CIVICUS discusses Samoa’s recent election with Lucia S Chung Kwan, a history lecturer at the National University of Samoa.

Samoa held a snap general election on 29 August after the government collapsed when parliament rejected its budget. The vote was one of the country’s most competitive in years, with three main contenders offering different visions of Samoa’s future. Key voter concerns included rising costs of living and frequent power shortages. Election results saw the incumbent party retain power with a decisive majority under a new leader, ending the time in office of Samoa’s first female prime minister, Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa.

How did the political crisis that led to Samoa’s snap election unfold?

The crisis began in January in the ruling party, Samoa United in Faith (FAST), which had come to power in 2021, bringing Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa to office as the country’s first female prime minister. That election ended over four decades of rule by the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP), amid a constitutional crisis due to the incumbent prime minister’s initial refusal to accept defeat.

In January, Mataʻafa dismissed FAST chairman Laʻauli Leuatea Schmidt from his role as Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries after he refused to resign when criminal charges were filed against him for harassment and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. This exposed divisions within FAST, as Schmidt and other senior members turned against Mataʻafa’s leadership. Two rival factions emerged: one led by Mataʻafa and her restructured cabinet, and another loyal to Schmidt and those who supported the party’s original leadership structure.

Divisions spilled into parliament. Between February and March, Mataʻafa faced two separate no-confidence motions, one from Schmidt and another from opposition leader Tuilaʻepa Saʻilele Malielegaoi, a former HRPP prime minister who had ruled for over two decades. Although both attempts to remove Mataʻafa failed, it became clear that FAST was too divided to govern effectively.

The final breaking point came in June during the budget session, one of the most critical in the parliamentary year. The proposed 2025-2026 budget was rejected outright, with 34 lawmakers voting against it and only 16 in support. Under Samoa’s constitutional framework, a government cannot continue without an approved budget, leaving the prime minister with no choice but to request the Head of State to dissolve parliament. This happened on 3 June, with a snap election scheduled for August.

As this sequence of events shows, what began as an internal ruling party power struggle resulted in the collapse of the government and the fall of Samoa’s first woman prime minister.

Who were the main contenders in the election?

This was one of the most competitive elections in Samoa’s recent history. While six political parties competed, three emerged as real contenders, each offering distinctly different visions for the country’s future.

Schmidt retained control of the FAST ticket and led the party into the election. Having broken away from Mataʻafa, he argued the party needed to return to its original promises of grassroots development. His campaign emphasised strengthening agriculture and investing in sustainable livelihoods, positioning farming as the backbone of Samoa’s economy.

HRPP’s long-time leader Malielegaoi positioned himself as the experienced hand who could restore stability. His platform focused on ambitious infrastructure projects such as a bridge linking Samoa’s two main islands, a road tunnel in Fagaloa Bay and a new wharf at Vaiusu. To address economic hardship, he promised subsidies for households, presenting himself as a protector of Samoan people’s welfare.

Having lost her party and position as prime minister, Mataʻafa returned under the banner of the Samoa Uniting Party (SUP). She sought to present herself as a unifier and proposed tax cuts, including a 20 per cent tax refund and a reduction in the goods and services tax. Like her rivals, she promised major infrastructure projects but framed her campaign around restoring trust and effective governance.

This offered voters a choice of competing visions: prioritising agricultural self-reliance, pursuing ambitious infrastructure development, or combining tax relief with targeted projects.

What were voters’ main concerns?

For many Samoans, the most pressing issue was the rising cost of living. Families struggle with higher food and energy prices, and this shapes how voters judge their leaders. Rather than engaging with abstract policy debates, voters focused on kitchen-table concerns about affording essentials and making ends meet. This explains why promises of financial relief resonated so strongly, even though voters were sceptical about whether such pledges would truly materialise.

Another major issue was the absence of a national airline. Since Samoa’s carrier was shut down in 2021, travel to and from the islands has become dependent on foreign airlines such as Air New Zealand and Fiji Airways. For a society built on close kinship ties, where families gather for community events, funerals and weddings, high airfares became a symbol of government disconnection from people’s needs. This frustration extended beyond transport costs to broader debates about whether leaders truly understood people’s struggles.

The Samoan diaspora also played an important role. Remittances from abroad are a lifeline for the economy, and those living overseas followed the campaign closely because their voices and wallets influence life back home. Concerns raised by the diaspora – from travel costs to the need for more reliable infrastructure – echoed within the country.

To what extent did other countries influence the campaign?

While China’s influence looms large across the Pacific, this was more of a quiet undercurrent than an open campaign issue, because none of the major parties put it front and centre.

Many voters however are aware that China often funds large-scale infrastructure projects, which entails concerns about debt and sovereignty. There were also rumours, particularly on social media, that accepting Chinese funding might cost communities control over their customary land, which is more than an economic resource: it’s a foundation of identity and family life. Whether based on fact or fear, these perceptions shaped voters’ reasoning about the risks of dependency and the long-term trade-offs of big development deals.

Meanwhile, Samoa’s traditional partners, particularly Australia and New Zealand, provided a counterweight. Their development aid has historically focused on community-level projects, education and social services, rather than large construction schemes. For many Samoans, this diversity provides reassurance: Chinese funds could deliver infrastructure while western partners help sustain everyday needs. Rather than rejecting either approach, most voters preferred a pragmatic combination, but with one crucial condition: any partnership must safeguard Samoa’s sovereignty and keep land and resources under local control.

What were the results, and what do they mean for Samoa’s future?

The FAST party won 30 seats, HRPP 14 and SUP three, with four additional seats won by independent candidates. These make up the 51 seats of Samoa’s parliament. However, current parliamentary laws enacted during the HRPP administration prior to the 2021 election require a political party to have eight seats to be recognised officially in parliament; if not, the members join parliament as independent members. If this law is upheld, it means that Mataʻafa and the two other SUP members will need to register as independents to participate in parliament.

In addition, with the 10 per cent electoral quota for women representation in parliament enshrined in the 2013 Constitutional Amendment Act, there is the possibility of an extra seat for a woman candidate. We will find out when the first session of parliament takes place.

While the new parliament has been sworn in and Schmidt and his cabinet have taken office, eight election petitions have been filed with the court. If these petitions succeed, it means eight constituencies will hold by-elections to choose their parliamentary representatives again.

The election showed that even amid severe political crisis – from budget rejection to government collapse – Samoa can resolve conflicts through democratic means rather than violence. Despite heated online debates, the campaign was peaceful.

The process highlighted Samoa’s unique blend of modern democratic institutions and traditional Fa’a Samoa values of consensus, kinship and respect. While western observers may see instability in frequent leadership changes and rivalries, Samoans interpret these tensions through a cultural framework that prioritises community cohesion. This makes Samoa’s democracy adaptive rather than fragile.

Regionally, Samoa’s peaceful management of a competitive election strengthens its moral authority among Pacific Island nations caught between larger powers including Australia, China and New Zealand. It proves small island states can maintain democratic practices while asserting cultural sovereignty, offering a context-specific model for Pacific democracy.