Q:

Is Samoa truly an elective monarchy? 

I have read about how Samoa was created as an elective monarchy when it became independent in 1962.  However, from what I read, some question whether Samoa counts as a parliamentary republic (as the heads of state are elected in  elected for five-year terms by parliament) or an elective monarchy (heads of state are called "His Highness" and the Constitution doesn't expressly mention a change in government from an elective monarchy).  Can Samoa still be considered a true elective monarchy if the monarchs are chosen by Parliament and elected just for 5 year terms? 

A:

Practice is more powerful here than theory in my opinion.  The constitution has a theoretical pathway for a popularly elected ordinary citizen to become Head of State - apparently classifying it as a republic.  However, the political realities of Samoa, framed as they are by the deeply entrenched traditional chiefly system (fa'amatai) means it is much better described as an elective monarchy.  But even this classification doesn’t quite fit.  I’d describe the nation as a unique constitutional monarchy where the head of state is a traditional chieftain (matai) elected by his chiefly peers in parliament, and bearing the title O le Ao o le Malo — the ”chieftain of the government“. 
The national legislature is the Samoan Parliament (the Fono).  The executive government (a prime minister and cabinet) is drawn from, and accountable to, that Parliament (as in other systems of responsible government, including nearby New Zealand and Australia).  While all adults (aged 21 and over) can vote in parliamentary elections, the candidates, for 47 of the 49 seats, must be matai (or family “chiefs”).  However, matai are themselves selected by consensus of their families and make up about 9% of the population (2011 census).  
So, Members of Parliament, including the prime minister and cabinet, are nearly all matai.  It is they who must, under the constitution, elect the O le Ao o le Malo to serve for a five year term as the nation’s largely non-executive head of state.  That person in practice will always be a matai, chosen according to popularly supported custom and tradition.  
At first glance this system of government looks quite feudal - akin to the elective monarchies of Anglo-Saxon Britain, for example.  But in fact there are many of the features of modern democracy here too and, even more importantly, there might be said to be something very democratic (almost in an Ancient Greek sense) in the grassroots underpinning of society by the fa'amatai chiefly system and in the “unique nature of matai selection based on consensus, merit, custom and due process rather than automatic hereditary selection”. 