A lot of research has focussed on the traditional leadership “chiefs” and “big men” in addition other various leadership power in the community (White, 2007). There are two assumed types of leadership in the South Pacific. The first type of
25
leadership is found in Polynesian islands that is based on hereditary rank (ascribed status) and the second leadership is predominant in Melanesia, this leadership is based on achieved status through egalitarian and competition (Douglas, 1979). This leadership central to Melanesian countries is what is called Big men leadership, which is a local political unit (Scheffler & Larmour, 1987). According to Narokobi (1983), from his experience in Papua New Guinea, one influential leadership structure towards shaping people’s behaviour, attitude and values is the “big man” leadership. Big Man leadership is defined as a person who has status through wealth and an attitude of care towards his own people (Narobi,1983). As a result of their generosity they gain respect and status, thus having power and influence over others (Douglas, 1989; White, 2006). It is argued that the big man leadership is associated with the masculinity, strength power and wealth thus these leaders are required to be men (Pollard, 2006). For a big man leader to be able to gain his title and dignity he has to prove it by his strength, capabilities of leadership, knowledge in culture, his wealth and achievements (Kabutaulaka, 1998). A big men leader gains his title for who he is and his achievements.
There is less mentioned in literature about women’s leadership culturally in Melanesian, or as Pollard (2006) put it “big women” leadership title. However, she states that in different cultures of Melanesia this does exist, make mentioning the ‘Are‘Are people of Solomon Islands who title women in their dialect. She argues that women play a crucial role also in cultural leadership in the feast giving, warrior and priestly roles. As Sinclair (1998 as cited in Pollard, 2006) points out women do lead yet are invisible to be seen in leadership. The Big man leader, when it comes to land issues and decisions do not have title to the land yet because of their political ability they act as custodians of their lands (Scheffler & Larmour, 1987). The Big men leadership characteristics are similar to the norms found in a patriarchal society. Thus, this is why there is a strong impact on the cultural gender roles in Solomon Islands since the big men leadership is practiced in most islands. Inside the big men system of leadership we have two leadership practices dealing with land ownership however both had influence on people’s belief and attitudes as well.
26
Patriarchal and Matriarchal System of Land Ownership
In Melanesian societies these two systems, patriarchal and matriarchal system are visibly seen especially when it comes to the right of land ownership. In a patriarchal system land ownership is decided and passed through the males while in a matriarchal system land ownership is decided and passed through the women’s line. In a chiefly system the land ownership is traced through the first born son however in a big man system land rights is traced either through males or female links to a common ancestor. Here land is not owned by an individual but collectively (Whittington, Osipina and Pollard, 2006). Especially in a big man leadership society land is seen as a social security particularly by women. In Solomon Islands there are nine provinces. Out of these nine provinces, five of these provinces practice a patriarchal system while four of these provinces practice a matriarchal system. The provinces practicing a patriarchal system of land ownership are Choiseul, Malaita, Temotu and Rennell and Bellona. On the other hand the provinces that practice a matriarchal system are Western, Isabel, Guadalcanal and Makira (Maetala, 2008). In Solomon Islands these patrilineal and matrilineal societies pass land which is a main asset down through the male or female line. Land is owned communally in each society by the clans and can dictate how it is used. But when it comes to decision making process of the land, the status of women in these two societies greatly differ.
In a patriarchal society women can hardly speak when it comes to decision making of the land. The land is owned by the men thus they decide on land issues. Women have only the task to convince their husband what is best for their sons. However this is not easy at times in a patriarchal society where men make the decisions about everything (Koian, 2010). According to Koian (2010) in some patrilineal society land can be owned by women. This happens when the family does not have any males. This usually means land goes to the eldest daughter but she has the responsibility to pass make the land to a male child when she is old. She depends on her male cousins and uncles when it comes to making decisions on land issues.
27
On the other hand in a matrilineal society women have the right to the land. Thus, any decisions regarding the land are made through the women for the clan. That makes the status of women in this society much higher to women from a patriarchal system. Automatic ownership of the land is given to women and men who are born through land owning women.
However, the succession of the land is given to the descendants of the first born daughter who are the heads of the clan. They inherit and administer the land. Maetalia (2008) describes the process of land ownership by stating
When the first-born female’s time comes to pass on land she chooses her oldest daughter, but she also appoints a male child or brother to be the spokesman for all land-related issues. In cases where a woman is barren, land is generally passed to the next woman in line (usually it would be her sister). If there is no sister in that family her brother can take the responsibility of managing the land until another female in that family is old enough to take on that responsibility as successor of the land in question. A woman’s ownership is inclusive of her tribe – meaning that her brothers have access rights. However, her brothers’ children cannot inherit land. When a male child is born to a woman from Guadalcanal, Isabel or Makira, he can claim secondary (i.e. usage) rights to the land, through his mother’s primary rights. However, when he matures and marries a woman from another line, his rights to the land in principle end with him they are not passed on to his children. (p 44-45).
Women in the matriarchal society do not have to leave the land like in a patrilineal society. Over time these women have studied and come to understand its value as well. In a way they maintain their relationship with their land thus this gives them power and chief responsibility to use the land in a way that is beneficial for the clan (Koian, 2010). However, even though in a matrilineal society women have rights to the land men still have the power in decisions within the society. Literature (Akao, 2008; Kilavanwa,2004; Vali, 2010;Pollard, 2006) on the impact of patriarchal norms on the matrilineal society is seen. According to Vali (2010) states that “In matrilineal societies because of this belief and value system, although women have rights over resources (the land ), men ( husbands)
28
have the power within their family to make decisions”( p.14 ). Therefore, from this we can see that decisions that women make are not as effective when in a matrilineal community of land ownership. As noted by Maetala (2008), though women’s role in decision making in a matrilineal society is crucially important, it is not prioritized as important. Thus, as decision makers they are suppressed by male domination. Though respected as of right, women cannot override the traditions that are thought to be normal in society. Thus, decision making in a matrilineal society by women is slowly becoming less common in society today.