Decentralisation and autonomy

NATION

This is the second part of the presentation by JOHN MOMIS, the ‘Father of Decentralisation’ at the recent conference on the subject. Here he discusses Decentralisation and the National Goals and Directive Principles

CLOSELY related to its decentralisation proposals were the CPC efforts to enshrine in the ‘National Goals’ and ‘Directive Principles’ (NGDPs) in the Constitution, as recording the needs and aspirations of the people expressed during our public consultations.
Decentralisation through the proposed provincial government system meshed well with the five NGDPs that were incorporated into the Constitution.
An egalitarian community, in which both benefits and responsibilities would be equitably shared amongst the people – deliverable through the provincial government system – would support the first goal of the NGDPs: the development of the whole person, not just their economic or material aspects.
Decentralisation empowers people by distributing governmental power and responsibility in accordance with the second NGDP, which calls for equitability in the distribution, of benefits and also of power, the source of benefits. It addresses the root cause of the problems of exploitation and poverty that are symptomatic of powerlessness.
The political struggle over the CPC proposals, 1975-76

From 1974, the Bougainville leaders put much effort into establishing a new provincial government for Bougainville, and was encouraged by the CPC’s recommendations on decentralization. Amongst other things, the CPC view would see provincial government arrangements entrenched in PNG’s new national Constitution, offering Bougainville and other provinces some protection from unilateral National Government action to change the system.
However, the negotiations between National Government and Bougainville leaders over the establishing and operation of the new Bougainville government in late 1974 and early 1975 became more and more difficult. National Government politicians and senior officials were clearly more and more uncomfortable with the strong push for real decentralisation in Bougainville.
Major disputes developed over funding arrangements, which came to an impasse in May 1975, when the Bougainville leaders expressed support for independence of Bougainville. In spite of this, negotiations continued, but only until July 1975.
The July 1975 Somare government decisions to remove the provincial government provisions from the draft constitution when it was before the constituent assembly was the straw that broke the camel’s back for the Bougainville leaders.
They recalled Raphael Bele and myself from the House of Assembly, an order with which we reluctantly complied, resigning our seats in the House of Assembly. Even though in our cultures, mediation is the accepted strategy for resolving differences and conflicts between rivals, many bureaucrats and ministers failed to grasp the creative opportunity that would have enabled them to share in the big vision of forging a partnership between the national government and the provincial governments.
In an initiative I have described elsewhere, early in 1976 I contacted then Prime Minister Somare, and encouraged by him we initiated negotiations with PNG for a compromise.
The main outcome was the Bougainville Agreement of August 1976, where PNG agreed to restore modified provisions on provincial government to the Constitution, something achieved by December 1976. The agreement envisaged provincial governments for the whole of PNG, but with the possibility of special, more highly autonomous arrangements for Bougainville, and by implication possibly for other parts of the country with the capacity and the resources that would be required for such arrangements to work
Rabbie Namaliu, who had recently been appointed Chair of the Public Service Commission was a supporter of the provincial government system. In 1997 he engaged consultants, McKinsey and Co., to recommend administrative arrangements needed to implement decentralisation arrangements across the country. While the consultants did a good job in developing a strategy for establishing the provincial governments, they overlooked one of the CPC’s most important recommendations about establishing the new provincial government in stages.
A phased implementation would have given the individual provinces time to build capacity, and increase financial capability and political responsibility. Instead, it was soon clear that many provinces were ill-prepared at the time they were granted provincial government status in 1977 or 1978.
Opponents of decentralisation capitalised on the inability of these new governments to mobilise against the opposition to decentralisation and, as a result, many of the embryonic decentralised provincial governments were effectively emasculated. There was so much opposition to the decentralised system of government from government ministries and senior bureaucrats that, had some of us not been around at the time, the provincial government system would probably not have been introduced at all.

Creating a sense of belonging
Despite these problems, one thing was undeniable – the people in the provinces became thoroughly engrossed in having, for the first time, their own governments. As the CPC had anticipated, decentralisation motivated the diverse peoples, especially in the rural areas, to feel a sense of belonging to one PNG.
I believe that the decentralised government system held the country together; without it the national government would have been faced with the massive task of pacifying disgruntled peoples in the rural areas who felt isolated from the source of power.
In my view, PNG missed the boat when it failed to implement in an appropriate manner the decentralised system of government.
As long as the national government has a monopoly on power – as does a centralised government – there can be no real improvement in the quality of life of the people in the villages and settlements because they are dependent on a government that may well not be accountable to them.
Had the national government transferred commensurate funding and personnel with the functions and responsibilities transferred to provincial governments, over time and with technical assistance, they would have become effective, responsible and creative in meeting the challenges that confronted them.
There is no doubt that there was corruption and mismanagement in quite a number of provincial governments, something that I recognised when as minister for decentralisation by taking action to suspend a number of provincial governments. But a major part of the reason for such problems was the failure to follow the CPC recommendations about establishing the new provincial government system in stages, for a large proportion of the corruption and other problems that led to provincial government suspensions occurred in provinces which were not ready for fully operational provincial governments in the first place.
Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, I treasure happy memories of working with pioneer premiers and other provincial leaders who blazed the trail of nationhood through unity in diversity. Despite all the problems, much about the system worked quite well, as was shown in the comprehensive analysis published 30 years ago in the longest monograph IASER or NRI monograph, the 1992 volume by Yash Ghai and Anthony Regan, The Law, Politics and Administration of Decentralisation in Papua New Guinea.

