Melanesian capitalism or capitalist Melanesia?
28 August 2012
PHIL FITZPATRICK
I AM A GREAT FAN OF THE COLOUR GREY, as opposed to black and white, which some people maintain are not colours at all.
This is another way of saying there are nuances to everything. Good people and bad people are not necessarily good or bad all the time; good people can do bad things and vice versa. So it is with social and political systems.
There have been two recurring themes in the articled history of PNG Attitude; one is the relevance of the Westminster system of government to Papua New Guinea and the other is the appropriateness of the Melanesian Way in the modern state.
Depending on the authors, these two states are often portrayed in simplistic terms as either good or bad. Occasionally writers also suggest that taking the good from either system and combining them together might be a good idea.
This last suggestion has some merit and a lot of dangers. The old adage about throwing the baby out with the bath water comes to mind. What might appear to be good in one system can often turn out to have unimagined consequences. Also, what appears to be good to one person might be anathema to another.
Take, for instance, our trusty old politician. The Westminster system with its basis in unbridled individualism and capitalism works well for him. It gives him opportunities to create personal wealth.
If he tosses in a bit of the Melanesian Way it works even better; he can load whatever department he controls with malleable wantoks, spread largesse to his clan and gain huge amounts of prestige.
On the other hand, the villager sitting on the banks of his polluted river surrounded by the stumps of what was once his forest and larder holding the carton of SP that his wantok politician has given him might view the intangible gains of the latter’s enhanced prestige somewhat ambivalently.
So who should we blame for this corrupt politician? Capitalism and the Westminster system or the Melanesian Way? Clearly it is a bit of both. Maybe they both need to be replaced by something else. Or perhaps Papua New Guinea should decide which system it wants to adopt and drop the pretence of supporting the other.
John Fowke has made a good case for what is wrong with the Melanesian Way. So has Susan Merrell. I don’t think either is advocating abandoning it altogether. It has some very highly redeeming features, not least the importance of community.
So what about capitalism, is it as great as everyone seems to suggest? It certainly appears to deliver considerable material benefits, perhaps not across the board, but to a widening spectrum of society.
Modern capitalism is basically a system whereby people sell things to each other. Sometimes these are things that people need but more often than not they are things that they don’t need; junk food, prodigious quantities of clothes, flash cars and electronic gadgets, for instance. Sometimes the things sold are intangible with no physical substance.
The need for these mostly useless objects has grown into a kind of global addiction and whole industries and cultures are geared to supplying the demand. The people who control these industries do so to make money. They call this money profit or wealth. The reason they need this profit and wealth is to buy useless objects themselves.
Some people hoard profit and wealth as a sort of bank of useless objects. The fact that they can go out whenever they want and buy any useless object that strikes their fancy is somehow a great reassurance.
One’s ability to do this is a matter of great status and is used as a measure of individual worth (aka as our politician). People aspire to be in this position but they also worry about where to store all their useless objects so as to make room for new ones.
The right of people to sell things to each other has been encapsulated in a doctrine known as democracy. This doctrine once stood for the rights of an individual to personal freedom but has been subverted to mean the right to own things. In many ways it is a philosophy of greed.
In the west, individuals, communities and whole nations prize their right to be greedy so highly that they are prepared to kill to defend it. A massive armaments industry has grown up around this right. In some countries guns are the ultimate useless object.
All this buying and selling is useful in the sense that it stops people getting bored. An object which can keep someone occupied for a few hours but then creates an overpowering urge for something new has an intrinsic worth in the capitalist system.
Other objects, like television, serves the same purpose by constantly exhorting people to go out and buy new things. Some people’s whole lives revolve around their television sets.
Although some people persist in believing capitalism is not a finite proposition, the opposite is true. This is because one day the raw materials needed to manufacture useless objects will be depleted.
This process is being accelerated by the burgeoning number of people occupying the planet and especially by those being drawn into the capitalist net. This latter process is called globalisation.
