I only started this blog this week, so it seems like my first few entries will be retroactive. I found myself with so many things to talk about over the last couple of weeks, but did not yet have the venue to share those ideas. But now I have it, so here goes...
It has been one week since the elections and I, for one, am completely relieved that it's over. The political ads here were getting overwhelmingly nasty. Every single day I would come home to find at least one, more often two, fliers in my mailbox attacking one candidate while trying to promote another. Watching television was even worse; every single commercial was some ad along the same lines. No one even bothered to talk about any of the slightly good things they had done. Everything was about how bad their opponent was.
Seriously...does anyone really believe that talking smack about someone else makes you look good?
I found myself reflecting on the first-ever election here in the islands. It took place on January 1st, 1873. Lota Kapuaīwa (Kamehameha V) had died in December 1872 without designating an heir to the throne. According to the kingdom's constitution, if an heir was not declared, then the legislature would elect the new monarch from amongst the royal bloodlines. The choice, therefore, was between William Charles Lunalilo and David La‘amea Kalākaua.
Lunalilo, who was the grandson of Kamehameha Pai‘ea's brother, was the favorite, and was in fact chosen by the legislature to fill the empty throne. However, he declined to accept the position unless it was submitted to a vote by the people. He fully understood, as all Hawaiian regents before him knew, that his role was to serve the people, and he could not, in good conscience, accept that position without their consent.
He also understood that the will of the legislature was not the same as the will of the people.
Although contemporary politicians would try to convince us otherwise, Lunalilo's understanding of this fact is still as true today as it ever was.
Whether or not Lunalilo was a good ruler is a question that may never be answered. He unfortunately died after serving only one year and one month as Hawai‘i's ruling king. But I still look to this act as his first and possibly his best example of his dedication to the good of his people. He didn't need to hold a popular vote; he was already given the seat. But he demanded the election because he actually valued what his people wanted. I wish I could believe the same about any of our politicians today.
Small tangent here: It is interesting to note that during the days of the Hawaiian Kingdom, voter turnout was extremely high. Hawaiians were very politically involved, and showed their support in large numbers.
So why is voter turnout so low today? Because of the overthrow, of course. The overthrow occurred in 1893, and between then and 1897 the people had done whatever they could to make things right. They most generously spoke out, they appealed to their legislature, and they organized groups to try and gain some political power. 98% of the population signed a petition telling the United States that we didn't want to be a part of their country, and yet in 1898 we somehow got annexed anyway.
If your voice had been so grotesquely ignored like that, and if the people now in charge of your government were the very same ones who overthrew your queen at gunpoint, would it encourage you to vote in the next election? I don't think so.
People who want to believe that the overthrow is ancient history and does not affect us today need only to look at the voting numbers from before 1893. We are still suffering from the oppression imposed upon us by people who had no right to be here in the first place, yet promoted themselves to government heads through deception, thievery and other outright illegal means.
The bottom line is this: If we Hawaiians see something worth fighting for, we will fight for it. But since 1893, we haven't seen anything worth that fight.
At least that's the way I feel about it. ‘Oia wale no.
No comments:
Post a Comment