Elections not good enough in PNG
By PATRICK KAIKU
OBSERVERS of PNG politics see elections as a crucial element in the country’s democratic existence. However, it is not exclusively a sufficient yardstick.
“Successfully-conducted” polls will not produce responsible governments. In a parochial political culture where the nation-state is given less allegiance than to the tribe, clan, ethnic group or province, the inevitable will be far from “democracy” per se.
Elections should be reinforced with a coherent public opinion infrastructure and a mature political party system. Through these institutions, the citizenry must be seen as consistently influencing government and be educated on the functions of government.
Samuel Huntington, a scholar in political modernisation, assumes that the polity is democratic “to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-makers are selected through fair, honest and periodic elections in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all the adult population is eligible to vote”.
Huntington’s definition from strictly the experiences of Western countries remains unrealistic to a political culture such as PNG’s.
In PNG, a significant number of voters and candidates understand very little the gravity of public office. Competition in elections is a gamble for access to untold wealth.
Political parties are built around personalities, many of whom want to be the next prime minister. Members come and go, leading to instability and uncertainty in government. Opportunists engage in outright vote-buying and other malpractices.
Also, elections make little sense to a body polity that literally relies on its own devices to survive.
People living without the slightest intervention by the instrumentality of government find it unnecessary to register on the Common Roll or to vote.
Elections in constituencies with weak political cultures and an uncritical mass, devoid of a vibrant public opinion infrastructure has been a factor for the emergence of democratically-elected “authoritarians”.
Such leaders exploit the model of liberal democracy defined primarily in conventional procedural terms. When in public office, these “authoritarians” are prone to plundering society, living extravagant lifestyles and become so entrenched that they think they are above the law.
The concerted efforts by those who aspire for “short-cuts” into public office diminish the whole point of having elections. Though Parliament is tasked with legislative-making powers, recent indications are that there is no serious parliamentary debate.
The interests of parliamentarians would also be compromised under potential reform of the current status quo.
The experience of a commission called the General Constitutional Committee (GCC) set up in 1978 by Parliament is reason to have serious doubts.
Section 260 of the Constitution and the Constitutional Commission Act 1973 both stipulate the need for constitutional review and enquiries into the working of the Constitution, and to recommend amendments to it or laws.
One particular review of the GCC recommended in a published final report in 1983, among others, for the strengthening of provisions against corruption and the abuse of human rights. This recommendation has not been a reality after its initial ratification in 1987.
We should start re-imagining the PNG State. A new and serious round of national consultations must be undertaken so that the collective experiences of the last 30 years are articulated.
By benefit of hindsight and greater education, the manner in which this generation of Papua New Guineans aspires to be governed or participate in government for the development of their country ought to be revisited. It could be akin to starting from a “clean slate”.
Something akin to Tonga’s National Committee for Political Reform could be an appropriate venue for PNG to emulate. Some renewed sense of direction and the opinion of the masses should be consulted.
The ordinary Papua New Guinean must now be sought out for his or her views of the type of political system and government he or she aspires to participate in.
There are at least two possible areas to re-imagine the PNG State.
The first agenda should allow Papua New Guineans to have a say on a federal system of government. The weak parliamentary system that typifies the PNG political system has been linked to the notion that “no-one wants to be in the Opposition”.
There are no balanced political debates in Parliament. The Westminster system is premised on the principle that the parliamentary Opposition, as the government-in-waiting, be active in keeping the national government accountable for its actions and decisions.
In recent years, the virtual weakness of the Opposition has ensued, leading one constitutional lawyer to state of the media as being the de facto opposition to the executive arm of government.
This has been compounded by the fact that not enough resources (administrative staff, finance, etc) are availed for the Opposition’s “shadow ministries”. In certain instances, there are no shadow ministries at all.
Conversely, political party formation and the elections are merely about capturing the numbers to form government so as to have ones’ hands to the public purse, and the associated selfish accolades of being promoted as the rightful deliverers of goods and services.
It could also mean “jobs for the boys”, increased perks and privileges for ministerial appointees, overseas travel and so forth.
The downside of this political development is that candidates and politicians have blamed their colleagues from other regions of the country for the lack of development in their regions.
The all-out competition makes it a “high stakes” game that regionalist overtones will be the order of future elections.
Every prime minister will automatically come under the suspicion of politicians from other regions or provinces.
It will be a balancing act to equitably distribute ministerial portfolios or departmental head offices to satisfy such sentiments.
The second agenda that should be revisited would be simultaneous changes to the eligibility criteria for leaders contesting elections and the public vote for the amendment to the penalties reserved for convicted leaders under the Leadership Code.
Both requirements are complementary necessities for leadership of the 21st century.
Leading up to the 2007 general election, a unionist branded Parliament as a “high profile criminal employment centre” and called for leaders to have at least a fair amount of political training.
With little knowledge of their roles and responsibilities, politicians are susceptible to ending up as “criminals” and being “dragged into leadership tribunals”. The unionist even suggested that the syllabus of such training should include the 900 Acts of Parliament and 66 chapters of the Bible!
There is a serious need for educated leaders who have world-view knowledge of the processes of change with allegiance to the national interests.
The issue of credibility should be the guide to leadership. The penalties as applicable under the Leadership Code should also be taken to the people for their evaluation of its hitherto effectiveness.
What is truly the appropriate penalty for leaders found guilty of misappropriation?
Penalties meted out to convicted leaders and senior public servants should include life ban from public office as well as the mandatory confiscation of their assets.
Ordinary Papua New Guineans should determine the penalty in such as referendum exercise.

Note: The writer is a project research officer in the Social and Environment Studies Division of the National Research Institute.
 
Columns