Democracy, custom & the elasticity of the Melanesian Way
21 August 2012
SUSAN MERRELL
IS THERE A DEMOCRATIC PAPUA NEW GUINEAN NATION - or is it merely an arbitrary state built on a shaky, crumbling foundation of disparate traditional customs and the 'Melanesian Way'?
Has the system of government become a hybrid of concepts that fail to work on any level – a bastardization of both democracy and custom?
Bernard Narokobi in his book The Melanesian Way refused to define the concept.
Those posing the question were characterised as "cynics" and "hypocrites". displaying "spiteful arrogance.". According to Narokobi, the concept of the ‘Melanesian Way’ is "cosmic", making a definition "futile" and "trite." He didn't explain how so.
If Moses didn't ask God to define himself then the messianic Narokobi should not be required to define the Melanesian Way - notwithstanding that he was writing a book about it, making one wonder what the rest of the book is about.
The idea of belonging to the 'insider' group that carries the knowledge of the Melanesian Way is so emotionally charged and identity-defining that it usually provokes wide-eyed head nodding – but no conceptual challenge.
Yet concepts only defy explanation when they are not widely understood. Given the nebulous nature of the 'Melanesian Way', it has become an exploitable idea.
Prime minister Peter O'Neill and his previous coalition partner Belden Namah, when in government, reconciled their differences just hours after Namah had gone on national radio demanding that O'Neill resign. They explained their curious and confusing behaviour as being the 'Melanesian Way.'
The reconciliation proved tenuous when, despite their Memorandum of Understanding going into the elections, O'Neill froze out Namah, relegating him and his party to the opposition benches while preferring to rekindle old alliances with the Grand Chief and other veteran power brokers.
It suggests that the Melanesian Way is redolent with self-serving pragmatism and a fickle approach to commitment that can be called upon, or not, according to whim.
If Namah thought the Melanesian Way was going to work for him as he bad-mouthed his former coalition partner, he seriously miscalculated. This was western-style politics.
Customary practices and alien concepts
The customary practices of the Big Man and the wantok system worked well in a small, encapsulated tribal community – but it doesn't translate into the modern political structure of a nation/state where favouring of wantoks is nepotism and arbitrary distribution of largesse in return for allegiance is bribery.
When these customary practices are tolerated within the modern PNG machinery of government, compliance with democratic principles becomes populist lip service.
Introduced, western principles and PNG cultural practices co-exist uncomfortably.
The Christian religion, for instance, missionary imposed, it is now widely embraced.
To be faithful to both social systems requires a series of compromises that either makes a mockery of Christian doctrines or insults the integrity of custom.
Fashioned along the line of the Jewish faith, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, for example, forbids the consumption of pork and shellfish. But pork is the ceremonial meat, and shellfish are a staple part of the diet of those that live on the coast and outlying islands of PNG.
In PNG’s social media site 'Sharp Talk', there has been a lengthy conversation trying to reconcile Christianity with tradition by seeking a biblical justification for the customary practise of polygamy.
Although PNG has laws against adultery, polygamy is tolerated. But is polygamy just another name for adultery? Does the law (based on Christian ethics) or custom take precedence in PNG, or does that depend on the perpetrator?
At independence, PNG was also left with a political legacy that was alien and ill-understood and often at loggerheads with custom.
Nicholas Bainton in his book The Lihir Destiny, noted that in the very first national elections in which Lihirians took part, many locals had no idea what was required.
They wanted to vote for US President Johnson – as they had pleasant memories of the generosity of the Americans stationed in New Ireland during World War II. It all fitted into a traditional context they understood – President Johnson becoming their 'Big Man'.
In the middle of the recent elections, two helicopter loads of armed PNG Defence Force personnel landed at Esa'ala in Milne Bay. They stormed the police station and took control of the ballot counting by force. The returning officer for the area hid, fearing for his life.
The area's incumbent MP, Moses Maladina, had deployed the troops.
Electoral Commission figures had Maladina behind in the count – he never caught up, eventually losing his parliamentary seat. Was this a factor in the deployment? Was it a justification?
