Wilson, MargaretBreen, ClaireMone, Suliana Alouaivaha2022-11-232022https://hdl.handle.net/10289/15357This research aims to investigate the reasons for the Tongan government’s failure to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2015 and, in doing so, uncover the obstacles to formal and substantive equality for women living in Tonga. The researcher determined that empirical research was necessary to achieve these objectives properly and conducted a qualitative case study employing the Kakala Research Framework and Grounded Theory. The literature on this subject is scarce; therefore, this approach was best suited as a literature review was of limited use, and theories and explanations arose from the data. The research findings highlighted three thematic barriers to CEDAW ratification; there were constitutional, cultural and political impediments to formal and substantive equality for women in Tonga. The theory of patriarchy, or the suppression of women by men and which now extends to include suppression of particular groups by others, offers the best explanation for the status quo in Tonga. Patriarchy in Tonga comprises men’s subjugation of women and the subjugation of the tu’a or commoner class by the traditional ruling classes. This was consolidated by the promulgation of Tonga’s 1875 constitution. Despite the reforms of 2010, the patriarchal constitution does not permit a sitting government the power to ratify treaties such as CEDAW; this remains a constitutional prerogative of the monarch. Hon Akilisi Pohiva’s government lacked the constitutional authority to ratify CEDAW, despite their intentions to do so. The constitution also contains provisions that explicitly discriminate against women. The patriarchal constitution birthed a patriarchal Christian culture, thus conflicting with the values underpinning women’s equality. Tongan women, significantly poorer uneducated women of the commoner class, articulated experiences in Tongan culture and society characterised by poverty, violence, crime, loss of autonomy, a lack of a voice, shame and suffering. The powerful patriarchal institutions of the male-dominated church leadership and nobility were the major opponents to CEDAW, characterising the Convention as demonic and advocating for same-sex marriage, misdirecting the discourse and misinforming the general public. Tongan women could not support CEDAW because they did not understand the Convention and were fearful of it. Women were effectively robbed of the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to integrate into their matrix of cultural values the principles of equality contained in CEDAW or to remain attached to a patriarchal Christian culture under which they remain suppressed. The political reasons for non-ratification are an extension of Tonga’s patriarchal Christian culture, wherein the norm is that leadership roles and politics are reserved for men. The restriction of women from Tonga’s political sphere has resulted in women’s political and legal issues being historically sidelined. The political opposition to CEDAW was not an outcome of thorough and open discussions of the merits or disadvantages of the Convention; this was wholly sidelined and, in its place, was political opposition to Hon Akilisi Pohiva and his PTOA party’s agenda for further democratic reform. The research posits that feminist legal theory applies in Tonga, that the law is the source of women’s suppression, the foundation of Tonga’s patriarchal structures and is, therefore, the means for women’s liberation. Constitutional and legislative amendments are critical to dismantling Tonga’s patriarchal state, society and culture. The researcher suggests seventy-six possibilities for legislative reform that would enable formal and substantive equality for women and initiate the destruction of patriarchy in Tonga. The researcher hopes that legal provisions that mandate equality for women are also incorporated into the Tongan cultural fabric and society.enAll items in Research Commons are provided for private study and research purposes and are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.Thesis2022-11-22