Provincial government system undermined
Moves against the provincial government system surfaced intermittently. In 1983, a proposal to do away with the institutional protection provided by the system was strongly opposed by both the national Premiers’ Council and the New Guinea Islands (NGI) Premiers, as well as by some of the senior members of Parliament from the region.
A letter with their signatures was dispatched to the Prime Minister, informing him of their unanimous opposition to the move. In 1984, it was again proposed that a referendum on the future of provincial government be held. Once again, the NGI Premiers strongly opposed the move; this time succeeding in persuading the Government to drop the idea.
Nevertheless, as a result of constant complaints about the provincial government system from members of the national government, three parliamentary select committees were established to evaluate the system. The first, set up in mid-1985 under the chairmanship of the MP for the National Capital District, Tony Siaguru, began touring the country to gauge the views of the people. The Siaguru Committee tried to be fair in its engagement with the people, even though Sir Pita Lus, who was member of the committee, made it quite clear that there was only one option and that was to abolish the whole system.
Regardless, the efforts of the Siaguru Committee were terminated prematurely, when a new Prime Minister (Paias Wingti) took office, who did not want his rival, Siaguru, to use the committee to promote himself as a credible alternative prime ministerial candidate.
The second committee, in 1990–1991, was under the chairmanship of Henu Hesingut, the MP for Finschaffen. The Hesingut committee recommended the abolition of provincial governments.
In their place, new political bodies made up of chairmen of local level governments would be created. Under this arrangement, the national government would regain control of both local governments and provincial government public service structures, and all provincial funding.
Simultaneously, a proposal by a private member recommended the establishment of district level development authorities chaired by open electorate members. It was clear from discussions and debates that the members of the national parliament wanted to have direct control of funds and direct influence over the planning of development projects in their constituencies.
The committee’s report generated political controversy, and contributed to the island provincial government’s calls for more autonomy and possible secession.
The report was put to one side and instead a third parliamentary select committee was established in November 1992 under the chairmanship of the MP for Kavieng Open, Ben Micah. The Micah committee toured the country to consult, and in March 1993 presented an initial report. It claimed widespread disenchantment with provincial government, and blamed declining standards of delivery of government services on elected provincial governments unable to administer services efficiently because of political pressures on decision-making.
The report recommended the abolition of elected provincial governments and their replacement with non-elective political bodies made up of members of parliament, chairmen of local level governments and representatives of non-governmental organisations. A final report late in 1993 made similar but more detailed recommendations.
The provincial governments in the four regions opposed the Micah committee proposals. Opposition continued to be particularly strong from the New Guinea Islands (NGI) region provinces. In April 1994 the four NGI premiers were reported to have prepared a constitution for a new country, called the Federated Melanesian Republic, comprising four states – East and West New Britain, Manus and New Ireland, with Bougainville having an automatic right to join.
In mid-1994, Sir Julius Chan replaced Wingti as Prime Minister, but he continued support for abolition of elected provincial governments.
Then in September 1994, a massive volcanic eruption of the Rabaul volcanoes occurred, and the obvious need for National Government support gradually helped undermine NGI provincial government opposition to the reforms.

Charged with treason
In October 1994, the four NGI premiers, namely Stephen Pokawin, Sinai Brown, Bernard Vogae and Samson Gila, and the then NGI Forum Chairman and MP for Talesea, Patterson Lowa, were all charged with treason by the Chan Government.
The government further ordered that the staff of the New Guinea Islands secretariat be arrested, that expatriates involved with the secretariat be deported, that provincial secretaries be suspended and charged, and that grants and loan guarantees to Manus Province (part of NGI) be frozen.
A succession of drafts of constitutional amendments and a new organic law for the redesigned system of provincial governments and local governments were tabled in Parliament from February 1994, before the final version Organic Law on Provincial Government and Local Level Governments (OLPGLLG) was passed in votes in March and June 1995.
In debate I acknowledged to the Parliament that there was a need for reform of the system, this could be achieved by amending the existing Organic Law on Provincial Government.
I opposed the new bill very strongly, predicting it would be ‘an administrative nightmare’, and that the provincial government system would ‘become a giant electoral development fund’.
I was one of five of Chan’s own cabinet who voted against the bill or abstained from voting, and we were sacked by the prime minister.
The prime minister did not want to sack me because of my consistent principled pro-provincial government stance. However, on principle and in support of my dismissed colleagues I declined his offer to stay in cabinet.
The NGI opposition to the reforms ebbed away, and the treason charges were eventually discontinued.
It is no surprise that this abolition of elected provincial governments occurred in the 1990s, when the North Solomons Provincial Government, the government of Bougainville, the province that had largely led the pre-independence demand for decentralisation, had been under suspension from mid-1990, as a result of the Bougainville Crisis.
The absence of the North Solomons Provincial Government from the debates gave the Wingti and Chan governments much more latitude than would otherwise have been the case in doing away with elected provincial governments.

Next: The disadvantages of the reformed provincial government system