The letters page is chock-a-block with commentary these days, following Ricky Binihi’s candid, well-sourced story on the motivation behind the UMP’s apparent determination to see a woman elected as Vanuatu’s next President.

Among the gems of logic provided by members of the Electoral College to justify their opposition to the mere idea of a female President is this one:

  1. Vanuatu is a constitutional democracy;
  2. The Constitution says that we’re guided by Christian principles;
  3. So we should listen to St. Paul when he says that women are not the head of the family;
  4. Therefore, a woman cannot be the head of the larger family of Vanuatu.

Needless to say, the letters section of this weekend’s paper was chock-a-block with equally candid rebuttals, at least one of which suggested that this constitutional scholar might want to read a short way past the preamble, to the part where it says that it’s illegal to discriminate against anyone based on their sex.

Despite such spot-on responses as this, it’s clear that the rank and file – the MPs, chiefs and provincial & municipal executives who constitute the Electoral College – are probably the least ready segment of Vanuatu today to accept the idea of being led by a woman. Heck, they have a hard enough time letting a… well, anyone lead them.

It’s pretty common knowledge that UMP leader Serge Vohor rarely acts without something to motivate him. His level of commitment to the actual election of a woman as head of state is probably best indicated by his canny decision to get two women to contest, virtually guaranteeing a split vote among the few who might conceivably be convinced to support the idea.

So what – or, more to the point, who – is behind this sudden buzz of interest in a female President?