Time to rethink tribal wars

I REFER to Mamando Pain’s letter on addressing tribal wars and lawlessness (“Tougher laws needed to solve law, order woes”, Dec 28).
PNG is made up of more than 800 groups speaking and living their different languages and cultures.
Yet, the Constitution and predominantly Christian religion stress on the sanctity and inviolability of human life.
Tribal wars that devalue human life within PNG portray a bad image to potential investors, tourists, development agencies and so forth.
Hence, tribal fights must be seen as a national issue and not exclusively a problem for one region of the country alone.
Firstly, the argument that “tribal fights is a culture, a way of life”, or accepted way of thinking or an important means of seeking justice is an inexcusable justification.
If this were the course of nature and history, my part of the country would still be dispensing its version of “justice” through institutionalised headhunting, cannibalism or malevolent black magic just like my ancestors!
However, culture is never static, as it changes or is adapted for the benefit and welfare of its custodians.
In a modernised socio-economic context, what accepted culture would pride itself in the costly destruction of property, wanton destruction of life without remorse or sanctioned legitimisation by any higher order of authority, permanently maiming of humans, the creation of orphans and widows or fuelling extensive migration of “refugees” to other “safe havens” in the country.
Is this culture worth keeping if human life and human security is negligible?
Can human civilisation progress under such circumstances?
Secondly, the argument that the ideological basis of Inter-Group Fighters Act is antithetical to the concept of communalism where the “group is accountable and responsible for an individual’s action” is flawed especially in tribal war prevention.
The downside of this is that a guaranteed “herd instinct” replaces any rational self-restraint in relation to the actions of individual members of the tribe or clan.
Surely some sense of responsibility for one’s action is needed of individual members of the collective.
Prevention of lawlessness in our context necessitates that individuals do not hide behind group identities and wreak havoc on “outsiders”.
Potential instigators of unnecessary inter-clan feuds are guaranteed a “one-way” support base in the form of their tribesmen or clansmen.
The individual should make informed decisions, through group consensus so that the best interest of his tribe is realised.
Blindly and infinitely depending on the tribe to think for an individual and open-end sanction to one’s behaviour has been the source of individuals drawing their tribes unnecessarily into disagreements with others, even over some of the most trivial of matters.
The late Justice Moses Jalina suggested the need for our educated people to go back to our communities and educate our people on the negative implications of tribal wars.
The modern education system should have a “civilising effect” in our society.
Also, community leaders have a role (not national leaders only) in the resolving of potential threats to lawlessness.
The absence of community leaders or their direct involvement in inciting tribal wars is detrimental to building trust with opposing groups.
Equally, the realisation of some of the recommendations of the National Guns Committee is needed.

Patrick Kaiku
Kavieng, New Ireland province