South Pacific: Samoa’s Approach to Plural Governance
Samoa is often viewed as one of the Pacific’s most stable democracies, having regular elections, an independent judiciary, as well as peaceful transfers of power. But that description captures only part of how the country’s government operates. Alongside parliamentary institutions, Samoa’s political system blends democratic representation with customary authority rooted in the fa‘amatai – a chiefly structure that continues to shape land ownership, village governance, and political legitimacy.
This hybrid model, blending democratic procedure with customary power, does more than define Samoa’s domestic politics; it shapes how the country engages with the outside world. From negotiating foreign investment to managing aid relationships, Samoa’s foreign policy reflects a political system in which external decisions must remain accountable not only to voters, but to villages, families, and chiefs.
Political Institution
Samoa’s constitution and legislative assembly operate in a parliamentary democracy alongside the indigenous fa’amatai chiefly system of governance and social organisation. Roughly 85% of Samoa is customary land supervised under the authority of matai chiefs, a system explicitly protected by the constitution. These protections extend not only to land tenure but to matai titles themselves (Samoan chiefs) and its complimentary authority, which therefore prohibits alienation of customary land. This highlights how Samoa embeds customary authority into the legal framework of a functioning modern state
The matai are still central to discussions and decisions focused on land use, social order and village governance, and, until the 1990s, dominated eligibility for parliamentary office as well as voting rights. Specifically, prior to 1991 only Matai could vote, and Matai title owners were the only people allowed to run for office. This decision was tied to guarantees that national politics remained closely aligned and tethered to local village leadership. As a result, Samoa’s foreign policy – particularly in areas involving land, development, and external partnerships – is shaped not only by national institutions, but by local communities whose consent remains politically and socially indispensable.
Foreign Investment and Customary Authority
Unlike many developing economies, Samoa cannot easily convert political approval into commercial access. As mentioned previously most of the country is held under customary tenure by extensive familial communities and a matai chief at the forefront. A system not just customary but protected by the constitution. Therefore, unlike freehold property systems elsewhere, customary land cannot be sold – either foreign or domestically – forcing negotiations for only leases rather than purchases and will usually involve family networks, not just government ministries.
Efforts to make customary land more accessible to development have proved contentious. In the mid-2010s, a group of matai village chiefs filed an official complaint against the Asian Development Bank (ADB), arguing that reforms intended to promote the economic use of customary land risked undermining communal ownership and were implemented without “meaningful consultation.” An internal ADB review later found evidence and concluded that this advice for these reforms fell short of operational standards precisely because it failed to incorporate local voices or respect established customary authority.
The practical effect is that even legally permissible leases – and the promise of infrastructure or tourism investment they might unlock – often slow down or reshape as negotiations wind through village consensus processes and matai deliberations. For investors accustomed to clear titles and centralized approvals, Samoa’s land regime is not merely legal complexity but political reality – an expression of community consent that cannot be bypassed without political cost.
Aid Donors and Government Reform
The constraints foreign investors encounter in Samoa are not unique to the private sector. Aid donors and development partners – often operating with explicit governance and reform objectives – face similar limits when external priorities intersect with customary authority.
Development assistance is a key priority in regards to Samoa’s economic resilience as it helps fund infrastructure, public services, and climate change resistance. But aid relationships have also served as a conduit for governance reform. Major donors may begin the process of encouraging changes aligned with liberal democratic norms – ranging from judicial independence to gender representation and land administration. These priorities, while broadly accepted on a national level, sometimes encounter limits when reforms intersect with opposing customary authority embedded at the village level.
International institutions such as the World Bank (within many of their pdf plans) and UNDP have acknowledged and explicitly stated that governance in Samoa operates through a plural system, where formal state institutions coexist with village councils that retain social and disciplinary authority. As a result, donor-backed reforms frequently emphasize “local ownership” and consultation, reflecting an awareness that policy changes lacking customary legitimacy risk resistance or uneven implementation. Australian aid programs, for example, have increasingly framed governance support around partnership rather than conditionality, seeking to align reform objectives with local norms rather than override them.
The growing tensions inherent in this approach became visible during Samoa’s 2021 constitutional and electoral crisis, when disputes over judicial authority and parliamentary procedure drew international attention. While external actors emphasized constitutional process, domestic debates reflected deeper questions about legitimacy, authority, and the boundaries of reform. The episode underscored a recurring reality for aid donors: in Samoa, institutional change cannot be sustained through legal design alone – it must be negotiated within a political culture where authority is both democratic and customary.
The Future
Samoa’s political system resists easy categorization. Its democratic institutions operate alongside a traditional customary governance structure that continues to command social legitimacy, particularly in matters involving land, authority, and collective decision-making.This hybrid model shapes how Samoa engages with external actors, imposing political and social constraints. This is seen when foreign investors and aid donors alike encounter a reality in which state approval alone is insufficient, and where reforms must be negotiated not only through formal institutions but within communities that retain meaningful authority.
This dynamic has at times slowed development initiatives and frustrated external partners accustomed to centralized decision-making. However, it has also protected Samoa from the volatility seen elsewhere in the region, anchoring policy decisions in locally recognized legitimacy rather than short-term political expediency. The persistence of customary authority ensures that engagement with the global economy remains mediated through social consent, limiting the extent to which external priorities can override domestic norms.
For foreign governments, donors, and investors, Samoa’s experience offers a cautionary lesson. Engagement that treats governance as purely institutional risks misunderstanding how power is exercised and sustained. In Samoa, foreign policy outcomes are shaped as much by villages and families as by ministries and parliaments – a reality that demands patience, adaptation, and respect for political systems that do not conform neatly to liberal democratic templates.