Individualism versus tribalism

THE philosophical basis of any nation must be established and clear in the minds of people before any work on governing the people can begin.
If the people prefer to thrive collectively in clusters, tribes and communities, a government must be formed that works for such arrangements. In the past, we saw kingdoms ruled by kings, queens and Tsars.
If it is established that a nation is bound by the tenants of its faith, its government must necessarily be theological leaning.
Likewise, if it is established that a nation is strongest on the principles of individualism, then its government must reflect individualism.
To impose a system of government altogether different from the ways and character of any nation will not work.
PNG’s Government was foreign at its introduction to the majority of its people.
After four decades of practice, the Government remains far removed from the character of her people.
The Government is premised on individualism which, itself, developed across many centuries across Europe out of a mixed bag of monarchies, theocracies and feudalism.
After centuries of struggle, the peasant threw off the suffocating weight of imperialism and aristocracy and opted for individual rights.
This was carried across the seas to America where it was firmly established in the Constitution that individual rights and freedoms were inalienable.
This was carried further into other new lands, arriving on our shores in around the 1870s.
“Individualism rests on the principle that a man shall be his own master,” writes John William Draper, “that he shall have liberty to form his own opinions, freedom to carry into effect his resolves. He is, therefore, ever brought into competition with his fellow-men. His life is a display of energy”.
Individualism had no part in the tribal system of Papua New Guinea in pre-contact times.
The tribe was the most important unit.
Individuals within the tribe responded and contributed to the tribe’s needs.
Those who threatened the tribe’s security with disease or disobedience were forcefully removed.
Land and resources were communally-owned.
Tok Pisin, when it was introduced, gave this tribal system a name – Wantok – defining a tribe as sharing a language. It stuck.
So, when a government system is introduced that thrives on universal suffrage based on the vote of individuals is thrown like a cloak over tribal PNG, one can see only the cloak but not that which it covers and hides from view.
The country remains stoutly tribal.
Its instincts are tribal and territorial. It emerges periodically in tribal disputes, in cronyism, in regionalism, at the ballot box and in politics.
Nationalism cannot emerge on the back of tribalism. The back of tribalism must be broken before nationalism can emerge.
As the Constitution and Law Reform Commission sets about reviewing the system of government in PNG, it must consider this fundamental underlying philosophy.
It will find that its proposal to have the PM elected by the people to be deeply flawed when it is held up to the light of tribal PNG.
Such a proposal will ensure only the region or province with the most people will return their candidate repeatedly to the extent it will seriously fracture the nation with those who feel under-represented pulling off in different directions.
As the 50th anniversary of Independence approaches, the CLRC and Parliament along with PNG’s intelligencia should see if the system of government adopted at Independence has worked for PNG.
Ought it be modified?
What will work for this nation which is fiercely loyal to its tribal origins?
If you will look, the State controls only three per cent of the land in PNG. The rest is tribal land.
How do you claim sovereignty in a situation such as PNG’s?
The very idea is remarkably flawed.