Time for PNG’s Priest-Politicians to Drop Titles

With the extraordinary preliminary election statistics revealing that the PNG Electoral Commission has already processed 4329 candidates, it is only fair to assume that a handful of these intending politicians will be sourced from the folds of the church.

Religion and the church, particularly the Catholic church, has had a long association with politics not just in PNG but the world over.

In April, the ongoing issue of ordained Catholic priests contesting elections in PNG was raised and discussed by the Episcopal Conference of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands which is chaired by Archbishop John Ribat of Port Moresby.

After consideration, the conference decided to remind all priests in the region that no bishop in Papua New Guinea or Solomon Islands has ever given or will ever give permission to one of his priests to enter politics.

In a signed letter forwarded onto the priesthood, Archbishop Ribat wrote:

“Unfortunately, once again, some of our brother priests are planning to run for political office in the 2012 Papua New Guinea National Election.

This is a great disappointment for us bishops and for the majority of our Catholic people. We believe that most priests, religious and lay people share our disappointment: the choice by a priest to enter politics is a betrayal of the people, like in the Gospel story (Jn 10, 12-13) in which a shepherd abandons the flock entrusted to him”.

Archbishop Ribat, on behalf of the bishops, recognized the importance of political commitment but reiterated that priesthood and politics don’t mix:

“It is entirely appropriate that qualified Catholic lay people represent the Church through direct political involvement and thereby find creative ways to apply the Church’s social teaching in shaping specific policies that promote the common good.

However, running for public office, as well as to actively campaign for a political party or candidate, is contrary to the vocation of the priesthood”.

The Catholic church, despite their objection to priests standing for elections, have produced some noteworthy PNG politicians – including former Governor of Western Highlands Province Father Robert Lak, current Governor of Simbu Province Father John Garia, and most notably, the current President of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville and co-writer of the Constitution of Papua New Guinea John Momis.

It is interesting to note that although the Catholic bishops have declared that a priest is automatically suspended from their active duties for two years once they have given notice of their intention to contest elections (even if they are unsuccessful), they still retain their title and profession.

On commentating on the Church’s stance Robert Losema, spokesman for PNG and Solomon Islands Catholic Bishops’ Conference, stated:

“They [priests] will not be able to perform their ministerial roles as pastors. They’re actually suspended as soon as they stand for public office and are not allowed to perform their rituals in terms of ministers.

They are still priests, still ordained ministers, but they are suspended from performing their responsibilities, particularly in terms of the rituals that they perform as priests”.

Father Robert Lak, Father John Garia and John Momis all opted to initially run for public office with their respective titles on campaign posters and ballot forms, with only John Momis now no longer actively using his title after seeking an official dispensation in 1993 to leave the priesthood (after 21 years as a Member of Parliament).

Father Garia, who will be defending his Simbu regional seat in the upcoming elections, has acknowledged that he had already been suspended from the Church when he announced his intention to contest the Simbu Provincial seat in 2007, but stated:

“My people know I am a good priest and when I became governor they believed that I would care for them and bring them the services they need. I am a priest, of course I will go back”.

It is this sort of indistinguishable perspective held by many a priest on the similar roles of a priest and a politician that is concerning the Church.

In 2002 the Bishop of Kerema, Paul Marx, sacked Father Phillip Sivi for lying when he told the Bishop he had not nominated to contest the elections. Father Sivi said it was the people’s wish that he enter politics:

“And the wish of the people will always override that of a bishop. It is a non-issue, as a politician, like a priest of the church, serves the people”.

According to Catholic law, the Code of Canon Law (#285) states that, “Clerics are forbidden to assume public offices which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power”.

Even if allowed by local church authorities, there are a number of modern examples where Pope John Paul II has called upon priests who hold public office to step down or resign from the clerical state.

With new media reports describing the position of more priests intending to contest the elections using their clerical titles, it is time for the Catholic Bishops to consider also adding the extra penalty of stripping priest-politicians off their titles and profession.

For when does a priest stop being a priest when he becomes a politician?

Addressing PNG’s ‘Late Bus’ Election Attitude

To be “late bus” in PNG’s ever evolving Tok Pisin slang means to have missed the bus or boat so to speak, or to be the last person to know about something, or to leave a task to be completed at the last moment.

It’s a common phrase lobbed about in PNG’s colorful vernacular and is usually accompanied by negative connotations – or at least the undesirable perception of being the last one in the loop.

I believe it’s also an appropriate phrase to attribute to Papua New Guinea’s key electoral institutions, particularly the PNG Electoral Commission and the PNG Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates Commission in regards to two key issues: the effective and efficient planning of PNG’s five yearly general elections; and timely political institutional and structural reform.