Maladina is a Big Man – even moreso as he recently was awarded a medal in the Queen's Honour birthday list.
Interestingly, the imperial award cements and extends his customary stature. Big Man tribally, Big Man nationally and now internationally.
Perhaps, under PNG custom, Maladina was just doing what would be expected of him as a tribal chief - defending his patch, with force if necessary?
Whatever the justification, Maladina stopped short of physically leading the charge himself. 'Big Chief Maladina' sat that one out.
Not so Belden Namah as he stormed the Supreme Court last May to defend his patch.
What hope democracy when quasi-legitimate force is used to stifle the democratic process?
Western law when co mingled with custom also proves untenable.
While innocent until proven guilty is a western, democratic legal paradigm that has been embraced tightly - especially by the elites of PNG – law enforcement is totally inadequate and open to bastardization by quasi-traditional practices like bribery and a reverence of the untouchable Big Man.
So disdainful are many Big Men towards the law that they simply ignore it as in the recent bribery charges against former Speaker Jeffrey Nape who simply failed to turn up at court.
To Nape, criminal charges are not a novelty; he knew they're rarely pursued.
Big Man status insulated Maladina, Nape and Namah from western-style justice – however that paradigm shifts a little with their fall from grace. Now their fate securely rests with the conquering chief (O'Neill) according to his whim.
For democracy, this is disastrous.
Parliamentarians may have the customary status of 'Big Man', but they are not in the village – they are overseeing and participating in a democratic national government.
Village rules don't apply and status should not offer impunity from the rules of the system in which they are participating – although at present it does.
In light of the hybrid nature of governance, is PNG really a nation or is it an anomalous entity where the democratic political administration of the state has become a series of vested interests paying lip service to national sentiment and democracy?
Whereas in most first-world countries, self-conscious nations create nationalism in a bid for self-determination and statehood, PNG already has a state – but what of the nation?
The first and most common misconception prevalent among international critics of Leadership in Papua New Guinea is the attempt to analyse the prevalent behaviour using existing comparative models, the favourite being Africa, South America or Asia for obvious reasons.
This is the first pitfall as academia will continue to be disappointed because PNG leaders notoriously defy existing patterns used in analysing their political affiliations and behaviour.
A unique model for a society in transition proves evasive as the model must suffice to incorporate the remarkable differences in the leadership style between regions; i.e., Highlander, Sepik, Coastal or Papuan-Southern societies and also accommodate for the differences within; for example, Samarai and Hula or Sepik and Morobe etc.
Therefore it is a futile venture to attempt, as there can be no satisfactory average or typical Melanesian mini society that can be studied to extract a successful model.
One has to agree with you that indeed the two systems are incompatible and it would trying especially for a young nation as ours to achieve the ideal 'thriving western democracy' as you put it.
PNG should realise that the capitalist based and engineered westen democracy which our founding fathers chose with the 'appropriate urging' from our colonial masters may be detrimental to our unique society.
The best way forward will be for PNGns to forge their own path from the two systems that will work for our people without compromising our unique heritage and identity.
This is particularly a very important point in the melanesian context considering the increasing number of cultures becomming bastardised by the globalisation tsunami.
Only when we have lost our cultural heritage and identity either traditional or adopted (christian principles)then can we understand the lamentations of the west who have already either lost or forsaken theirs in a rush to develop and intergrate into a bastardised culture.
Posted by: Don Tapio | 25 October 2012 at 09:57 AM
This article is realy motivating and inspiring, I wish leaders of PNG have a look at it.
This gives a glimps of a true management of a country.
Members in parliament are filled with different ingredients. Thay come with different cultures and languages which cripples everyone.
Simple is we can adapt the western way.
Thank you.
Posted by: Renick Londe | 18 September 2012 at 12:10 PM
Phil - in another sense it is instructive to hear a critical and objective opinion about how we are perceived by outsiders.
And if maintaining good relations with others who are closely linked to our community is as important in the Melanesian Way as we say it is, then isn't that desirable from time to time?
Posted by: Michael Dom | 28 August 2012 at 01:35 PM
You've set out your academic qualifications and interests Susan but I think what people like Peter and Mugau are interested in is your connections to Papua New Guinea.
