Lisepa Paeniu - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Uploads
Papers by Lisepa Paeniu
HOW CAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY FUNCTION MORE EFFECTIVELY IN SMALL PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES SUCH AS TUVALU AND NAURU? , 2012
This paper first outlines the underlying causes of instability in Nauru and Tuvalu. The problems ... more This paper first outlines the underlying causes of instability in Nauru and Tuvalu. The problems that executive instability causes in both countries will also be explained. The third section of this paper considers various legislative and constitutional provisions from other Pacific island countries that could be used to control the problem. The first provision that will be discussed was selected from the Constitution of Kiribati, specifically s 32, concerning the way which a president is elected. This provision was selected not only because of Kiribati’s political stability but also because there have been multiple occasions where this provision has been recommended for adoption in Nauru and Tuvalu. The second provision that has been selected is from the 1963 Electoral Act of Samoa. The newly introduced s 15 F was chosen given that it controls party-hopping in Samoa. In Nauru and Tuvalu’s context such provision would address the issue of floor-crossing which is another cause of instability. The last legal control in this research paper is the 2003 Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidacy Act of Papua New Guinea, which deals with restricting the ability to vote on motions of no confidence. In conclusion, a summary of which control(s) are more suitable for Nauru and Tuvalu will be explained.
HOW CAN PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY FUNCTION MORE EFFECTIVELY IN SMALL PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES SUCH AS TUVALU AND NAURU? , 2012
This paper first outlines the underlying causes of instability in Nauru and Tuvalu. The problems ... more This paper first outlines the underlying causes of instability in Nauru and Tuvalu. The problems that executive instability causes in both countries will also be explained. The third section of this paper considers various legislative and constitutional provisions from other Pacific island countries that could be used to control the problem. The first provision that will be discussed was selected from the Constitution of Kiribati, specifically s 32, concerning the way which a president is elected. This provision was selected not only because of Kiribati’s political stability but also because there have been multiple occasions where this provision has been recommended for adoption in Nauru and Tuvalu. The second provision that has been selected is from the 1963 Electoral Act of Samoa. The newly introduced s 15 F was chosen given that it controls party-hopping in Samoa. In Nauru and Tuvalu’s context such provision would address the issue of floor-crossing which is another cause of instability. The last legal control in this research paper is the 2003 Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidacy Act of Papua New Guinea, which deals with restricting the ability to vote on motions of no confidence. In conclusion, a summary of which control(s) are more suitable for Nauru and Tuvalu will be explained.