A constitutional crisis that is destined to take place

Constitutional crisis? Fire and brimstones and a tonne of denials would have been hurled from hell if such words were uttered during normal times or by an average person. 
It is fitting, therefore, that Prime Minis­ter Peter O’Neill admitted to such a situation that the country now finds itself in. 
After a long and protracted eventful political journey unprecedented in Papua New Guinea’s history, we now sit in anticipation as to what parliament, and in particular the O’Neill government, would do next. 
The latest twist, irking out yet another ounce of puzzlement, took place last week when a three-man bench of the Supreme Court ruled to stay the order from parliament that sought to suspend Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia and Justice Nicholas Kirriwon under the new but controversial law. 
It needs no reminder that the chain of events goes back to the change of government on Aug 2, 2011. 
The consequences of that event have progressively got a strangulating hold on the country. 
If you are one of those people who at this point cannot seem to work out head-from-tail from these episodic convulsions stretching over the last nine months, take heart that even the learned are with you on this journey to the unknown. 
Such are times of surging political uncertainties that are sweeping over this land. 
That a constitutional crisis now beckoned has always reeked with a certain degree of inevitability. 
This is a ghost ship on the high seas without proper na­vigational instruments to reach shorelines. 
Separation of powers: theory and reality
The concept of separation of power is one where po­wers and responsibilities are divided among the legislative arm, executive arm and judicial arm. 
Each arm is empowered within clearly defined areas on how each of them can carry our tasks within this political structure and cross-check each other’s actions through a system of checks and ba­lances.
This is a principle that is imbedded in constitutions of many democracies to ensure that no one branch would accumulate too much power and exercise unreasonable authority that can serve as a basis to negatively affect the welfare of the people. 
Parliament is the principal law-making body in the country. 
The executive leads go­vernment and invariably ini­tiate laws. 
And the adjudication of laws is the responsibility of the judiciary. 
Part VI of the PNG Constitution lays out the underpins of the national government – including the judicial system. 
Other laws, of course, hinges on specific parts and sections of the Constitution. 
Thus, section 99 of the PNG Constitution identifies the three independent arms of government. 
The most obvious diffe­rence among the three arms of government is that both the legislature and executive are directly elected by the people; hence, the often-quoted line that they draw their mandate directly from the people. 
Judges and magistrates in contrast are appointed by the government. 
However, that does not render any less important or the significance of the judicial arm of government in its services to both the voters and parliamentarians. 
A reality that successive PNG governments have not been able to address was (and still is) the increasing asymmetrical (lop-sided) relationship between the legislature and executive. 
The executive in effect is the government, headed by the prime minister. 
At the core is the National Executive Council – which comprises mainly the ministers of cabinet. 
For a number of reasons, the executive has been growing in numerical strength at the expense of the opposition (alternate government).  This fact existed for years prior to the current political situation. 
Today, there are two members in the opposition, the Somare group in the middle benches and the majority in the O’Neill government. 
On the strength of the number of seats alone, the execu­tive has usurped the powers of the legislature.    
Origins of the crisis So what exactly makes this situation a constitutional crisis which differentiates it from previous state of affairs? 
The constitutional crisis arose from the Supreme Court’s decision to insulate Chief Justice Sir Salamo and Justice Kirriwon from the application of the Judicial Conduct Act. 
Hence, the alleged case that the Supreme Court failed to carry out its adjudication role. 
Of course, the court had its own reasons and arguments to substantiate and validate its decision.
That said, it would be unreasonable to understand the constitutional crisis without due regard for the bases as to how and why the conflict has developed to this stage. 
We have been staggering from one mind-boggling si­tuation to another since August last year. 
There are a number of court cases that one way or another are linked to the three arms of government. 
Therefore, it would be preposterous to assume that a constitutional crisis happened overnight. 
It was almost bound to happen at least since December 2011 when the legislature and judiciary stood behind two different individuals for the prime minister’s post. 
So there are two key approaches to understand the core of the present stand-off. 
First, there is the technical approach and it comes back to the separation of powers. 
There is a saying stipulating that “where you sit is where you stand”. 
It suggests that officials’ attitudes and beliefs tend to conform to those of the organisations they represent; that is, there are operational logics of each organisation that defines their purpose and place in the bigger polity. 
The judiciary often claims its independence from go­vernment and other state agencies and has the propensity to mete out decisions without fear, favour or prejudice. 
The executive may argue that it sits in a position where it has been vested all the legitimate authorities to run the country and so on. 
The legislature can say that its members have the democratic power as people’s mandated representatives. 
The second approach is to look at how the events have evolved to the present. 
The number of twists and turns – plus the number of variables emanating from different angles and inclu­ding scores of people – makes this whole political saga a treacherous minefield for proper and sanguine analysis. 
Thus, when push comes to shove, individuals are likely to bunker down – regardless of who is in the right and wrong. 
People are emotional beings! 
Further complicating the situation is when there are pre-existing assumptions that opposing individuals and entities are coming from illegal or illegitimate bases. 
Where do the
people stand?  
Amidst all of this, it would appear as if the people have become a pawn in the whole theatrical political show. 
And all the while, we are expected to believe that this is all in the interest of the people. 
Based on the public mood from last week, the people want the saga to end and the stage is then set for the national election. 
On the note, let me conclude with a few remarks and reminders: 
l    As is conventional knowledge, the Constitution and related laws are effective only to the point that it is res­pected and given due reverence by its subjects. That we shall reap what we sow is an undeniable truth; 
l    All citizens of the country are subjected to the same laws of the land, unless one feels that he/she is immutable based on circumstances or creed;
l    To our political leaders, pay attention to the public mood.  It would make your jobs less strenuous;
l    Leaders must show sensible leadership now by ensuring that the present political tussles end. Whether by the involvement of third parties or face-to-face meetings with adversaries, the welfare and rights of people must take precedence, and state’s institutions must be protected; and
l    A proverb from the Good Book says: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
 l    Dr Henry Okole is a senior research fellow at the National Research Institute, National Capital District. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of the NRI.