Opinion: Is It Time for Parliamentary Hearings on Political Appointments?
While parliamentary hearings on political appointees might seem like a practice rooted in U.S. politics, particularly within the Republican tradition, introducing them in Tonga could significantly strengthen the country’s fledgling parliamentary democracy and foster a much-needed political culture shift. The public scrutiny and approval process by a parliamentary committee would add a layer of transparency, accountability, and legitimacy to key appointments.
This is a critical issue—not just for ensuring that public confidence in the administration remains high, but also for providing a formal avenue where lingering concerns can be addressed. Such hearings would allow both the decisions themselves and the appointees’ credentials to be examined in a structured and public forum.
Of course, there is the risk of increased populism and political theatrics, where unqualified individuals make unrealistic promises simply to gain power. However, the potential for political grandstanding should not outweigh the broader benefits of preventing opaque decision-making. The greater concern should be avoiding governance failures that occur behind closed doors, without public scrutiny.
So far, Tonga has operated under a form of corporate technocracy, where appointments are often justified as being “too technical” for the general public to understand. However, this attitude is deeply condescending to democracy itself.
This is not to suggest that technical and professional expertise is unimportant. On the contrary, it is vital. But democratic governance requires more than just expert knowledge—it requires public consent. The legitimacy of an administration is not merely established at the ballot box; it must be continuously reaffirmed through openness and accountability. Every appointment to a position of authority should be as important as the election itself, demonstrating an administration’s gratitude for the public’s trust.
This principle should apply not only to ministers but also to permanent secretaries, CEOs, and even the boards of state-owned enterprises. Public hearings would not only provide transparency into why certain individuals are appointed but also offer an opportunity for the public to understand their values, priorities, and vision.
The Corporatisation of Democracy
A troubling trend has emerged in Tonga’s governance: public services are increasingly being run like corporate entities, where ministries and departments must justify their budgets by proving they can generate revenue.
If a government agency is required to generate revenue from services it is legally obligated to provide, then the public is essentially being charged twice—once through taxation and again through service fees. How is this different from fraudulent double invoicing? The only distinction seems to be that the government has the power to define what is morally right and wrong. But should executive authority also grant the right to redefine ethical standards? Are government leaders infallible, like popes and patriarchs? Surely, the answer must be a resounding no!
Another unusual practice, which emerged after the 2010 reforms, is the designation of lead technical executives as “Chief Executive Officers.” Traditionally, these individuals serve as assistants to ministers, who in turn serve under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Logically, there should be only one Chief Executive Officer—the Prime Minister. The proliferation of so-called “chiefs” in government creates a leadership structure that is both confusing and inappropriate. Otherwise, we risk embodying the old adage: “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians.”
Public Consent and Confidence
Public trust is one of the hardest assets to earn in governance. Yet, it is essential. Without it, even the best policies and initiatives will struggle to gain traction.
Too often, governments focus on grand declarations of economic ambition—attracting investors, showcasing expertise, and outlining national development goals—while neglecting to engage the very people they serve. Voter participation should not end at the ballot box; governments must continuously seek public engagement, not just in political processes but also in shaping policies and decision-making.
The public is, ultimately, the greatest investor in any government. No law or policy can function effectively or sustainably without public consent and active participation.
If Tonga is to move beyond the old Imperial Cabinet system, where governance was concentrated within the Monarch and Privy Council, and truly embrace a parliamentary democracy, then elected officials must commit to a new political culture. Commoner MPs should resist the temptation to behave like mini-monarchs, and government CEOs should not be treated as modern-day lords. Such attitudes not only undermine democracy but are also an insult to all involved—most notably, to the Monarch himself.
Dave Motulalo