PNG Electoral Commission

The planning and organizing of PNG’s five yearly elections will always be challenging due to the sheer mammoth logistical effort needed to provide ballot boxes and papers to PNG’s rural population secluded by mountains, rivers and oceans.

However, there seems to be an almost endemic “late bus” gene unique to and prevalent within the PNG Electoral Commission which makes this already difficult task almost impossible – and to the detriment of the state of democracy in PNG.

Indeed, it was this exact view of the unpreparedness of the PNGEC that produced the many outbursts from PNG members of parliament, cabinet ministers, and even the deputy prime minister – all of which threatened to almost disrupt the holding of the 2012 elections on time.

And despite avoiding this calamity, Deputy Prime Minister Belden Namah has already announced his plans to challenge in court the validity of the electoral roll for his own Vanimo-Green electorate.

There is an enormous amount of literature available describing, outlining and providing solutions to help the PNGEC plan and conduct general elections to the best of their ability – and yet, every five years, the risk of not having elections on time rears its ugly head time and time again.

One of the biggest points of concern here, and in defense of the PNGEC, is the release of adequate and timely funding to the PNGEC from the government.

In 2009, Electoral Commissioner Andrew Trawen warned that the 2012 elections would be more challenging than 2007, and that the government allocated insufficient funds to cater for the elections. In addition, he also raised the point of those  funds generally only being made available a few months before the elections.

After suggesting in 2009 that the PNGEC needed US$60 million to hold the 2012 elections (this figure skyrocketed in late 2011 when the same Electoral Commissioner announced that he needed more than US$109 million), Trawen went on to state:

“The Electoral Commission needs sufficient funding three years in advance in order to conduct a better election.

What we are saying is, implement some activities like purchase the ballot boxes in 2010 and, electoral roll update with reduced cost in 2011.

And when it comes to 2012 we just conduct the election.”

We all know what actually happened in 2012.

PNG Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates’ Commission

The second electoral institution suffering from “late bus” disease is the PNG Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates’ Commission (IPPCC).

On Wednesday, it was reported in the Post-Courier that IPPCC boss Dr Alphonse Gelu announced that his office is currently conducting a review into a number of key political institutional and structural reforms, including:

• The number of political parties
• The situation facing female candidates
• Exploring whether the Organic Law of Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) could expand in looking at ways to assist female candidates; and
• How the office can actually manage the affairs of political parties

Gelu went on to state:

“The Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates’ Commission is undergoing a review at the moment and a lot of changes are expected.

The review will be a good package and I hope Parliament will endorse it and Cabinet will give its approval once we complete it.”

This indeed will be a good package, and there is no doubt that this is a positive step in the right direction, but why in the world has IPPCC left this important piece of reform to the last minute?

What good would expanding the OLIPPAC to address female candidate participation rates do now for intending female candidates with the country going to the polls in two weeks?

The non-timeliness of these welcome developments is concerning. If such reviews and reforms were conducted on time they would help contribute enormously to a much more stable and streamlined election process and period.

PNG’s “late bus” attitude to elections and to key political institutional and structural reforms must be addressed.

PNG’s political institutions and structures must be well tended to in order to enable the effective and meaningful participation of our people in the political life of nation building.

The Revolving Doors of PNG’s Parliament

Papua New Guineans are a very political people.

The fundamental laws which define modern politics the world over, and in particular, the ability to influence and persuade others to support one’s cause for control and power over a specific sphere, whether as an independent or on behalf of a group, is an art which is ingrained in the PNG psyche.

It permeates our society – from culture, religion, art, sport, and of course – onto the biggest stage of all, the National Parliament.

And it seems that our obsession with politics is only growing with no plausible end in sight.

The Post-Courier and The National both yesterday published articles stating that more than 4000 candidates had signed up to contest the  2012 National Elections.

The figures reveal that 4,329 candidates had signed up to contest the elections before the original nomination closing date of March 26, but with the nomination period now due to close on Friday 24th of May, that number is likely to rise – and rise sharply.

On commenting on the preliminary figures, the PNG Electoral Commission stated that:

“The final figures of the candidates will be made known when the nomination period closes, only then we can know the final figure; [and] as we said, we are still receiving names and working on the bio-data”.

These are simply extraordinary statistics – particularly when put in the context that these processed 4329 candidates, thus far, will all be hoping to win one of only 109 available seats of parliament.

More than 4000 candidates have signed up to contest the 2012 National Elections in #PNG. This is an extraordinary statistic #pngpol

— Deni ToKunai (@Tavurvur) May 1, 2012

When compared to the previous elections’ numbers, the figures are astounding.