In Australia, apart from the sensationalists in the tabloid press, the only people interested in Papua New Guinea are those who have been there, either in the past or recently.
There are no ulterior motives in seeking this information; it just helps to place what you say in a better context.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 28 August 2012 at 09:24 AM
Hello there, I really enjoyed reading this article because it made me think a lot.
Why would people discuss and ague about these things (our customs, traditions, melanesian way, wantok sysem etc) when all we need to do is appreciate them because it took ages and hard work for the people to keep them?
Wantok system is part of culture. It is a two way thing and it totally make sense becaue we live in communal societies. If it doesn't work out for you then give up your identity as a Papua New Guinean.
Anyway, no offence but I too would really like to know Susan Merrel's background. Thankyou.
Posted by: Mugau Jerominah | 27 August 2012 at 03:47 PM
Phil, you've touched on the very essence of the PNG Way; "The Melanesian Way stands for looking after family and clan."
"What more do we need to know?" Nothing much, but we do need to see more.
Posted by: Michael Dom | 24 August 2012 at 06:15 PM
Phil - I wonder if the founding fathers of the American constitution would have been some generous in their largesse by affording their citizens the right to bear arms had they know what firearm technology would later be produced as in those far off days the capability of firearms was limited to single shot ball and musket not the current fully automatic weapons available which have mass destruction capabilities.
Just a thought?
PS, one needs to be cautious of referring to the Spanish or French way as those phrases have other connotations well outside their intended meaning- Quo vadis?
Posted by: Harry Topham | 24 August 2012 at 03:11 PM
By the same token, how do you define the Australian Way or the American Way?
We all think we know what the phrases mean but their definitions are elusive and usually highly flexible and subjective.
When they do gel it is usually in the negative mode, as in un-Australian or un-American.
The Australian Way is that of the fair go for all - what on earth does that mean? To be un-Australian is to somehow deny that egalitarian bent.
The American Way seems to have something to do with the rights of individuals to make money and to have the freedom to shoot each other.
To be un-Americam, at least in the way McCarthy defined it, is to be ultra-conservative, reactionary and anti-socialist, something like the credo of an extreme Republican.
Curiously, you don't often hear about the English Way or the Spanish Way or the French Way. Perhaps it has something to do with a nation's sense of insecurity in defining itself. In that context the Melanesian Way makes sense and maybe avoids the need for a definition.
The Melanesian Way stands for looking after family and clan. What more do we need to know?
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 24 August 2012 at 10:35 AM
Bisnis is bisnis, kastam is kastam and whilst both require some adherence to a set of rules, if to be successful the former requires a strong adherence to formal disciplinary procedures and clear well set out strategic plans.
If one looks at the evolution of history in PNG, it is obvious that the original models of administration were based upon the colonial masters of the time reinforcing the traditional bigman system by attaching the new governing authority over the traditional system by the appointment of Luluai and Tultul on the New Guinea side and the appointment of Village councillors across the border in Papua.
Whilst this hierarchical system, oversighted by the previous Kiap system, initially worked quite well in earlier development periods of PNG, later enlightened thinking saw this previous system of governance as being nothing more than a benevolent dictatorship.
Such enlightenment then lead to attempting to provide a more democratic social order environment through the establishment of Westminster system of Government by the establishment of a Legislative Council way back in 1951 which later evolved to that the House of Assembly in established in 1963.
During this period the establishment of local Government councils throughout PNG implemented further democracy measures at a grass root level with previous powers contained in the Native Administrative Regulations transferred to local Councils through relevant bylaws enacted.
As part of the evolutionary process of democratisation of PNG society Area Authorities comprising he Chairmen of all local Government council in each district were established to replace the more restrictive District Coordinating Councils whose members were selected rather than being elected.
These area authorities although highly effective were later replaced by the establishment of provincial government structures.
Analysis of the effectiveness of the operations of these Provincial Governments has shown that they have not provided for the needs of their constituents.
Recent debate amongst the younger intelligentsia in PNG has again raised the issue of whether the Westminster System of Government is suitable to the cultural needs of PNG, as it has found to be corrupted through inappropriate misuse of kinship ties.
