| Sports |
PNG set for another coalition government
By TIM ANDERSON
PAPUAN New Guineans went to the polls on June 30, the same day as
Timor Leste.
Yet, though PNG is our closest neighbour and a former Australian
colony with five times the population of Timor Leste, we hear much
less of this extraordinary country.
Unlike Timor Leste, the PNG elections will take more than 10 days,
because of the needs of remote communities – the Highland
provinces will vote on different days – and because police are
being rotated in the Highland regions.
Like every PNG election since independence in 1975, this one is
likely to produce a coalition government.
The government is usually formed by the leader of the party with
the most number of seats in Parliament, and always by the best
coalition builder.
PNG elections can be volatile. Disappointments and perceived
betrayals have led to violence in the past. At least 30 people
were killed during the 2002 elections.
This year’s concerns have included the purging of more than a
million old names from the electoral rolls and the introduction of
a limited preferential voting (LPV) system.
After the culling of names, there are still nearly four million on
the rolls, but already some have complained of wrongful exclusion.
There has been a substantial education campaign on the new LPV
system, but almost half the country remains illiterate. Some are
taking advantage of new opportunities.
One former soldier told me that LPV suited him well, because he
could get K20 from one candidate for his first preference, K10
from another for his second, and K5 for his third.
Such modest expectations are understandable. Government services
are extremely limited in PNG.
There is very little “trickle down” from the annual A$3 billion in
mineral and oil exports, or the A$200 million in logging exports.
Revenues mostly go to foreign companies. Export-led “development”
has not reached the people. The most common complaints are high
school fees, unaffordable health services and lack of roads.
However, most families in PNG have access to good quality land,
and this has been their saviour. The Government does have
some financial capacity, with a A$2 billion annual budget, but
neo-liberal influences have entrenched “user pays” regimes for
education and health services. The result is that most
families cannot afford health care or secondary school.
No party has broken through on this issue, nor has any one party
been able to dominate PNG’s electoral politics. This is not simply
due to the country’s cultural diversity. These days, almost all
parties are organised on national lines – however, they are not
class-based and there is a high level of participation and change.
Almost 3,000 candidates are competing for the 109 Parliamentary
seats.
Half of these candidates are independents and party loyalties can
be “flexible”. The demand for ministries is strong and there is
little security for MPs. Up to half the sitting members stand to
lose their seats at each election. The last government, led
by Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare, included members from all 18
political parties, at one time or another. Having completed a
third term as prime minister and with his status as “father of the
nation”, Sir Michael has proven himself the master networker and
coalition builder. That may be his main advantage in this
election.
His National Alliance (NA) Party faces a challenge from the New
Generation Party (NGP), led by former finance minister Bart
Philemon.
The NGP was only recently formed, and had been backed by the
Murdoch-owned Post-Courier newspaper, which has been hostile to
the NA government.
To gain office, Philemon’s NGP would have to win a substantial
number of seats and then form an alliance with other power
brokers, such as Sir Mekere Morauta (an Australian favourite and
former prime minister), Sir Rabbie Namaliu (another former prime
minister but currently treasurer) and Pias Wingti (yet another
former prime minister). Personalities apart, policy differences
are less clear.
All parties have been influenced by the World Bank “structural
adjustment” programmes – now usually called “good governance” and
maintaining privatisation, opening to foreign investment, and
“user pays” service regimes. All parties have also have been
implicated in various forms of corruption. This has been used to
maintain the policy leverage of aid programmes and foreign loans.
The Australian connection remains important. The Morauta-led
coalition (1999-2002) gained Australian support – backing
privatisation of State enterprises against strong public
opposition.
The recent Somare-led coalition (2002-2007) went cold on
privatisation, while maintaining support for big foreign investors
and stressing diversification of partnerships. The NA has been
slowly building a stronger relationship with China. There have
been several indirect confrontations between Canberra and Sir
Michael. They all seem to link to his perceived
independence, and Australian concern over its strategic
investments, which are mainly in mining and energy. With the
collapse earlier this year of the planned PNG-to-Queensland gas
pipeline, and discussions over new partners to process PNG’s
natural gas, Australian investment groups will be maintaining
their pressure on Canberra to retain its influence over the new
coalition that emerges in Port Moresby. – newmatilda
Note: The writer is a lecturer in political economy at the
University of Sydney. He has visited Timor Leste several times,
before and after independence.
 
|