In 2002, the 109 seats were contested by about 2800 candidates, resulting in candidates winning seats with tiny propotions (including less than 10%) of the overall vote under the then used First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system.

In the 2007 elections, the first general election in which PNG used the current Limited Preferential Voting (LPV) system, it was estimated in the lead up to that election that about 3400 candidates had registered interest with the PNG Electoral Commission, but that the number was expected to rise as parties finalized their teams.

Of these numbers, the 2002 figures are the most accurate, while both the 2007 and 2012 figures quoted here were only preliminary figures as stated by PNG Electoral Commissioner Andrew Trawen in the lead up to the two respective general elections.

Based on the rough estimate of these figures,  that represents an average increase of about 750 candidates per election since 2002!

That figure is likely to be actually higher due to the preliminary numbers cited here for both the 2007 and 2012 general elections, but despite this, the figures are mind-boggling.

Historically speaking, there is a very high turnover of MPs in PNG’s Parliament, often with less than half sitting members able to retain their seats.

With the continuous incredible increase in candidate participation rates every five years, it seems safe to assume that there will also be another high turnover rate in the upcoming 2012 general elections.

Should Lying in the Haus Tambaran be made a Criminal Offence?

Readers of The Garamut will be aware that I have previously called for the need of urgent political reform to PNG’s political framework of checks and balances.

I made this call on the back of the ongoing political impasse PNG has been embroiled in for the majority of the past nine months since Peter O’Neill wrestled power off Sir Michael Somare.

There have been several good discussions happening on PNG’s blogosphere regarding the idea of political reform in PNG – all of which have had a clear focus on veritably reforming parliament via the possibility of bicameralism.

But I believe the argument for political reform in PNG is much more comprehensive than simply arguing for a change in the make-up of the structure of PNG’s legislature and the process of how bills become acts – and even much more than the creation of a parliamentary system which may be deemed to be more Papua New Guinean-friendly.

This is but only one aspect of possible political reform that may help strengthen PNG’s political checks and balances.

PNG’s political impasse has clearly demonstrated that despite its best intentions, our systems of government, including the separation of powers, can be too easily usurped.

This should be distressing to all Papua New Guineans.

One pond is too easy to pollute. The events of this week have shaken my belief in genuine democracy. This is no longer just enough #PNG

— Deni ToKunai (@Tavurvur) April 6, 2012

It may be fair to say that some fault of the situation PNG finds itself in right now can be allocated to a shortage of quality political leaders. However, this doesn’t mean that we should not be proactively looking at how we can improve our systems of government for the better.

What is certain is that if PNG politicians are able to abuse current parliamentary processes, then the same possibility must also be recognized as being a reality if PNG did indeed introduce bicameralism.

It is imperative that any political reform in PNG needs to take a more encompassing view of what aspects of our systems of government can be improved.

With this in mind, I read with great interest a recent report that Campbell Newman’s new Queensland LNP Government is drafting laws to make it illegal to lie to the state’s parliament after previous laws were changed to make it only a contempt of parliament.

In making comment on the law’s reenactment, Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Jarrod Bleijie said the State Government would amend the Queensland Criminal Code to reenact laws repealed under the previous administration.

Bleijie said:

“In 2006, the previous state government repealed the section that made lying in Parliament a criminal offence.

At that time, the matter constituted not only a contempt of Parliament but under section 57 of the Criminal Code, knowingly giving false evidence before Parliament was a crime with a penalty of up to seven years’ jail”.

It is this type of political reform, aimed at reducing opportunities for political abuse while simultaneously strengthening our systems of government, that PNG needs in order to re-instill the public’s confidence in the robustness of our political system.

With O’Namah revealing its clogged up assembly line of apocryphal bills aimed at ‘improving democracy’, it should only be fair that the executive arm of government with support of the legislature take a look in the mirror and discuss how parliament can also be improved to enhance our democratic reputation.

Introducing such a bill would be one such positive step.

Peter O’Neill’s Schizophrenic Leadership

As PNG’s political impasse has unfolded, one of its more unsettling characteristics has been the constant back-flipping and flip-flopping of certain decisions and statements made by Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and his Cabinet.

The number of contradictory statements and viewpoints made thus far has been truly astounding.

Never before have I ever witnessed a PNG government, comprised of what appears to be a coalition that seems to lack a publicly presented perspective of unity and cohesion – and one that seems to have developed an evolutionary instinct for antipodean statements in record time, as dysfunctional as that of the O’Namah Government.

