Law and politics: Does Chuuk have a governor yet?
- Admin
- 3 hours ago
- 4 min read
As the May 1 swearing-in date for the new Chuuk governor approached, the U.S. Embassy in Kolonia issued a security alert advising U.S. citizens to exercise extreme caution and avoid going out amid the looming specter of street violence. In a notice posted on its Facebook page, the embassy warned of "a potential for protests, civil unrest, or political demonstrations at the Chuuk state government complex and other public areas in Weno."
The new swearing-in brought with it a competing slate of people calling themselves governor and lieutenant governor, but, to everyone’s relief, did not bring violence.
Around that same time, I wrote about the post-election chaos in Chuuk, the inconclusive results and arbitrary detentions. There were dueling election commissions, one whose term of office expired and the other not officially confirmed. Now, more than one team has taken the oath of office. Or at least an oath of office.
Both sides beat a quick path to the courthouse to file dueling petitions and contradictory actions. One side filed in state court, the other in federal court. And the confusion deepened. One summons from the state court instructed that any response be filed in the federal court. Somewhere, there is a Chuuk State Supreme Court opinion that may or may not indicate the parties agreed on the election’s rightful victor.
Despite all the off-island judicial development conferences that have occasionally left courtrooms empty for lack of judges (I know, I’m being unfair and exaggerating), court websites have not been updated in over a decade, leaving case filings little more than rumors.
At this point, I have made two discoveries, neither of them surprising: there is no reliable information coming from the islands, and none of the organizations that monitor elections around the world, the Carter Center among them, have taken any interest, despite the international community, whatever that is, and its disaster-response industrial complex swarming the island in the aftermath of Typhoon Sinlaku.
The first hit on a Google search for “international election monitors” was International IDEA’s Global Election Monitor. The closest to an analysis of anything in the Federated States of Micronesia was a background piece on the 2024 Palau presidential election.
Granted, this was a state election, not a presidential race. Election monitors, like any organization, can be as narrow as their boards and funders allow. But this concerns the largest state in a four-state political confederation, often plagued by dysfunction when its members are not unanimous, amid the flux of pan-Pacific Chinese-American identity.
So utter silence from an international community that has been obsessed with democratic governance and a rules-based order is deafening.
To be fair, Chuuk’s situation is a bit different from that of your typical budding dictator, or autocrat, if you prefer to be en vogue. Despite the perpetual lack of development, Chuuk has at least the skeleton of a civil society.
The federal and state constitutions guarantee certain basic rights. There is a bicameral legislature (the FSM is an outlier with a single legislative house) an executive branch, and a system of dual sovereignty with the national government of the Federated States of Micronesia. Powers not expressly granted to the national government are reserved to the states.
And perhaps most importantly, it has an independent judiciary, though one still bound by clannish institutions and deeply hesitant to issue bright-line legal rulings.
The FSM constitution models itself after that of the U.S. and thus guarantees that the states will adopt a democratic form of government. Basically, it means that the states will operate by majority rule through a democratic vote. No monarchs, but political legacies are fine; no dictatorships, but coercive force is encouraged.
How the national government—any national government—guarantees that is another question, one with which the U.S. itself has struggled. The 1860s come to mind. The Civil War, which established federal supremacy in more ways than one while ushering in certain constitutional amendments that reshaped the legal landscape.
The moment has arrived for the courts to make sense of the swirling chaos, especially the FSM Supreme Court, which, as the national court, must determine what the guarantee clause means for the nation.
Much like the U.S. Supreme Court reviewing whether state actions are at odds with the U.S. Constitution or federal law, there is hardly a better opportunity for the FSM Supreme Court to lend greater depth to its own guarantee clause.
Given what is currently available in the court dockets, is far from obvious that this is what will happen.
If anything, Chuuk suffers from too much democracy, not too little. Small populations make elected officeholders more accessible to their constituents, but they can also reinforce personal loyalties and self-interest. The individual can both move earth and permanently veto.
ADVERTISEMENT
The average U.S. congressional district has roughly 760,000 residents. The FSM’s population is under 115,000. One demographic website, nationsgeo.com, calculates it as 0 percent of the world’s total population. The citizen-to-legislator ratio is simple math.
Just as surely as typhoons will strike and the power will go out, if there is an election in the region, a challenge to that election is sure to follow.
What often resolves an election impasse in a democratic society is one candidate stepping aside and conceding the race to an opponent for the good of the country, often after a recount and court battle. Jefferson v. Adams in 1800, Kennedy v. Nixon in 1960, Bush v. Gore in 2000 all come to mind. Nixon didn’t seek a recount, and Gore lost at the Supreme Court.
Perhaps the next month will bring order to the chaos. Or perhaps not.
Gabriel McCoard is an attorney who previously worked in Palau and Chuuk State. Send feedback to gabrieljmccoard@hotmail.com.