Judges on integrity law myopic

THE Supreme Court’s decision to pronounce the integrity law invalid begs proper explanation.
It is not enough to just say: “Restrictions imposed on Papua New Guinea’s national parliamentarians and their freedom of movement in the national parliament was unheard of in any democratic countries within the Commonwealth.”
Democratic countries thrive on individual freedom, liberty, rights and periodic election of political representatives.
All democratic countries within or outside the Commonwealth espouse these fundamental tenets.
However, we need to be mindful that these tenets are regulated to suit their own circumstances.
For example, in many democracies it is a citizen’s freedom and right to, engage in prostitution, have homosexual relations or view phonographic materials. 
In these very countries, such right and freedom are not expected to be exercised by politicians.
Elected leaders are supposed to be decent, ethical and professional in serving the national interests.
There are good examples from the United States, Britain and Australia where politicians resign for making unpopular decisions, engaging in prostitution or financial scandals and other corrupt activities.
In PNG, leaders do not resign for such behaviours.
We see leaders still holding onto power because the instruments of law enforcement have become shrinking violets.
The government does not solely rely upon law to achieve its objectives, but government without law is like “Hamlet with Hamlet left out”.
To govern means control, and control in political sense within required principles of conduct embedded in legal principles and rules and enforced by sanctions, whether civil or criminal.
Government is concerned with broad legal principles as well as with minutiae of legal rules.
The goal is to attain justice, and law exists to help reach it.
Where is justice when politicians and elites steamroll power in siphoning public funds, with almost complete immunity to the law while petty criminals are beaten up and thrown in jail?
The country’s enduring poor social indicators depict that citizens are denied their rights and freedom, while politicians use their powers, freedom and rights frivolously at will for their own gains.
In established democracies, citizens vote along party lines because of:
*High level of political consciousness;
*Political party system is entrenched with mass membership;
*Majority of the population is educated and thus participatory citizenship is high; and
*State institutions perform efficiently to uphold civil order and harness public accountability.
Another important feature is that the national cultures of many democracies complement corporate cultures and conventional organisational management principles that have become the cornerstone of their advancement.
All these attributes are yet to be properly developed in PNG.
Our circumstances are different from other democracies, thus any political reform must be done to suit our own current needs for a better future.
The Constitutional Development Commission (CDC) went through great lengths to research and consult with the wider spectrum of the community to enact the integrity law.
Massive nationwide awareness campaigns were conducted to assert the thrust of the integrity law.
The very rights and freedom the learned judge referred to have been exhaustively debated for months.
Based on wider consultations and popular view, it was promulgated that politicians’ rights and freedom should be regulated in order to entrench party system, mass mobilisation based on political education, policy orientation and consistency.
Rather than throwing it out, the integrity law should be salvaged, refined and harnessed.
Look at the intrinsic value of the integrity law and envision the refinery process it should go through with time.
The judiciary has rendered a most important political reform unworthy to address the pervasive nature of party fluidity.
Against demands from an increasing population, the state must have the capacity to deliver.
Yes, the judiciary has done its job by putting people like William Kapris and others behind bars and addressed civil proceedings. But, this does not solve the problems that are deeply rooted because of irresponsible governments.
People steal because the state does not have the capacity to adequately provide for its citizens.
In other words, their rights and freedom denied by corrupt politicians and minimal development opportunities.
Irresponsible governments in the past have subjected the state to policy recycle and sporadic shifts in ministries, resulting in the people resorting to whom you know, where state institutions have become a wealth emporium accessed with political currency.
Yes, Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare has made some unpopular decisions and has been promoting a pro-elitist government while maintaining power at the convenience of the integrity law.
Some sectors of the community, including the opposition, now think he should resign.
While that may be so, we should be doing away with the integrity law.
What will the next government achieve in one year after a vote of no-confidence?
To say that the law restricts the rights and freedom is myopic.
Our version of the Westminster system has its inherent discrepancies and associated anomalies.
The rights and freedom of a politician should not be equated with those of an ordinary citizen.
The country must thrive on the pillar of equality in economic development.
In the past, no-confidence votes were waged with frivolous use of rights and freedom.
Where is the logic for politicians to exercise their rights and freedom without control to the impediments of citizens’ rights and freedom?
We must interpret the spirit of the constitution from an eclectic approach in view of the challenges that time brings forth.
The integrity law was enacted with a good intent.
Its redeeming features need to be salvaged and other aspects fine-tuned.
The supreme court’s decision will bring back the dreary perpetuity of no-confidence votes by unrestricted party hopping, policy recycle, inconsistencies at the whims of half-term governments, and a host of other problems.
It is like a dog going back to its vomit.
We need to promote democracy to suit our context rather than applying the practices of other Commonwealth countries with a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
It seems now that the constitution’s directive goals and principles have become a byword for professional opacity.
The constitution can lose its legitimacy and power of sanction if citizens continue to be marginalised and forced to their own ethnic and factional raison d’etre.

*Anthony Sil is a lecturer in international relations and diplomatic studies at the University of PNG. He can be reached at [email protected].