In what's becoming a hallmark of The O'Neill experiment, the statement offers compromise after colleague induced chaos, or CIC. #PNG

— . (@Blackwell) April 9, 2012

These series of political gaffes are the symptoms of a government inventing impulsive solutions to a number of issues identified and highlighted by the coalition as being critical in ensuring they remain in power prior and during the upcoming elections.

These so-called problems and issues with PNG’s state of democracy and separation of powers, surprisingly enough, have all emerged to gain significant prominence on the NEC agenda, parliament and consequently the public discourse over the past nine months.

They are also possibly manifestations of a coalition government that is lacking confidence, unsure of itself and its immediate future, and slightly apprehensive of the ongoing dispute between itself and the judiciary, and the growing public support of the people of PNG in favour of the judiciary over the executive.

Perhaps the most infuriating example of the schizophrenic government we now see is Prime Minister’s Peter O’Neill’s repeated calls during this ongoing political impasse for the need of good leadership in PNG – and his government’s apparent blatant apathy to heeding his own words.

Just last week, O’Neill addressed his Ialibu-Pangia electorate in the Southern Highlands and revealed that his government was confident of building a new ‘leadership culture’ that would put the interest of ordinary Papua New Guineans first.

O’Neill stated:

“Today I want to assure the people of Ialibu-Pangia and Papua New Guinea that my government will fight vigorously to create a new leadership culture that will be res­ponsible for meeting the needs of our people.

This government will aim to fix the rot that has been created over the past 36 years. It will not be easy but we will do our best.

We are doing this because we care for the well-being of our people, the silent majority. Our people and country deserve better from our leaders and I want to assure you all that my fight against corruption is not yet over.

In fact, it has just started. I am still young and will fight harder to make sure leaders who have been involved in corrupt practices are dealt with accordingly.

We must all work together and elect good leaders who can change this country for the better.”

Although the substance of O’Neill’s statement must be applauded, it is difficult to be comforted much by such words when the actions and comments of the O’Namah Coalition do not reflect the stated intent of O’Neill’s address and re-gurgled message.

Furthermore, Peter O’Neill’s track record of enforcing accountability amongst his own ranks has been poor, with the best example being the non-admonishment of his deputy Belden Namah over sexual allegations at Sydney’s Star City Casino.

It is examples like this, and O’Neill’s endorsement of several controversial legislative amendments which have tampered with the rule of law, including constitutional democracy and the independence of the judiciary, that have highlighted the schizophrenic nature of his leadership and government.

What has really perturbed me is the exhibition that O’Neill and Namah appear to steadfastly believe that they are indeed doing the right thing for PNG – and that their actions are indeed in the best interest of the people.

It is difficult to pinpoint where exactly this sense of righteousness has originated from – a plausible explanation may be O’Namah’s once strong, but now quickly diminishing, political capital – but despite its source, there is no doubt that this misguided belief permeates every current thought process of the O’Namah Coalition.

This has been the primary justification of their own actions starting with the Judicial Conduct Act and now possibly venturing into the territory of more legislative amendments which will further demean the state of PNG’s democracy.

This is yet another symptom of the schizophrenic leadership we are witnessing today.

Just when exactly O’Namah will wake up and smell the roses is uncertain. That is why this current period of political uncertainty has the potential to be dangerous for PNG, our institutions and our people.

PNG’s Autocracy Legalizes Puppetry of the Judiciary

In what can only be described as an added jab of malicious autocratic intent into the organs of democracy sustaining PNG, and a further parry in the ongoing political war between PNG’s executive and judiciary, the O’Namah government has once again, incredulously, taken one step further down a path of questionable return.

In addition to the Judicial Conduct Act 2012, O’Namah yesterday initiated and today progressed debate on a further piece of retrospective legislation titled the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 2012.

The new law effectively restricts the powers of the Supreme Court by preventing the court from halting laws until after constitutional challenges are heard, and is deemed to have come into operation on December 9, 2011.

Deputy Prime Minister Belden Namah has acknowledged that the new law is a response by the majority O’Namah Government to the Supreme Court’s staying of the controversial Judicial Conduct Act 2012 which provided a constitutional change to the actual positioning of the judiciary in relation to the executive.

The Judicial Conduct Act also awarded new powers to the executive which provides the the possibility and opportunity for the executive to manage or interfere with the affairs of the judiciary.

It is difficult to determine for certain at this moment in time whether the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 2012 is a logical step (in the minds of the O’Namah Government) in the ongoing tit-for-tat battle with the judiciary in an attempt to retain control of government prior to the upcoming General Elections 2012; or alternatively, whether it is the latest ploy to maneuver the O’Namah Government into a much more sinister position – and dare I say it, down the path of totalitarian rule.

