The Solomon Islands is an archipelagic state in the Pacific region. The country is characterised by significant cultural and linguistic diversity. The country’s vulnerability to natural disasters, geographic dispersion, and remoteness shape the economic and governance challenges that it faces. The Solomon Islands’ economy relies on agriculture and is heavily dependent on development assistance1. With poor infrastructure and governance deficiencies, investments remain stifled. The youth population is disproportionately affected by limited employment and entrepreneurial opportunities as well as difficulties to access income. The Solomon Islands is a parliamentary democracy that generally upholds political rights and civil liberties2. Corruption remains a significant concern, though recent governments have demonstrated their commitment to combating it, which reflects a positive step towards fostering a transparent and accountable governance system.
The nation was deeply marked by a period of civil unrest between 1998 and 2003, called “The Tensions”. This violence disproportionately affected young people who were both victims and combatants. Primarily triggered by ethnic conflict, the Tensions were compounded by factors such as land disputes, clashes between traditional and non-traditional authority structures, unequal access to government services, youth unemployment and limited participation, disparate development and economic opportunities, and deficient legal and justice institutions.
Youth, defined as individuals between 15 and 34 years old3, account for 70% of the population4. Even though young people constitute an overwhelming majority, older generations dominate the political discourse. In addition to other factors such as youth disenchantment or political clientelism, this marginalisation can be attributed to the hierarchical structure of society in which young people occupy a subordinated position. In the Solomon Islands, there is a prevailing expectation for youth to unquestionably accept authority. As a result, they are often discouraged from expressing their ideas and suggestions to their elders5. The dominance of older men in political spheres has created an age gap, leading to a disconnect between youth aspirations and decisions taken at all levels of government.
Understanding youth-focused policies and initiatives
Youth Policy Framework: With the youth population only expected to grow, the government reinstated its commitment to “prioritise and address the aspirations and well-being of the youths of Solomon Islands” by introducing the National Youth Policy 2017–2030 along with the Strategic Framework for Youth Development and Empowerment6. The Ministry of Women, Youth, Children, and Family Affairs is responsible for design, coordination of implementation between government agencies and non-government actors, and monitoring. Building on lessons learned from previous youth policy implementations, this comprehensive plan aims to develop a more coherent approach to youth development and outlines a series of strategic action areas under six priority policy outcomes to achieve national youth development goals. Monitoring mechanisms have been implemented to track the progress of policy implementation. Specific indicators include “by 2021; at least 20% of youths (women and men) will participate in planning, consultative, and decision-making forums at national, provincial, and community levels, including in policy processes, campaigns, advocacy, and delivering and monitoring programmes” and “by 2018; National Youth Parliament will convene annually and at least 2 Provincial Youth Assemblies are convened every 2 years7”. Information on the structure or design of these two initiatives is not available in the policy documents. As one of the key initiatives to improve youth participation, the policy proposes revitalising the national and provincial youth councils by strengthening their role in youth policy implementation and monitoring as well as providing adequate funding8. Notably, the policy focuses on gender equality and the participation of youth with disabilities.
Strategic role of multi-stakeholder partnerships: The policy framework recommends a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to policy implementation, highlighting the importance of public-private partnerships, the role of the Church, and the need for involvement of all governance levels. It assigns concrete roles to stakeholders and makes very specific suggestions on ways to cooperate. For example, it proposes the establishment of a youth coordination committee by faith-based organisations to strengthen coordination with the government and improve monitoring and evaluation of their activities. The policy emphasised the interests of the private sector in the quality of the education system and the need for relevant technical and soft skills among youth. It announced the first public-private partnership initiative, co-hosted by the Solomon Islands Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the national government. It outlines initiatives and programmes implemented by international donors and establishes a connection between their objectives and the strategic areas of the youth policy. It specifically mentions the Ola Fou Youth Programme funded by the government of New Zealand, which aims to strengthen youth participation in community organisation and development, and the Youth@Work programme, which has produced more than 2500 graduates since its inception in 2012. The policy primarily considers youth-led initiatives, such as the Young Women’s Parliamentary Group, aiming to raise political awareness and provide leadership training and opportunities for young women. The Young Women’s Parliamentary Group was initially established in 2011 with the support of the United Nations Development Programme and has since become a sustainable and long-term initiative led by young women.
