Abstract
About two decades ago Reilly (2000) suggested that the South Pacific region was undergoing a process of ‘Africanization’. One of the symptoms of this process of ‘Africanization’ was represented by the fact that the institutions of governance were weak and that party systems were fragmented. The purpose of the present note is to argue that while Reilly is correct in suggesting that parties in the South Pacific are weak and party systems are fragmented, there are major differences between African and South Pacific party systems that prevent one from speaking of ‘Africanization’ of the South Pacific party systems. There are several differences between Sub-Saharan African and the Pacific Island states: first, the quality of government, as evidenced by political stability and absence of violence, is higher in the Pacific than in Sub-Saharan Africa; second, Sub-Saharan party systems are characterized by fairly low levels of fragmentation coupled with high levels of fluidity whereas in the Pacific Island states party systems are highly fragmented but fairly stable over time; third, the presence of atomized party systems in Sub-Saharan Africa is exceptional, while in the Pacific region it tends to be the rule; fourth, in the Pacific region fluidity is negatively associated with fragmentation of the party system, while in Sub-Saharan Africa fragmentation and fluidity go together; fifth, greater party system instability is associated with and possibly responsible for a deterioration of governance in Sub-Saharan Africa, while it does not affect the quality of government in the Pacific Island states.