This latter viewpoint, although abominable, is indeed a common interpretation of O’Namah’s latest move by PNG’s growing online population, with one Twitter user making the following observation on the latest development:

#PNG Parliament intentionally provoking CIVIL UNREST so their wish for dictatorship can be granted on a golden plate?

— Trupla PNG (@truplapng) April 18, 2012

In addition, this perception was further fueled today by a chain-email which seemed to make it into most Papua New Guinean email accounts suggesting that the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 2012 was the third of five retrospective bills planned to be passed into law by O’Namah.

With the O’Namah Government having the parliamentary numbers available to enact new legislation, it is inevitable that the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill 2012 will become law tomorrow when parliament resumes to entertain the bill’s third reading.

Although parliament’s endorsement of the Supreme Court (Amendment) Bill is indeed concerning, it is not an adequate enough signal in itself to raise the battle cry about the swinging of PNG’s system of government from parliamentary democracy to totalitarian rule.

The measuring stick for this possible dangerous temptation and transition will be the PNG General Election 2012.

It is now absolutely imperative that having the elections on time, as per the PNG Electoral Commissioner Andrew Trawen’s announcement (two months deferral),  is adhered to.

This is PNG’s last measure of control – it is the Rubicon for PNG’s political system adequately filling all the criteria as to what can be classified as having the properties, or characteristics of, a political system which will be on par to that of a functioning full fledged dictatorship.

If indeed the ominous chain-email warning of two more retrospective bills, namely a Police Control Bill and a Media Control Bill, does become true, then the fire signaling a turn for the worse will be lit and its smoke will be visibly seen emanating from within the grisly walls of the Haus Tabaran.

It is difficult for me to comprehend even the possibility of Peter O’Neill going down this additional route – but the events of the past month have jilted my confidence, and those of many Papua New Guineans, in the political checks and balances we supposedly have.

#PNG is now best described as being an Autocracy that has legalized puppetry of the judiciary. I never thought this day would come #pngpol

— Deni ToKunai (@Tavurvur) April 18, 2012

However, it would not be wise to totally discount the above warnings.

Although clearly deplorable, the continuous actions of the O’Namah Government to enact retrospective legislation with additional amendments, has so far remained tentatively acceptable within the boundaries of a democratic state.

Even additional movement on tightening control of police, depending on what this entails, should be equally tentatively acceptable.

But let me make it absolutely clear that any parliamentary movement on the perimeters of controlling both mainstream and social media, or any form of media for that matter; and any further parliamentary movement in postponing or shifting the PNG General Election 2012 date, with or without the PNG Electoral Commissioner’s consent, would be a positive indication that O’Namah has driven PNG outside the environs of a democratic state and has made a pact with the devil with the creation of a totalitarian administration.

This will be the moment where we can expect the international condemnation and isolation of PNG by our international partners.

These are apprehensive times for Papua New Guinea.

International Scrutiny on PNG’s State of Democracy Growing

It is extremely rare for any bar association or representative organisation of the judiciary, or elements of it, to announce press conferences or release media statements.

Usually, such legalistic comments are contained within carefully thought out judgements handed down within the strict confines of the court-room. But occasionally one does, and when it does, it pays to take notice.

The Bar Association of Queensland has an annual media release rate of one per year. Earlier last month it released a media statement, it’s first for 2012, outlining it’s concern for the PNG Chief Justice Sir Injia Salamo – an extraordinary move of support of one foreign legal jurisdiction to another.

In that statement, the President of the Bar Association of Queensland, Mr Roger Traves stated:

“The executive must respect the judiciary, decisions of the Court and the rule of law. To do otherwise was to reject the due performance by the Court of its Constitutional obligations and hence to reject the Constitution.

The Constitution is that which stands between democracy for the people of Papua New Guinea and the unrestrained exercise of power over them by the State.”

Such powerful comments on PNG’s ongoing political impasse, made by international observers with significant political and social capital, are concerning and have the potential to harm PNG’s international reputation if not addressed.

The international scrutiny on the latest events in PNG haven’t just been limited to Queensland or Australia.

In January, the Commonwealth Secretariat made the following comment on the use of military means for domestic purposes in PNG:

“We have been following developments in Papua New Guinea with concern. We deplore the extra-constitutional action taken by some elements in the military, and we are pleased that the situation has been brought under control and the country remains peaceful.

The Commonwealth unreservedly rejects any use of military means for domestic political purposes. We urge all concerned to continue to work towards resolving differences through dialogue, and in accordance with the Commonwealth’s values.”

