Appropriate democracy for PNG
By FRANCIS HUALUPMOMI
PNG’s political system was adopted from Britain’s West Minister political system that entails a mixture of representative, parliamentary, liberal or constitutional democracy.
Over the years, many critics have blamed the system for causing PNG
to become a so-called
“failed State”.
There are increasing law and order problems in PNG which are posing a threat to national security.
The recent ethnic clash between Western Highlanders and Engans is one example.
Highlands MPs have strongly condemned the behaviour and proposed “guided democracy” as a solution to prevent future ethnic clashes.
Is guided democracy really the answer to our needs?
Or should we adopt other alternative models of democracy?
Democracy is an important if not a popular concept in political theory in the study of political science.
There are many variants: anticipatory democracy, Athenian democracy, Christian democracy, consensus democracy, deliberative democracy, etc.
Historically, democracy was derived from the Athenian model which evolved from the Greek city of Athenian in 508BC as “the rule by the people”.
In Athenian democracy, people selected their representatives based on the assumption that all citizens were equally qualified for office.
There were no elections and the rich and powerful were favoured.
The notions of democracy have of course changed since then.
Guided democracy was a term used in Indonesia during Sukarno’s presidency.
It was also employed in Russia.
Guided democracy refers to a democratic government with increased autocracy or if you like, totalitarian democracy, a system of totalitarianism following basic democratic principles.
Consequently, it has been suggested that PNG should adopt a more participatory democracy, one that involves active participation and representation in the decision-making process and distribution of resources to represent the best interest of the populous.
This is the opposite of the system in which representatives are elected to maintain the integrity of a nation State whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.
Consensus democracy and deliberative democracy are assumed to have similar characteristics that might be of ideal to address national interest.
Guided democracy is unhealthy for PNG because the State will be ultimately seen as having legitimate regulation over what people are to do and how they are to do.
In his 1952 book The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, Israeli historian J L Talmon accepts “exclusive territorial sovereignty” as the government’s right.
The government retained full power of expropriation and imposition, that is the right of control over everything and everyone.
Maintenance of such power, in the absence of full support of the citizenry, required the forceful suppression of any dissenting element except that which the government purposely permits or organises.
This idea is principally opposed by liberal democrats, who see political strength as growing from the bottom up (grassroots).
Perhaps PNG in a true democratic sense does not want to see this typology of hegemonic regime today and in the future.
What we want to see is a regime that promotes the political philosophy of Roseau’s theory of “social contract”, a community where the State has the responsibility of protecting its citizens’ interest rather than having complete control through suppressing their rights to participate and represent the national interest.
In addition, a guided democratic State is said to maximise its control over the lives of its citizens, using the dual rationale of general will (“public good”) and majority rule which, if adopted, would ultimately benefit the political, economic, and military elite to suit their own interests.
Should PNG move towards a State where autocracy is the absolute instrument of governance, one would also hold the view that it would further escalate into political and bureaucratic dysfunction fuelling corruption such as cronyism, nepotism or rent-seeking behaviour, leading to a failed State.
Papua New Guineans do not want the politics of Sukarno.
More so, citizens of a guided democratic State, even when aware of their true powerlessness, may spport their government which is principally against true democratic principles as evidenced in Nazi Germany.
PNG believes in “national will” which must not be ripped off by Sate to promote “personal will”.
This is the pride which I believe the rest of us do not want to lose.
A participatory democracy involving consensus and deliberative democracy would be more ideal than a guided democracy in many micro-Staes such as PNG to solve national issues and achieve national interest.
With consensus democracy, decisions made are based on consensus before it gets legislated in the Parliament.
It embraces policy alternatives through intensive research. Thus a decision is reached through absolute majority voting.
In PNG, it appears that many laws passed in Parliament are biased and do not reflect consensus.
Moreover, there has to be intensive research into a particular issue to provide facts in order to reach an understanding before a decision is made.
This is to ensure that all issues and concerns are addressed to avoid implications to the national interest.
In addition, consensus democracy is also more suitable in multi-cultural society like PNG, which is cemented with strong ethnic and cultural beliefs and norms.
This societal structure often leads to the common issue of regionalism which embodies our political and bureaucratic level.
Where there are multi-cultural groupings, it is quite difficult to reach a consensus as evidenced in the party politics.
Thus, consensus democracy would perhaps allow issues to be well debated so as to avoid regionalism.
In essence, the advantage of having a consensus democracy is that
it is more:
* Formal – anyone can put forth proposals, criticise, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
* Substantive – the participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. The participants ... do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals.
Consensus democracy has worked well in certain Western European countries such as Switzerland or Belgium, where consensus is an important feature of political culture, particularly with a view to preventing the domination of one linguistic or cultural group in the political process.

* The writer is attached with the Office of Higher Education Research Science and Technology.
Columns