As can be seen the Westminster system of government was in place and operating successfully long before PNG’s independence in 1975 so what went wrong post Independence.
A look to the private enterprise section of PNG society shows that there are many highly successful companies that do not suffer the same misfortunes as the their public sector counterparts which begs the question- Why.
I guess the answer lies in the foreword - bisnis is bisnis, kastam is kastam and never the twain shall meet.
Posted by: Harry Topham | 23 August 2012 at 10:02 AM
Typo - should read post-colonial, but you knew that, didn't you? I'm glad it's amused you.
Posted by: Susan Merrell | 22 August 2012 at 02:19 PM
Thanks for the clarification Phil, now I know the rules of the game I might pen a suitable reply to Susan’s fine article.
Talk about subterfuge, I recall once having to send off a coded telegram but unfortunately was not au fait with the procedures and my text was composed horizontally not vertically or was it the other way around.
Anyway it took some poor old sod in district HQ a full day trying to decipher the message.
Posted by: Harry Topham | 22 August 2012 at 12:56 PM
I'll explain "port-colonial" for you Harry.
If you remember the Pangu Pati began as the Bully Beef Club, which was a take off of the traditional Beef Steak and Burgundy clubs popular among the intelligentsia of the time.
You will also recall that the Security and Intelligence Branch took a keen interest in the Bully Beef club and it's child, the Pangu Pati.
The boffins in Security and Intelligence, among other things, had their own version of the Beef Steak and Burgundy club.
In their club they had pipes in which they smoked Blend 11 and tucked into the top of their long white socks when not in use; they also drank port, usually Galway Pipe but Old Cobweb if the better stuff wasn't available.
They also discussed politics in their club, mostly about what the dangerous radicals in Pangu were up to that week. Hence the term "port-colonials".
I got dragged into Security and Intelligence to work on their hi-tech Spaghetti coding machine for a few months in 1969 so I know all this as fact.
Clear now?
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 22 August 2012 at 12:20 PM
KJ - Thanks for the clarification I thought for a moment the word might have had some nautical implication and might be some new geo political tokples.
However I stand corrected. Any port in a storm, if you get my drift.
___________
I think I just drifted into the same port - KJ
Posted by: harry topham | 22 August 2012 at 12:01 PM
Susan - Olsem wanem dispela port-colonial politics samting?
__________
Hari - Ating sapos yu tingim sitorng yu iey iu ken save, laka - KJ
Posted by: Harry Topham | 22 August 2012 at 10:49 AM
This is grinding the axe. Thanks Susan Merrell.
Posted by: Michael Dom | 21 August 2012 at 08:33 PM
Ok, Peter McGlynn, she's Dr Susan Merrell BA, MA (with merit), Master Media Practice (with merit) PhD. Her doctoral thesis was written on the subject of political nationalism and as such she has an abiding interest in port-colonial politics.
She is a freelance journalist whose specialty is Pacific politics on which (wearing her academic hat) she has presented papers to conferences both in Australia and overseas.
Last December she delivered a paper at a conference on indigenous societies and the environment at Bordeaux University entitled 'Papua New Guinea: On the cusp,' which explored the socio-economic impact of the extractive industries on the people of PNG.
Lately she has been turning her hand to video journalism and has a number of projects in the pipeline including one about Multi Drug resistant Tuberculosis in the Western Province of PNG and Torres Strait.
She has recently been awarded a fellowship to attend a conference later in the year on lung diseases in Kuala Lumpur as part of her research.(And that's all before lunch. Haha.)
And you know what they say when you start speaking of yourself in the third person, don't you? LOL
Posted by: Susan Merrell | 21 August 2012 at 06:42 PM
Hello, interesting article, thank you.
I've often mused over the multi-edged sword of the wantok system, and the different effects in different contexts.
Can we have a brief bio of the author and a description of Susan Merrell's interest in this subject and her qualifications for writing this opinion piece?
Not questioning her authority, but I'd like to know her background. Thank you.
Posted by: Peter McGlynn | 21 August 2012 at 05:30 PM