In 2024, President Macron proposed an expansion of voting rights in the French sui generis collectivity of New Caledonia, a cluster of islands in the southwest Pacific Ocean. The proposal led to weeks of violent protests in which several people died before Macron suspended the rule change. These voting restrictions, alongside other key provisions, were among the terms agreed upon by France and New Caledonia in the Nouméa Accord, which took effect in 1998 and was the response to a growing independence movement by the Kanak people, the indigenous people of New Caledonia. The agreement restricted voting for New Caledonian elections and referendums to people who lived in the country in 1998 and their children, an attempt to give indigenous people greater self-determination in the process of decolonisation. However, following the failed independence referendums in 2018, 2020, and 2021, the validity of these voting restrictions have been called into question. Though a 2026 law slightly expanded electoral rolls, the debate over electoral laws within the context of decolonisation continues. However while voting restrictions are being contested, the less recognized promise of the Nouméa Accord continues to be unfulfilled.

The Nouméa Accord rested on two critical pillars. The first, which has gained the most attention and debate, was a pathway to self-determination that included a gradual transfer of governing power from France to New Caledonia and a frozen electoral role. The second pillar was closing the socioeconomic gap between the indigenous Kanak people and non-indigenous people. Only the first pillar, or rather the electoral restrictions to protect the weight of Kanak political power, was delivered. This voting restriction, however, was not the end-goal and only served as a means of achieving greater self-determination for the people of New Caledonia, particularly the Kanak people. Entirely unfreezing the electoral vote removes the protections supposed to uphold Kanak political weight without having produced the self-determination and equality it was meant to lead to. While electoral rolls may not be a perfect tool, they are currently a necessary protection on the path to self-determination that cannot be eliminated without a replacement.

What happened to closing the gap? 

In 2024, the violent and outraged responses to the proposition of complete electoral expansion by the Kanak people sent a clear message that the work of self-determination was not finished, and, more specifically, the promises of the Nouméa Accord had yet to be fulfilled. In response to the protests, President Macron acknowledged that the Nouméa Accord had failed to reduce“ social and economic inequalities” and recognized that these inequalities had even widened during its implementation, despite the Accord’s stated aim of closing the gap.

Kanaks, who make up about 40 percent of the population and who experienced severe discrimination under French colonial rule, continue to suffer disproportionate economic and environmental disadvantages. Poverty, unemployment, and educational inequities plague Kanak communities at a disproportionate rate. In 2019, around a third of Kanak people lived in poverty compared to nine per cent of non-Kanaks. 46 percent of Kanaks had no high school diploma, and only eight percent held a university degree. Compare this with the fact that 54 percent of people of European background in New Caledonia are university educated, and the contrast is stark. The Nouméa Accord failed to accomplish the closing of this gap, as did its predecessor, the Bougival Accord. This context underlines the unfinished work of self-determination for the historically disadvantaged indigenous group.

The role of electoral restrictions

While it is hard to avoid the fact that the imposed electoral restrictions of the Nouméa Accord did not succeed in leading to a successful independence vote or a closure of the socioeconomic gap between Kanak and non-Kanak people, it is currently one of the only protections that exist. It is certainly not one that should permanently persist, nor is that the intended goal of Kanak independence parties. Rather, their focus is on the path towards decolonization, with electoral roll restrictions serving as a tool to get there. The Palika Party, a pro-independence group, supported the 2026 law which enfranchises descendants of eligible voters. Tjibaou, the President of the largest independence party, said, “The FLNKS is clear: we are not opposed to changes to the electoral rolls, but only within the framework of a comprehensive agreement that confirms the path to decolonisation.” However, currently, the remaining voting restrictions are one of the only protections for Kanak political weight in the on-going process of self-determination. To get rid of them entirely now without an agreed upon replacement tool would prevent these goals of decolonization from being achieved.

What about democratic principles?

For some, even the original sweeping electoral reform in New Caledonia proposed in 2024 could be understood as a “blessing in disguise.” In this way of thinking, expansion of voting rights and the removal of the restrictions is an important step to guarantee the democratic principles of the French Republic, even if it dilutes the political power of the Kanak people. These arguments call for free and fair elections that represent the will of all the people. Many may be concerned that the voting restrictions of New Caledonia violate Robert Dahl’s conditions of democracy, specifically that practically all adults have the right to vote in the election of officials.

While equal representation is an important democratic principle, the context of decolonization in New Caledonia complicates this seemingly clear cut ideal. In the definition of Schmitter and Karl, democracy requires that “The polity must be self-governing,” a condition that would disqualify New Caledonia from being considered a democracy given the current concentration of political power in France. Given this context, one might think of what is happening in New Caledonia more as a transition into a decolonized democracy. As the Nouméa Accord underlined, this transition requires certain political privileges to be temporarily granted until a level of self-determination can be achieved. Furthermore, ameliorating the economic divides may assist in the work of democratic consolidation. As Linz and Stephan highlight, though their analysis focuses on transitions from authoritarian rule not indigenous decolonization, democratic consolidation requires more than just democratic political institutions, and persistent economic inequality may raise questions about whether a transition has achieved its wider objectives. In this context, the greater political weighting of one group might in fact be essential to establishing a path towards self-determination and a fair democracy that accounts for the history of colonisation and subjugation.

Conclusion

The original voting restrictions of the Nouméa Accord were approved by the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the country was in a transitional period to self-determination. Marked by the deep socioeconomic inequalities that persist for Kanak people and a lack of independence, this transitional period to self-determination is currently unfinished. Therefore, though they are by no means a perfect or permanent tool, the electoral rolls continue to serve an important purpose in the process of decolonization. Thus, they should only be eliminated entirely if they can be replaced by another tool for indigenous self-determination.

Sources

“Agreement on New Caledonia (Noumea Accord).” Jurist, www.jurist.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/09/BC_980505_Noumea_Accord.pdf.

“Analyse du scrutin n°6753.” Assemblée nationale, https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/17/scrutins/6753.

“New Caledonia’s Reckoning Goes beyond the Ballot.” The Lowy Institute, 30 June 2026, https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/new-caledonia-s-reckoning-goes-beyond-the-ballot.

Anonyme. “Recensement.” ISEE, https://isee.nc/recensement.

Accord de Bougival – Légifrance, www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000052197304.

“Pro-Independence MPs Say New Voter Expansion Will Legitimise June Elections.” ABC Pacific, 27 May 2026, https://www.abc.net.au/pacific/programs/pacificbeat/newcalvote/106730730.

News, P. M. N. “France Expands New Caledonia Voter Rolls Ahead of June Elections.” PMN | Pacific Media Network, https://pmn.co.nz/read/political/france-expands-new-caledonia-voter-rolls-ahead-of-june-elections-in-tense-political-climate.

Rodriguez, Pierre-Emmanuel. “The Electoral Reform in New Caledonia as a Blessing in Disguise.” Verfassungsblog, May 2024. verfassungsblog.de, https://doi.org/10.59704/9d3db0b25131edb1.

CASE OF PY v. FRANCE. HUDOC – European Court of Human Rights. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22itemid%22:[%22001-67928%22]%7D.

Robert Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 11. https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300030761/dilemmas-of-pluralist-democracy/

Schmitter, Philippe C. and Terry Lynn Karl. 1991. “What Democracy Is…and Is Not.” Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75-88. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/what-democracy-is-and-is-not/

Linz, Juan J., and Stepan, Alfred. 1996. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-communist Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Chapter 1. https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/2194/problems-democratic-transition-and-consolidation