Last week, His Majesty Tupou VI announced to the Cabinet in a letter that he has withdrawn his appointment of Fekita Utoikamanu as the kingdom’s Foreign Minister and his appointment of Prime Minister Sovaleni to the Defence Ministry. After his decision, the royal entourage departed on a tour of the islands. When the decision was made, Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni was still recovering in a hospital in New Zealand. Fekita Utoikamamu, who was the Foreign Minister, is still participating in international meetings as if she were still in that position. This suggests that the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and Cabinet have decided to stand up to His Majesty and challenge his authority.

For Prime Minister Sovaleni and his Cabinet, obeying may mean admitting to a loss of confidence and a collapse of popular support. So, they have chosen to defy the decision, opting for a legalistic approach and departing from tradition to rebel against the King. They responded that His Majesty cannot fire any of the Ministers. According to the Cabinet’s current interpretation, the King can only act based on the Prime Minister’s advice. The Prime Minister has apparently chosen to stand by Fekita and oppose Tupou VI.

However, the King did not state his decision explicitly. Thus, the public is left in a conundrum trying to figure out whose decision will stand: the King’s stated action, which has become fact, or the government’s political interpretation of the Constitution. Only one of these can be true, and only one will prevail. Claims that His Majesty is acting in contradiction of democracy are false. The decision aligns neatly with democratic precedent from previous administrations.

This Prime Minister and his Cabinet positioned themselves as the center-right faction in support of His Majesty, despite having a very progressive outlook and a not-so-conservative modus operandi. This resulting ‘chicken’s game’ of who will yield first will have serious repercussions for politics and governance in Tonga indefinitely into the future.

Traditionally, the King has often expressed his wishes on what the government ought or ought not to do, and by tradition, even the most progressive “anti-monarchy” administrations have implemented them as direct policy. This time, the pro-monarchy establishment has chosen to adopt a legalistic approach and oppose the King, despite not being elected to Parliament.

If the government persists and the King rescinds his recent actions and proclamations, there will be irretrievable precedent for future governments to ignore or even bully the King into complying with their wishes. The Prime Minister and his Attorney General responded publicly to the King’s letter, but later decided that they can always “resolve these issues traditionally,” perhaps aiming to instill hope in their supporters that they can force the King into a “compromise,” even though His Majesty did not make his wishes explicitly known.