Introduction

In the wake of Vanuatu’s 2024 referendum, which introduced Articles 17A and 17B into the Constitution, a new constitutional debate has emerged — one that tests the balance between party discipline and parliamentary freedom.

At the heart of the discussion is Article 27, titled “Privileges of Members.” It protects Members of Parliament (MPs) from arrest, detention, or prosecution for anything they say or how they vote inside Parliament or its committees — except in cases of treason, serious crime, or breach of the Constitution.

This article safeguards MPs’ freedom to debate, speak honestly, and represent their constituents without fear of political retaliation. But with the addition of Articles 17A and 17B, the boundaries of that freedom are now being questioned.

---

The Opposition’s Position: “The Covenant of Democracy”

The Opposition argues that the real covenant of democracy lies between the people who vote and the MPs they elect — not between MPs and political parties. In their view, party politics should come second to that direct bond of representation.

As one Opposition figure put it:

“Covenant blong democracy hemi between ol pipol we oli vote wetem ol MP blong olgeta nomo. Politic blong pati hemi bihaen. Nation hemi no save be controlled by politics, be by democracy. Hemia nao sovereign covenant – mo kotol bambae tu testem lan.”

In simple terms, they believe Articles 17A and 17B — which require MPs to keep party allegiance or lose their seat — undermine that democratic covenant. Their position is that these new rules give too much power to party executives and strip away the independence of MPs, effectively weakening the principle protected by Article 27.

The Opposition has hinted that the courts may have to test this “sovereign covenant” argument, framing it as a defense of democracy against excessive party control.

---

Why the Argument Doesn’t Hold Up

While the Opposition’s rhetoric is powerful, its legal foundation is weak. Here’s why.

1️⃣ Vanuatu’s democracy is representative, not direct

The people exercise sovereignty through their elected MPs, and MPs operate within the framework of the Constitution. The covenant between voters and MPs is moral, not legal; once elected, MPs are bound by constitutional rules, not personal voter mandates.

2️⃣ Political parties are part of the democratic system

Contrary to the claim that “party politics comes after,” Vanuatu’s parliamentary democracy relies on political parties for stability, policy direction, and accountability. Articles 17A and 17B were approved precisely to prevent instability caused by constant party-hopping and no-confidence motions. Far from undermining democracy, they reinforce it by providing consistency and clear representation.

3️⃣ The “sovereign covenant” is philosophical, not constitutional

The Constitution contains no clause called the “sovereign covenant.” Sovereignty belongs to the people — yes — but it is exercised through constitutional processes. Once the people voted “Yes” in the 2024 referendum, the amendments became part of that sovereign will.

4️⃣ Article 27 does not override constitutional amendments

Article 27 protects MPs for what they say or how they vote inside Parliament, but it doesn’t prevent the Constitution itself from setting conditions for holding a seat. Articles 17A and 17B define membership requirements, not punishments for speech. Parliamentary privilege remains intact; only the grounds for vacancy have been clarified.

---

The Bigger Picture

What we are witnessing is not the collapse of democracy but its evolution.
The 2024 referendum — voted on by the people themselves — represents democracy in action. By approving Articles 17A and 17B, voters chose stability over chaos, accountability over opportunism.

Article 27 continues to protect MPs inside Parliament, but 17A and 17B now ensure that once an MP accepts a party’s ticket, they honor that commitment throughout their term.

The true “covenant of democracy” is not broken — it has simply been rewritten by the people themselves through lawful, constitutional change.

---

Conclusion

The debate over Article 27 and the new amendments is an important test for Vanuatu’s young democracy. But the facts remain clear:

• The people approved 17A and 17B through a national referendum.
• The Constitution — not emotion or party loyalty — is the final authority.
• Article 27 still protects MPs’ voices, while 17A and 17B protect the nation’s stability.

As Vanuatu moves forward, the real challenge will be ensuring that these constitutional safeguards work hand in hand — preserving both the freedom of Parliament and the discipline of democracy.

---

This post is intended for public discussion and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or an official interpretation of the Constitution of the Republic of Vanuatu. Readers are encouraged to seek independent legal or constitutional advice for clarification on any specific issues mentioned.

The author supports open and respectful dialogue on national matters that promote understanding, accountability, and unity across all sectors of Vanuatu society.