Globalisation will eventually denude the planet of all the resources needed to manufacture useless, as well as useful, objects. What will be left will be a lot of very bored people sitting on the shell of a once bountiful planet blaming each other for the mess.
So, is replacing the Melanesian Way with something like capitalism such a good idea after all? Is it worth completely abandoning an age old social and political system for another system which clearly has major downsides?
Of course not, but it is probably inevitable that this will happen eventually anyway.
So what is the answer?
The answer to that question is ‘there is no answer’.
The conundrum that Papua New Guinea has to resolve is that of running with two social and political systems in parallel and synchronised.
As a modern state, Papua New Guinea has no choice but to engage with the rest of the world and that means engaging with capitalism and globalisation.
On the other hand, much of the country is still operating within a much more basic traditional and egalitarian system.
The only other options are to become a rogue state like North Korea, a benign dictatorship like Cuba or, closer to home, a militant and very vulnerable chiefly fiefdom like Fiji.
Critics of the traditional system maintain that it is impossible to run such a thing in the modern world and it should be abandoned.
I disagree and think that with a bit of lateral planning both systems can run together.
Besides, asking people to abandon age old customs will never work; that would take many generations to achieve and would require a fairly brutal regime to accomplish it.
With the LNG project soon to come on stream, not to mention the other resource projects, GDP is about to increase rapidly, if not evenly.
These developments are the precursors of what will be major social change. If ever the time was right for Papua New Guinea to resolve the conundrum of its two political and social systems it is now.
I don't think anything radical needs to be done however. Its a bit like a couple of cogs in a gearbox are slightly out of whack.
With a few adjustments they can be made to run smoothly together. I think, in fact, that Peter O'Neill has already recognised the problem and has started the process with his reforms in education and health.
There is no need to abandon the role of the community in Papua New Guinean life in favour of the individual. The strengths of that caring system are a positive advantage and too precious to lose.
What needs to be done and which O'Neill has started, is that the profits from the Papua New Guinea relationship with the capitalist and globalised world needs to be directed towards the healthy maintenance and positive enhancement of the good parts of the old community system.
At the same time those bad parts, like interclan warfare and sorcery need to be brought under control. These sorts of things are not difficult, a beefed up police force can do it.
Enhancing the good parts and removing the bad parts of the Melanesian Way stand out as the two most obvious things that never happened in all the past years of greed and corruption. In fact they were trampled in the rush to the trough.
At the same time Papua New Guinea needs to seize control of the car in which the gears are now beginning to run smoothly. Up until now someone else has been driving the car.
Rapacious and lawless developers and the politicians they have bought need to be brought into line and under control. If they have to be told they can't cut down more rainforest or they can't spill toxins into the rivers and seas, so be it.
The greater good of the community must prevail in these situations and be the arbiter of progress.
In short, it is accepting the existence of two parallel systems and reordering national priorities so that they run smoothly together which will see Papua New Guinea safely into the future.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 31 August 2012 at 02:43 PM
Very good Phil. I've been trying to articulate ( not very well) the need to revisit the whole 'development' paradigm and underlying philosophy if we are serious about sustainability.
I believe that some of the answers do lie in the Melanesian culture (and Polynesian, North American Indian etc) especially in terms of the interconnectedness with and responsibility for nature and common rights and welfare rather than individual.
Capitalism is founded on greed and appeals to man's inherent nature ( it would seem). It is assumed to be the right way as a matter of course in any modern day development agenda.The answer as always is in a delicate balance and the will to continue the quest to find it!
In the current mix though, as you say, we are using the excuse of the Melanesian way to pursue the real objective which is the accumulation of more useless objects. It should be the other way around ( or something?).
Posted by: Charles Abel | 30 August 2012 at 05:51 PM
It certainly shows the need for an ICAC.
What does Mangape mean by "independent investigation"?
I'd say he needs legal help.