Furthermore, on Monday (April 16), the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) held its thirty-seventh meeting in London. It was the Group’s first regular meeting following its reconstitution by the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHG), at their meeting in Perth in October 2011 and at which Peter O’Neill was also present.

CMAG is a group of nine Foreign Ministers (membership is reconstituted every two years) that meets when necessary to examine serious and persistent threats to human rights and democracy in Commonwealth countries.

Although Fiji, which was suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth in December 2006, is the only country on CMAG’s current permanent agenda, situations in other countries are also discussed informally.

With the unanimous election of Hon Dr Surujrattan Rambachan, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Trinidad and Tobago as its Chair; and Hon Bob Carr, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia as its Vice-Chair, as well as further Melanesian representation by Hon Alfred Carlot, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Vanuatu; there is no doubt that the current events in PNG have also been discussed at this level – albeit informally.

This is concerning.

In its concluding Group report, CMAG reviewed developments in relation to the two countries on the meeting’s formal agenda, Fiji and the Maldives.

The similarities between what has happened in the Maldives, leading to its condemnation by CMAG, and what is happening in PNG right now with the threat of the delay in General Elections 2012, the implementation of the controversial Judicial Conduct Act 2012 including its consequent amendments, and the executive’s declaration of war with the judiciary, is alarming.

The BBC wrote the following report on the situation in the Maldives (emphasis mine):

“The Commonwealth’s rights watchdog [CMAG] has criticised an inquiry set up by the Maldives to investigate an alleged coup as ‘neither independent or impartial’.

The inquiry is tasked with investigating events leading to the transfer of power in February.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed claims he was removed from office by force. Mr Nasheed alleges President Mohamed Waheed Hussein Manik, his former vice-president, conspired with the opposition and military to oust him. Mr Waheed denies the charge.

Mr Waheed has previously agreed to put his government to a vote, but said that the conditions were not yet right for polls to be held.

But earlier this week, the government said victories in two by-elections gave it a mandate to keep governing until the end of 2013, when the next polls are scheduled.

The by-elections were called after the disqualification of two MPs by the country’s highest court in the weeks after Mr Waheed came to power.”

Although Peter O’Neill has repeatedly assured PNG’s partners that elections will go ahead on schedule, there is no doubt that our immediate international neighbours and regional and international membership-based groups, including the Commonwealth Secretariat, are all watching the developments in PNG with some angst.

The Bar Association of Queensland has opted to take its approach to the next level by organizing a seminar titled, The Rule of Law and Judicial Independence in Papua New Guinea, which has been endorsed by the International Commission of Jurists.

It is fair to say that PNG’s international reputation as a robust democratic nation has already been tarnished by the decisions of the O’Namah government.

The longer this political impasse lasts, and the more retroactive pieces of legislation and amendments are created to justify past or ongoing government-driven parliamentary decisions, not only will our own citizens begin to lose faith in PNG’s democratic systems, but so too will our international friends and colleagues.

It is one thing to be disowned and disliked by one’s own citizens, and another thing altogether to be condemned and isolated by the world.

Political Reform Imperative to end PNG Kleptocracy

The past few months in PNG politics have provoked a number of responses to be made public by nonpartisan domestic and international observers of Papua New Guinea on the events which we have witnessed unfold thus far.

These responses have been wide and varied in terms of origin, purpose, experience, justification and even legality – but encouragingly, all these responses share the common denominator of putting an end to the current political woes encompassing Waigani.

Although suggested processes and methodology differ, sometimes even polarized, the outcome(s) of the views that domestic and international observers of PNG share is largely homogeneous. This means that people are proactively thinking about how we can improve the situation in PNG – another positive by-product of the political impasse.

One of the more authoritative publications released and based on field work completed in PNG over the past year is the Lowy Institute’s March policy brief on averting violence in the 2012 General Elections.

In that paper, Dr Scott Flower and Jim Leahy (standing for the Western Highlands Regional seat in the upcoming election) identify a number of election-related issues and propose a number of solutions to help mitigate the risk of election-violence occurring and re-occurring again in the future.

Although some of the key areas identified for immediate focus to manage the security of the election period by PNG and friends of PNG are premature and precipitated and in my view undesirable, for example – the urgent consideration of a regional security force with possible helicopter support from the US, most do hold considerable value over the long-term and should be seriously considered by the current and forthcoming PNG governments.

Another significant discussion, driven by the events of the past months in PNG and a blog post I wrote, has reared its head in the public discourse and is centered on the idea of reforming the PNG parliament.

As followers on Twitter would know, I recently voiced my dismay at the ongoing uncertainty in PNG politics and the ineffective checks and balances which are fundamental to ensuring the success of PNG’s democratic system.

