponents as “neo-
traditionalism”. Critics see this argument, where appeals are made to the integrity of “pre-
contact” Pacific Island cultures, as idealistic at best and reactionary essentialism at worst. In
the words of a prominent Tongan social critic and satirist, this “romantic neo-traditionalism
[is] championed by those who are reaping the juiciest fruits that the world capitalist
economy gives. These champions tend to wail by the banks of the River of Babylon and
proclaim undying devotion to what they have abandoned” (Hau’ofa [1988]1995:165). That
said, the various voices of contemporary indigenous politics whether in the Pacific region or
elsewhere, differ widely in how they read recent colonial pasts vis-à-vis more “ancient”
notions of privilege and socio-economic differentials (caste, gender status/rank, class) let
alone how these are rendered by the hyper-liberalism of the globalizing present (Chowdhry
& Nair 2002, Oxfam 2005). More on these online-to-offline positionings in the next section.
Summing up then. The range, intensity and longevity of these political debates, particularly
in the Kava Bowl but also in the Kamehameha Roundtable and Polynesian Café forums
(where Tongan, Samoan, US, and world politics are broached) indicate more than finger-
twitching, mouse-clicking emotional reactions to the topic on hand. It is also too hasty a
conclusion to attribute the fierceness of pro-royalty/pro-status quo stances in the Kava Bowl
to neo-traditionalism or, as in the case of off-shore participants, “long-distance nationalism”
and then dismiss their articulation on the Internet as bombast. The ebb and flow of these
discussions and how interventions are (self-)moderated and permitted to unfold in their own
ways online shows the knife cutting both ways. The realities of socio-economic
disadvantage, everyday discrimination and “under-performance” in education, employment
and health figures in the officially egalitarian meritocracies of Australia, New Zealand and
the USA, where most of the diasporic participants live - and vote, are reminders that
everyday access to the democratic bounties promised by individualistic, hyperliberal
consumer societies is not self-explanatory either. For disadvantaged (ethnic, sexual,
religious) minorities even less so these days. What these discussions have articulated over
the years is that the ups and downs of democracy “Tongan-style” are a particularly Tongan
problem, requiring a Tongan solution within the translocal sphere of inter/action that
characterises the everyday lives of people from the postcolonial Pacific Islands. What any of
the former questions entail in theory and practice are, in turn, integral to these
contestations.
IV
Rearticulations
[The] democratic revolution is simply the terrain upon which there operates a logic of
displacement supported by an egalitarian imaginary, but that does not determine the
direction in which this imaginary will operate. … There is no unique privileged position
from which a uniform continuity of effects will follow, concluding with the
transformation of society as a whole. … (Laclau & Mouffe 1985: 168, 169, original
emphasis)
Let us all try to teach those who need teaching that free speech is NOT obscenity and
gossip. Free Speech is exchange of views and opinions under the underlying context
of respect and love for each other, for our culture, and for our island Kingdom
[Tonga] that is so far away from many of us (Phil Tukia, in Sandy Macintosh,
27/03/00 )
Tolerance was something I HAD to nurture because everything I stand for is one
12
Convention