| Sports |
What price the ballot
paper?
JACK METTA looks
ahead to the polls with some apprehension and hopes it is not the
lull before the storm
A FLEET of over 20 four-wheel drive
vehicles makes its way through town.
The leading vehicle has a machine-gun mounted on the top of the
cabin manned by warriors armed to the teeth with semi-automatic
and high-powered firearms.
The machine-gun bore an uncanny resemblance to the type stolen
from an armory thousands of kilometers away in the nation’s
capital.
In the following vehicles, other rowdy warriors brandishing
semi-automatic weapons spray the side of the roads in a fiery show
of defiance, if anything, of authority and potential opposition to
their cause.
Hundreds of kilometres further south, a reporter breaks down and
weeps at the sheer hopeless of the situation.
His tears were shed, he recalls, in sympathy of the pain felt by
parents in particular; of their helplessness in resolving tensions
among the tribes in the area and exercising their democratic right
to vote for a leader of their choice.
His heart is down because he senses a siege of sorts and the
question that sprung up from deep down was “when would the
authorities act to normalise the situation”.
If anything, he wondered if the situation would improve or go down
the road to total anarchy.
In the neighbouring province, a deafening explosion ripped through
a container containing ballot boxes and destroying thousands of
ballot papers.
Official reports days later, told of armed thugs gaining access to
the container after rendering the guards helpless and putting to
waste what had taken many man-hours, limited financial resources
and a call above duty to accomplish. In a volatile part of the
country, this was an achievement to say the least. Now it was all
for nought and the real result of what had been taken for granted
as a vital characteristic of democracy, will never be known.
For the uninitiated, reading this for the first time would conjure
up visions of what he or she had seen in the main stream media and
concluding the scenario to be that of events in Africa, Europe or
the Americas.
Indeed, as one senior government official said at the time, the
situation had the potential to trigger a major breakdown in law
and order situation throughout the country.
“This hasn’t happened yet, but the indicators were there,” he
contended.
And he had not been alone in his predictions.
Many have come out publicly condemning the Government for not
acting on the guns report and there are no guarantees that there
are no guns out there.
Indeed, many of the leaders, particularly from the Highlands, are
unofficially termed warlords because they would not be what and
where they are if they were not. This was Papua New Guinea in the
21st century, and more precisely three decades after independence.
The scenes from above describe the 2002 national election, which
many analysts had described as the worst in the country’s
electoral history with a number of failed elections on the score
card.
Up until that day, the elections were in fact, not quite completed
and the signals were that it won’t be completed for sometime.
The reasons were gleaned from the scenarios described above.
One of the most basic foundations of democracy was being forced
away from its direct path with the ultimate destination being
total anarchy if the situation was not taken in hand.
A national crisis was imminent, a former kiap had said.
If the situation was allowed to flourish into anarchy, it would
have had wide reaching affect, he contended.
Prior to the 2002 election, concerned parties in PNG requested an
observer team to monitor the elections.
The response from a number of international observers was negative
because, in their own words, “it was unsafe”.
This could not be understood because there were several other
“unsafe” places in the world at the time that respectful observer
teams had monitored “at the drop of a hat”, including the volatile
racist African country of Zimbabwe.
And compared to PNG’s scenario, these places were real hot spots
with hundreds if not thousands of lives lost during election time.
The ex-kiap reckoned it was not incorrect to assume where the
“worst city in the world” or “one of the most unsafe places on
earth to visit” had sprung up.
In fact, he attributed it to foreign interests.
Given the scenario, he said some foreign interests were
capitalising on the opportunity to gain.
“They continued to paint a grim picture of the situation to
overseas contacts and the information was passed on through the
grapevine.
“In the end, they gained from the hardship allowances on offer.”
An independent observer team from Down Under was in PNG after the
event conducting a review of the election and their report had
concluded widespread irregularities and glaring holes in the
electoral system.
The PNG Electoral Commission at the time admitted to noting a lot
of these discrepancies and attributed these to a number of
factors; one of which was the people’s lack of respect for
authority.
A group of journalists reviewing the 2002 election noted that the
preferential system of voting was an improvement but not the
answer to PNG’s electoral woes.
“If the first past the post system had produced some sour results,
what guarantee was there that the preferential system will not be
sour?” a question was posed.
The answer to this question was: “There was no guarantee …”
But as one senior electoral officer said: “The time is ripe for
all good man to come to the party …” meaning there is a dire need
for all stakeholders to pool their resources and come up with the
right suggestion for PNG’s own electoral system, a system which is
fair and best for PNG.”
He contended that there was too much politics, too much compromise
leaving the simple Papua New Guinean, but the majority in numbers,
the loser in all things considered.
Perhaps, we really do need a system that will rid all the hassles
that PNG faces today in the act of exercising one’s democratic
right.
In the latest observations of the calibre of people standing in
this election, there are some shining light; people who have a
heart for the people.
These are the people who speak from the heart because in heart,
there is no “I”.
They’re not saying “I” will do this and that for you if you give
me your vote. They’re not making any promises as many are and this
is the big difference in their psychology.
For promises in this game, are never kept.
This reporter is keeping a straight face this time; he’s older and
wiser about the system but he’s certainly not wiser enough to
predict what the outcome would be if 4,000 security personnel come
up against 60,000 Southern Highlands warriors fully armed with the
latest high powered weapons in the process.
The little fracas over elections that are making the news are
starting to look like the lull before the storm.
Come what may, tears would certainly flow but we hope they are not
the juice of sour grapes.
Let us be reminded that one’s vote is vital to decide one’s future
and on that basis, be very careful with what you do with it.
As the Wise Counsellor would say: “What people commonly call their
fate is mostly their own foolishness …”
 
|