The recent developments on the #PNG political scene begs the question of whether or not we need another level of Parliament, like the Senate

— Deni ToKunai (@Tavurvur) April 5, 2012

@masalaifrog Will put some thought into it over Easter. The current system has been too easily usurped. Who is to guard the guardians? #PNG

— Deni ToKunai (@Tavurvur) April 5, 2012

One pond is too easy to pollute. The events of this week have shaken my belief in genuine democracy. This is no longer just enough #PNG

— Deni ToKunai (@Tavurvur) April 6, 2012

Already, such dismay as expressed by myself, has caught the attention of long-time PNG observers who are now arguing, and I believe rightfully so, that the citizens of Papua New Guinea are losing faith in PNG politics.

The Vanuatu-based Pacific Institute of Public Policy last year wrote a wonderful essay on whether Melanesian democracy will be sunk by demography. In that poignant piece, the Institute states:

“Any democracy relies on the checks and balances inherent within the system, to stop it being abused by corrupt or megalomaniac leaders.

But often it is these very checks and balances that are being used as an excuse to topple governments regularly.

The problem is made more acute by the fact that other political safeguards – such as a robust ombudsman – generally don’t exist.

Ideally, elected governments should be allowed to serve their full term with a strong ombudsman and Leadership Tribunals to deal with abuse of power, but that does not happen. The same leaders get recycled over and over again.”

In that same essay, the Institute warned that:

“PNG is now better described as an autocracy verging on kleptocracy.”

And as Flower and Leahy point out in their Lowy Institute brief:

“PNG, thanks to its size, wealth and influence, has the potential to set the benchmark for democracy in the Pacific and more particularly in Melanesia.”

It is because of these reasons presented by both domestic and international PNG observers, and most strikingly the growing disillusionment with PNG politics by PNG citizens themselves – specifically the large generation of youth that now make up almost 50% of PNG’s population, that political reform is imperative.

The total lack of parliamentary accountability, the inefficiencies of PNG’s watchdogs to effectively perform their duties and fulfill their functions, the perception of non-existent government services in rural and even urban PNG, and the constant immature squabbling amongst PNG’s politicians which has marred realistic and timely progress – have all contributed to an immense sense of frustration with the current system, its functionality, and to be honest – its existence.

Social Media driving new chapter of PNG Consciousness

Although the past few months, and particularly the last two weeks, have been tumultuous for PNG politics and Papua New Guinea in general, there are a number of positives which have since become clear in what has been a difficult period for the country.

These positives are not do so much with any change in the political decisions of the O’Namah Government, although Peter O’Neill’s re-commitment to again not defer General Elections 2012 is to be welcomed, but more so with the socio-political phenomena gaining traction in PNG which I am calling the opening up of PNG’s consciousness.

Yesterday’s protest march against the delay in elections and the implementation of the Judicial Conduct Act 2012 has highlighted the interesting growth of ‘pipol pawa‘ (people power) which began to take shape during the height of the constitutional crisis last year.

Regulatory watchdogs, non-governmental organisations, the public and particularly the young people of PNG are beginning to realize, what in the past has been a somewhat hazy understanding, that we do have the ability to organise ourselves in such a manner as to effectively and responsibly make a difference – through pipol pawa.

This ability, and indeed the desire to effect such change has always been present in PNG, but the means to do so has not.

The opening up of PNG’s consciousness has social media and technology to thank.

This emerging phenomena in PNG has added a new dimension to the very fabric of PNG society, and consequently to PNG politics.

Where just two years ago PNG politicians could comfortably sit in their plush parliamentary seats content with the knowledge that their words and actions would be somewhat disjointedly reported to a small minority of PNGeans thanks to local traditional media and to the one or two pesky foreign correspondents, now with a simple Tweet or SMS, messages are flowing from the Highlands to the Islands and are consequently being transmitted to the world.

The tables have turned, and ever so slowly, the PNG government is beginning to realize that the environment is changing. If they haven’t recognized this yet, they have surely felt the effects of the opening up of PNG’s consciousness.

Peter O’Neill’s care-taker term as Prime Minister since August 2, 2011 hasn’t been the easiest.

He has faced the ongoing constitutional crisis with Sir Michael Somare, the enduring conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary, the backlash to the polluted actions and questionable statements of his deputy Belden Namah, ongoing land-owner issues with the PNG LNG Project, the sinking of the MV Rabaul Queen, and the Tumbi landslide.

It is a combination of these events, which all hold significance as events of national importance, and the steady growth of social media users due to improved and affordable technology in PNG, that has seen Peter O’Neill become one of the most, if not the most, accessible Prime Minister in the history of the nation.

