This country now stands at a crucial junction since our Independence 43 years ago, with a choice that can reshape our political future.

The National Referendum to determine and implement Articles 17A and 17B is yet in its awareness stage.

The Government is fully committed to ensuring that all citizens support the Amendment, with its Members of Parliament (MPs) providing awareness and campaigns in their constituencies.

There is also a group comprising of former MPs, Chiefs, and Human Rights Activists advocating for the NO vote. In the middle are those who are undecided, and who require a lot of convincing information to sway them.

At its core, the awareness discussions on VBTC Press Club, VBTC Stret Tok, Radio Talkbacks, and those organized by the Government Communication and Awareness Team address an underlying issue – Political Instability.

On Stret Tok, Prime Minister Hon. Charlot Salwai Tabimasmas spoke about instability as a sickness.

“This is like Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), which is the highest killer of Vanuatu’s population,” says Hon Salwai Tabimasmas.

If Political Instability can be identified as a deadly disease, then the Government sees Articles 17A and 17B as a prescription that can slow it down.

However, it may not be the cure.

Today, Politicians, perhaps feeling guilty because of their irresponsible actions that led to instability, stand at the forefront of the campaign.

The Prime Minister says they (MPs) bear the role that carries the important responsibility of addressing the road to stability.

But before everything is the concept of freedom of choice. Vanuatu’s population is exercising its right to freedom to reshape its political future.

But this freedom comes with the responsibility to make decisions based on accurate information. It is crucial that the awareness, whether for YES or NO, is based on truth and accuracy, and the consequences of this choice for the nation are clearly stated.

One of the challenges for this Referendum is the spread of misinformation and disinformation which creates confusion on social media.

In this digital age where information travels at the speed of light, it is crucial that authorities must take steps to control the narrative and ensure people are not being misled.

In the end, the National Referendum is not just about choosing between YES and NO, it is about choosing between stability and instability.

The choice is clear, and it lies with the people of Vanuatu to make it.

As Journalists, we have a duty to provide unbiased and accurate information to the public to facilitate informed decision-making and hold those in power accountable. We must fulfill this duty with diligence and integrity.

On the Stret Tok program, Hon. Salwai mentioned there is substantial evidence from last year that supports the collective decision to pass Articles 17A and 17B and reduce the frequency of changes in Governments or the Cabinet.

Last year alone saw four Ministers of Land.

These changes caused delays in processing Land documents, such as Land leases. Land Officials must correct names every time a Minister changes.

In the face-to-face debate a week ago, the NO Campaign presented arguments from their side. They acknowledged that there are issues contributing to instability in Vanuatu.

However, while highlighting the flaws and shortcomings of the current system, they struggle to offer a viable solution that can effectively deal with the root causes of instability.

Without a clear alternative, they can create indecisiveness among voters who are trying to decide whether to vote YES or NO.

One thing that is noticeable and can be agreed on is the need for more explanation on the benefits and potential risks of these Amendments.

Based on all the awareness information so far, the media has identified these amongst others.

POSITIVE SIDE:

STABILITY: It could potentially lead to stability by reducing Government turnover and stopping opportunistic moves.

CONSISTENCY: It would promote more consistent enforcement of Policies, allowing MPs to stick with the political parties they were elected under, enabling the Government to implement policies without interruptions.

ACCOUNTABILITY: It would promote accountability as Parliamentarians become more responsible to their constituents and follow the agenda of Political Parties.

NEGATIVE SIDE:

FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Laws like 17A and 17B could be seen as affecting Freedom of Association, a fundamental human right. Each citizen has the right to join and leave political parties as they wish or see fit.

DIFFERENCE OF OPINION: It could limit the diversity of opinions within Parliament if MPs feel it restricts their ability to express themselves freely and present views outside of party policies or hold a Prime Minister accountable for their actions.

PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY: It could be seen as undemocratic as it restricts MPs’ ability to respond to changing circumstances or prevents them from exercising their judgment independently outside of Party Leadership.

This is the media’s view, but the bottom line is that Political Instability is real.