Posted by: Mrs Barbara Short | 29 August 2012 at 04:52 PM
Here is an example of Melanesian Capitalism at work.
The National, Tuesday 28th August, 2012
By JEFFREY ELAPA
LAGAIP-Porgera MP Nixon Mangape has announced an independent investigation into the use of millions of kina that have not been accounted for over the last five years.
Mangape, a first-term MP and a Porgera landowner, said in a statement yesterday that Lagaip-Porgera was one of the two districts in the country to have received the biggest slice of government funding over the last five years.He said many of the projects initiated by former MP Philip Kikala had not been completed. And he wanted an investigation to identify where the remainder of the funds were.
He said projects like the K14.3 million West Enga Secondary School in Laiagam was incomplete and the contractor was paid only K7 million. The remaining K7.3 million was yet to be accounted for.
He said the K6.6 million Laiagam Correctional Services project was also incomplete while the old buildings had been demolished to allow for new ones.
Mangape said others such as the hydro power project, the district bank building, chicken factory and other major impact projects funded under the district services improvement programme and other sector grants from the government had not been completed although the funds were released.
He said the investigation would allow him to start fresh and to recoup the money to complete the projects. Investigations are expected to start next week.
Mangape said as a new member, he does not want to be blamed for wrongs and bad practices."
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 29 August 2012 at 01:03 PM
Thanks Phil - I agree.
Perhaps the biblical "last day" is the day when there are no more resources left to support that incredible human urge for things, both useful and useless, as you describe them.
In other words, we would self destruct to a stage where we fall on our own sword and perish.
Posted by: David Kitchnoge | 28 August 2012 at 03:02 PM
Thanks Phil, for your thoughts. Well said!
I'm sure the Melanesian Way will continue. It is obvious that it means different things to different people, but it does exist and it is important that the best parts of it are kept.
You have explained "materialism" very well. I remember times when I have brought people to PNG for a visit for the first time and they have got to know PNG people, villagers, and swapped addresses.
Sure enough, when they got home to Sydney, along would come a letter from their new PNG friend, asking could their new Sydney friend send them up a camera, or some other material thing they desired.
They seemed to think we were all very wealthy and our friendship with them meant they now had a chance to get the "cargo", the material things, that we seemed to have in abundance.
Despite the fact that they were subsistence farmers and hunters and fishers, often with the most idyllic way of life, spending many hour peacefully watching the world go by on some river or coast, they wanted what we had. Funny!
My friends from Sydney wanted what they had - life away from the hustle and bustle and stress of urban Sydney.
Materialism takes over the lives of some people down here in Sydney, but not all of us! Let's hope more and more PNG people will be able to resist becoming addicted to spending and spending on useless things!
This includes the politicians who have to start working out how to get all the government services back to the grass-roots level.
Posted by: Mrs Barbara Short | 28 August 2012 at 11:01 AM
Into this fascinating mix, let us not forget that many PNG societies had the seeds of capitalism in their traditional structures - in the sense of the chase after and the acquisition of wealth. A bit of graft and corruption worked well too.
Let's not delude ourselves in thinking these are introduced traits.
Posted by: Bob Cleland | 28 August 2012 at 10:05 AM
Democracy, Melanesian way, communism and other ...isms. Sh.t always floats to the top unless there is a vigorous stirring.
There is greater or less corruption in all of these political systems. The only defence is a politically aware population that can keep the pot boiling; it does appear that our present PNG opposition will do their best to keep this government on its toes.
It is not only the West that believes in war, the East are also not averse to bumping off the odd few million. Africa has had its moments.
In comparison Papua New Guinea, with the best will, never had the communications or culture to polish off more than a few at a time.
Posted by: Tony Flynn | 28 August 2012 at 08:48 AM
The State of Mu.
I like this Phil. Amusing and enlightening. You never fail to entertain with your arguments and make me at least cheerfully agree.
Posted by: Michael Dom | 28 August 2012 at 08:34 AM