Seize the moment, O’Neill

 GERMAN Chancellor Angela Merkel, re-elected for a third term this week, was reported saying words to the effect that her Christian Democrats party would wield political power wisely, and reward well, the people who handed her a resounding victory.

Our own Peter O’Neill  had given similar reassurances that the power handed him after Election 2012 and reinforced through the recent Constitutional amendments was good for political stability, and that the government would use the opportunity to better serve out its term and with certainty.

Parliament rose last week after its final meeting for deliberating on business other than the budget for the coming financial year. 

The November session is traditionally the budget session after which there is a holiday season and shutdown of most government systems and financing until sometime next January.

The O’Neill Government has succeeded in passing two momentous laws with ease.  

One hands over total ownership of Ok Tedi Mine to the State and the other guarantees this government stays in power for the full term of the ninth Parliament.

The critical Constitutional amendments were made to sections 124 and 145. 

The amendment to section 124 now means that Parliament is required to sit a minimum of 40 days in a calendar year.  

The change to section 145 means that any motion of no confidence against the prime minister should bear the signatures of 22 MPs and notice for such a motion be given a month prior to its tabling. 

These are significant legal changes, for better or worse, depending which side of the debate you find yourself on.

From here on and until the end of this Parliament, only O’Neill can determine how well he has kept his word to wield political power for the national good. 

He was quick to refute concerns of too much political power in his hands saying instead that the amendments mean a gain in political stability.

We ask, who stands to gain the most from a stable government? Was a Constitutional amendment truly necessary to ensure the survival of the regime, given a largely depleted Opposition bench? Why the urgency to effect this Constitutional change?  

While a lot may be at stake for any government in a period of instability and uncertainty such as the nation experienced in the days before the Organic Law on Political Parties and Candidates came into force, this Government has no such worry, at least from the way the numbers in Parliament stack up.

But it used that numerical strength to its advantage to bulldoze through the Constitutional amendments to make doubly sure of a full five-year term.  

Any government formed thereafter will enjoy this guaranteed survival.  

The nation can only hope that such political stability will not be abused for the mere survival of a government and the benefit of its supporters. We pray that the O’Neill Government will not become insensitive to sound reasoning and debate. 

Perhaps this is the moment for the political master to really make the bureaucratic slaves serve him and therefore the masses. 

This is the opportunity to trim out the flab and excess in the public service rendering it leaner and more effective than it has ever been.

This is the moment to fight corruption in the public and private sectors without fear of repercussion or compromise. 

We ask and hope for this because, having insured itself against any threats, this Government is effectively saying we can trust it with our very survival too. 

That is a huge demand.

The onus should rather be on the Government to prove itself worthy of trust because, after the passage of the Constitutional amendments, not even Parliament can easily call it to account.

We are encouraged by the fact that the prime minister himself has conceded that much of  the economic gains from the resource boom have not translated into benefits for the ordinary Papua New Guinean.

Where service delivery is concerned, it will be interesting to ask what was achieved in 2013, the Year of Implementation.  In part, the answer will depend on how well bureaucrats performed.

Providing for and keeping the ordinary Papua New Guinean contented should be the yardstick to appraise political stability. 

It should not be used as an “all-is-well-here” front to our neighbours, aid donors or prospective investors.