This new found accessibility hasn’t been a proactive policy or strategy though, or maybe even a choice or wish of Peter O’Neill. Instead, it has been a reaction to pipol pawa, social media and technology.

Despite O’Neill’s appearance to address the protest march yesterday at Sir John Guise Stadium, plans are already beginning to be made if the Prime Minister doesn’t stick to his new pledge of old commitments.

Social media will again play an important role here – and from this point onward in opening up PNG’s consciousness.

Here are some reactions from my Tweeps (@Tavurvur) to the role of social media, particularly Twitter,  in reporting the events of yesterday’s protest march:

The Political Circus that is the O’Namah Government

Last week PNG experienced a political week from hell, and today’s protest march against the deferment of General Elections 2012 and the implementation of the Judicial Conduct Act 2012 was a visibly emphatic and clear message to Peter O’Neill as to how the people of PNG feel about his government’s actions.

The actions and decisions of the O’Namah coalition has shown up Peter O’Neill as a man whose promises can no longer be believed in totality, but instead – rather, any commitment he now makes must be taken with a grain of salt, and be received tentatively, with one eye on the future and the other on the past.

This class of government within the PNG political-context cannot last long.

There are already signs emerging that there is significant internal conflict within the O’Namah coalition – the crux of the concerns swept under the rug being centered around controversial Deputy Prime Minister and leader of key coalition partner, the PNG Party, Belden Namah.

This reaffirms my view, as I’ve written before, that Peter O’Neill’s days as Prime Minister are numbered.

Belden Namah, along with Parliamentary Speaker Jeffery Nape, were the first members of parliament to publicly voice their support to differ the elections, hence Namah is viewed by many as being the key principal behind Parliament’s initial decision last Thursday to defer elections by six months.

Reviewing O’Namah’s term in government since August 2, 2011, it is quite clear and despite feigned support, Peter O’Neill will be more aware of this than anyody else, that Belden Namah has remained a constant menace to his government’s stability and the biggest threat to its success.

So why has Peter O’Neill put up with his ignoramus deputy?

It is my view that the pressing requirement to be in government leading up to elections has comprised the substance of O’Neill’s government.

In other words, O’Neill is reluctant to rein-in, discipline, or ultimately remove Belden Namah as Deputy Prime Minister, despite his significant transgressions which do warrant some form of political discipline, because the risk of losing control of the government is one which he would rather not entertain.

It is politically expedient for Peter O’Neill to put up with Namah’s antics and to hope that the worst has already happened.

Sadly, this has brought O’Neill’s integrity and reputation into question, and it has also highlighted the leadership woes plaguing the current government, or the apparent lack of leadership within, as a result of O’Neill’s willingness to accept mediocrity for the advantageous position of being in government for the elections.

Nothing illustrates Peter O’Neill’s lack of control within his coalition government better than the tabling of the motion last week Thursday in parliament which deferred elections by six months.

Peter O’Neill took part in that vote which passed the House 63 to 11 following a 90-minute debate. He stood and voted for the suspension, but did not address parliament. Parliament also voted to order electoral commissioner Andrew Trawen to ask Governor-General Sir Michael Ogio for the suspension.

Two days later and O’Neill had done a complete back-flip stating that instead of a six month deferral, he wanted an early election because he believed that:

“Parliament was not fully briefed on the status of the preparations of the elections by the chief electoral commissioner”.

He also stated that the initial motion was not approved by the NEC prior to its tabling.

Then today, when addressing the multitude of protesters at Sir John Guise stadium, O’Neill stated that:

“Parliament does not have the power to direct the electoral commissioner [and that] Parliament will not interfere with the electoral commissioner”.

This contradictory habit which has proven to be endemic within the O’Namah experiment thus far has severely brought into disrepute the credibility of this government to handle the affairs of the nation.

Furthermore, the symptoms of this political circus has manifested itself at the top echelons of PNG politics for the world to see – with Peter O’Neill’s repeated indecisiveness also bringing into question his leadership as Prime Minister.

It is becoming more and more clear that O’Neill has a weak grasp on his coalition and that he is being driven and directed, beyond his control or sphere of influence, to take part in actions which he may not agree with or even be aware of.

In addition, those once credible leaders who decided to switch sides have now been made to look like fools and at least complicit in the political circus that has engulfed PNG.

Ironically, the only thing for certain now is that the political circus that is the O’Namah Government will do as many back-flips, juggling and disappearing acts as required, despite their displeasure of each other, to allow themselves to remain in power for the elections – not for the people of PNG, but for own personal interests.