by
Brian Gomez
A bigger cabinet could be
an ominous sign
One of the key reasons democracy has
failed to deliver better results to the people of Papua New
Guinea can be traced to the politics of coalition governments.
Instead of placing its top concern on improved governance and
delivery of results, successive governments have been forced to
watch their backs and to ensure that coalition partners are kept
happy.
Until the full term of the previous government, successive
coalitions have been toppled by new groupings of various
parties.
The entire process is highly corrupt with individual MPs largely
motivated by a desire for personal gain.
This works to the detriment of Parliament’s legislative
functions and the smooth running of the executive arm of
government.
One immediate casualty of such manoeuvring is political
stability and flowing from this is poor economic management.
One of the reasons the former Mekere Government never managed to
get to grips with the slide into virtual oblivion of the mining
sector – the succeeding Somare Government rejuvenated mining –
was due to the revolving door that saw numerous ministers take
up the Mining Minister’s portfolio at that time.
The Integrity Laws were designed to bring improved political
stability and they appear, to some extent, to have succeeded.
However, the announcement by Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare
that he is contemplating increasing the size of cabinet from 27
to 35 (the cabinet increased by one ministry to 28) to
accommodate all coalition partners will be another backward
step.
It goes totally against the grain of the “rightsizing” campaigns
that have been promised within the public sector and is likely
to result in the opposite effect.
For a country of only six million people, a good case can be
made for an even smaller cabinet so that more funds can flow
directly to projects around the country rather than being
consumed by 109 parliamentarians, particularly those chosen for
high office.
However, one clear motivation for a larger cabinet is Sir
Michael’s obvious desire to ensure political stability during
his next five-year term in office and this factor needs to be
weighed against other negatives.
Poor political leadership is a key reason why the bureaucracy is
not functioning effectively.
The creation of another eight ministries is likely to exacerbate
this tendency.
Just prior to the national election the spotlight had fallen on
the Department of Finance through an inquiry, since disbanded,
into evidence of high levels of corruption.
But the public is aware that corruption in PNG is highly
pervasive and involves virtually any department that is able to
manipulate red tape or to process significant quantities of
funds.
One recent paper by Joe Ketan for the Centre for Democratic
Institutions said: “The ‘criminalisation of State institutions,
as exemplified by corruption within a number of government
departments (illegal sale of passports and work permits,
fraudulent payments and illegal contracts), suggests that the
state might be operating as a ‘kleptocracy’ (rule by theft).”
While this is definitely a dreadful state of affairs, probably
worse than corruption is the poor functioning levels of many
government departments where absenteeism and slack discipline
are the order of the day.
Even though the size of PNG’s bureaucracy is not excessive, as
some commentators have pointed out, we could well ponder the
question of how much public service delivery may be impacted in
particular departments if staffing levels were cut by a third!
Moving on to another related topic, I have been amazed by some
of the comments being made about candidates who have stood as
independent Members of Parliament. It would seem somewhat
counterproductive to block independents from standing in
elections.
The political system and the Integrity Laws also provide for
independent MPs, who win a seat, to be able to decide which, if
any, political party they may subsequently want to join.
Indeed, some may have contested as independents because they
could not get endorsement from various political parties.
Some may even have been members or supporters of a particular
political party.
It is difficult to see how independent MPs can be regarded as an
important force in Parliament even though they may form a
significant grouping.
Except for the fact that they run as independent candidates they
may have little in common and there appears little basis, say,
for an agreed platform of sorts.
From the perspective of the way politics are played in PNG, it
makes eminent sense for some independents to join forces either
with the Government or the Opposition in order to play a
constructive role.
The way various Parliaments have operated over the years, there
seems to be a need for a greater public awareness of the vital
role played by the Opposition in keeping democracy vibrant and
alive by ensuring that the government-of-the-day is performing
well, high levels of service delivery are maintained and that
corruption is minimised.
The current government certainly has an opportunity, in view of
the massive financial flows generated by “windfall” earnings
from mineral resources, to generate broad-based development and
to make a start in reversing the rising numbers of people forced
to live subsistence lifestyles and a life of poverty.