Policy implementation
Inconsistent implementation of the Youth Policy Framework: Although conducting a full assessment poses a challenge due to the lack of data on the progress made in the Strategic Action Areas, policy implementation appears at least partially deficient. The National Youth Parliament has convened only once since 2017. The 2018 edition was a 4-day event focused on gaining practical and educational experience of the Solomon Islands parliamentary system. The event was broadcast on TV and live streamed on the Parliament’s Facebook page9. There is no indication that the Youth Assemblies have taken place and the provincial youth councils, except the Honiara Youth Council, seem to be dormant. Nevertheless, the partnership initiative with the Solomon Islands Chamber of Commerce and Industry has been particularly successful, as reported in two interviews. Furthermore, international organisations implement a number of youth development programmes in partnership with the Solomon Islands government. The Youth Empowerment Project supports youth-led community projects and is implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)10. Although the programme is consistent with the Priority Policy Outcomes, the available project documentation did not establish a direct link between the project outcomes and the Strategic Action Areas, in contrast to the youth policy recommendations. This could suggest an insufficient coordination of youth strategy between the government and development actors.
Space for youth contributions: The implementation of strategic action areas focused on youth participation is progressing. An interview with a government employee and a volunteer youth activist, Mr. George Mae, confirmed that various spaces exist for youth to provide their inputs. In addition to participation in elections from the age of 18 years old, these include taking part in government-initiated consultations on policy issues, opportunities to get involved in the work of the Honiara City Council, and the possibility to provide inputs to the work of the Parliament11. However, Mae noted that the spaces were mostly occupied by a relatively small group of privileged, well-educated youth from the capital city. When engaging with communities from rural areas, young people are hesitant to express their thoughts in front of elders. Similarly, when casting a vote in elections, they are customarily expected to follow the community leader’s choice.
Challenging political context: Political clientelism poses a significant obstacle in the Solomon Islands. The practice of voting for politicians based on promises of grants from the Constituency Development Fund can discourage youth from expressing dissenting opinions or challenging the status quo. Fear of losing the few benefits that their community receives can often lead to prioritising immediate gains over meaningful involvement in political matters. As George put it:
“people vote based on what sort of leader or MP is giving them this development fund. Now, when you get these young people to have a job, it will help them to have a clear conscience when it comes to voting12”.
Consequently, in the Solomon Islands context, the financial autonomy of young people is a crucial factor for their meaningful participation in national elections and beyond.
Key successes
Developing Local Models of Youth Participation: Despite these contextual challenges, some key initiatives have been successful in improving youth participation in the Solomon Islands. While respecting the central role played by the elderly, efforts have been made to create spaces where the influence of elders is minimised, enabling young voices to be heard and valued. The creation of separate roundtables for youth to share their views has been instrumental in providing a safe and encouraging environment in which they can express themselves freely. The Young Women’s Parliamentary Group is a local model for the political engagement of youth. These young women viewed the older generation’s approaches to secure reserved seats for women in parliament as a counterproductive and western-centric version of feminism, perceiving it as stigmatising and putting women in opposition to men13. Instead, they advocate for a more productive approach, focusing on community matters such as health, transportation, and culture. As Mary Sau, a youth activist, mentioned, the group hosted the third Say It Out Loud Film Festival, linking it to the topic of gender-based violence in 2019. These examples illustrate the significant influence of context on youth leadership approaches. The strategies employed by young people or policy makers are not fixed or universal; rather, they are influenced by the cultural, political, and social landscape in which they operate.
