In New Caledonia, Oceanian Consensus Culture Opposes French Majority Rule

In New Caledonia, there is a culture of consensus that opposes the French majority rule: governing without the agreement of all political forces is considered illegitimate, regardless of the electoral margin obtained.

Facing the deadlock of FLNKS, some propose a “non-consensual consensualism” – a very broad but not unanimous agreement – which does not meet recognized political science logic and does not satisfy either the majority or consensus principle.

Both on the institutional future and the electoral body for the provincial elections, the constant oscillation between majority fact and consensual requirement makes New Caledonian politics ungovernable and prone to chaos.

In France, generally, the majority rule prevails in politics. To impose one’s will, it is enough to have won the elections (which, in some cases, can be done with less than 50% of the votes). This is both what the law says and what practice wants, as there is almost no culture of compromise, let alone consensus, in our country.

Contrary to the situation in New Caledonia, there is a culture of consensus dominance in Oceania. It is believed that governance and reform can only be done consensually. This is notably manifested in New Caledonia through the existence of a “collegial government,” in which all political parties represented in the Congress participate, something unthinkable in mainland France.

The debate continues on whether certain decisions should be made consensually, or if the majority rule is sufficient. The recent referendum on self-determination in 2018, 2020, and 2021 highlighted this dilemma.

There is obviously the question of what type of decision such consensualism applies to.

The answer is not easy to provide because we are talking about “meta-rules” (or, to put it simply, the current rules of the game), which are not codified. But it is clear that the extra-majority injunction goes very far.

As the debate on “consensualism or majority fact” continues, two other topics have sparked discussions: the agreement on the institutional future of the archipelago and the composition of the electoral body for the provincial elections.

Institutional Negotiations

Concerning the institutional future of the territory, since 1988, the approach has been to consider it a matter to be resolved locally by obtaining consensus. Therefore, irrespective of unanimity, consensus means agreement from all politically significant groups.

There is tension in defining consensus, especially after the political factions have changed. The question arises whether decision-making on the archipelago’s institutional evolution, such as a new constitutional status, should be done consensually or through the majority rule.

Challenging “Consensualism”

In the face of political stalemate, the concept of a broad agreement has emerged, with the notion that consensus can be reached without unanimity. This has created a debate on the practicality and legitimacy of consensus in decision-making processes.

Complications arise on how to approach the expansion of the electoral body for provincial elections. The consensus vs. majority rule dilemma is exemplified in the reforms of 2007 and the subsequent discussions.

Agreeing on the Rules of the Game

There is a lack of consensus on the rules of governance, leading to political gridlock. It is crucial to decide on a clear approach and stick to it, avoiding constant shifts between consensus and majority rule to prevent chaos in New Caledonia’s political landscape.