Leveraging partnerships with the private sector: The involvement of the private sector in youth policy implementation has also proven to be a valuable approach, bringing together diverse resources, expertise, and perspectives. This has resulted in more holistic and effective youth development actions, such as activities organised by the Young Entrepreneurs Council Solomon Islands14. The initiative, which brought together young people, the government, private sector companies, and international organisations, was successful in establishing a mentoring programme, setting up networking meetings and organising practical workshops with an aim to empower young entrepreneurs. Given the importance of youth financial autonomy in the Solomon Islands, the focus on youth entrepreneurship can bring positive outcomes in terms of increasing meaningful youth participation in public affairs and civic life.
Realistic Youth Policy Framework: The 2017–2030 youth policy was built on a thorough and frank review of the lessons learned from previous policy implementation. By analysing the shortcomings and acknowledging deficiencies, policymakers identified areas that required improvement and fine-tuned the new strategy accordingly, realistically considering institutional limitations and putting in place mechanisms to address them. This acknowledgement of potential roadblocks and constraints demonstrates maturity in policy formulation, as it sets the stage for a more effective and sustainable implementation process. It is worth noting how policymakers addressed the challenge of resource scarcity. Instead of letting limited resources hinder their aspirations, they chose to maximise impact within the resources at hand by ensuring better coordination between actors. However, relying on external actors for implementation introduces a notable challenge. While external partners can bring expertise, resources, and fresh perspectives to the table, they can also introduce complexities and potential misalignments. The coordination of efforts between internal and external actors can be intricate, requiring careful communication, clear expectations, and a shared vision. Striking the right balance between leveraging external support and maintaining control over the direction and execution of the policy is crucial in this context.
This case country is taken from a comprehensive examination of successful youth-led policy initiatives drawing from the insights of a scoping study “A comparative analysis on National Youth Policies”.
This study is supported by a European Union-funded project called WYDE Civic Engagement led by EPD that aims to improve the inclusion of Youth in all levels of democratic participation at the national, regional and global scales. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the European Commission’s official position.
- World Bank, Macro Poverty Outlook: Solomon Islands (World Bank, 2022). ↩︎
- Freedom House, “Solomon Islands: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report | Freedom House,” Freedom House, accessed August 31, 2023, https://freedomhouse.org/country/solomon-islands/freedom-world/2023. ↩︎
- Ministry of Women Youth Children and Family Affairs, Solomon Islands National Youth Policy 2017-2030 (Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and Family Affairs, 2017). ↩︎
- United Nations Development Programme, Solomon Islands Youth Status Report 2018 (UNDP, 2018). ↩︎
- Shasheen Jayaweera and Kate Morioka, Giving South Pacific youth a voice : youth development through participation (World Bank, 2012). ↩︎
- Ministry of Women Youth Children and Family Affairs, Solomon Islands National Youth Policy 2017-2030 (Ministry of Women, Youth, Children and Family Affairs, 2017). ↩︎
- Ibid. ↩︎
- They were established in 1980’ but have been mostly dormant since. ↩︎
- NATIONAL PARLIAMENT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS, “The fourth National Youth Parliament,” October 12, 2018, https://www.parliament.gov.sb/node/1239. ↩︎
- “Empowering Solomon Islands’ youth to promote peace and resilience | United Nations Development Programme,” UNDP, June 28, 2021, https://www.undp.org/pacific/press-releases/empowering-solomon-islands-youth-promote-peace-and-resilience. ↩︎
- Interview with George Mae, a youth activist ↩︎
- Interview with George Mae, a youth activist ↩︎
- Joanna Brislane, Key Lessons For The Development of Young Women’s Leadership For Gender Equality And The Elimination of Violence Against Women And Girls In Vanuatu (CARE International In Vanuatu, 2017). ↩︎
- Young Entrepreneurs Council Solomon Islands, accessed August 31, 2023, https://www.yecsi.org.sb/. ↩︎