Navigating tricky waters: where is the place of Melanesian ways?
01 January 2016
ANDREW MOUTU | PNGBuai.com | Summary & Conclusion
THIS paper has three messages to impart: we are subjects of a new colonial order; what is the place of Papua New Guinean ways in this new colonial order; and a call for a judicious appropriation of different systems of knowledge, information and information technology.
It examines common place discourses to show that common place discourses are not always common with truth as they often cover up for not so common truths. I think talk about globalisation, information super-highway, information technology and so on is framed in so universal, so common a language.
And because it is so common it conceals a particular truth, a fundamental ideological problem - the question of power relations, for instance, who has the upper hand in the production and sale of information technology, who controls the market of information technology, who sets the priorities of the PNG government?
Thus I am of the opinion that so long as we continue to drift along with the tide of common place discourses without trying to rethink them or "essentialising" them, we will be perpetuating the hegemonic interests of the developed Other.
This paper begins with two quotes from Bernard Narokobi who wrote of the imposition of conceptual constructs like the "state". Needless to say they are countless other such concepts and the problem of having to use a non-Melanesian language to convey our ideas and conceptions.
I believe that English language together with other institutions brought to us by colonialism is now part of our heritage to appropriate. I also believe that we are subjects of new colonial order, the intellectual and economic imperialism of the developed Other whose story is narrated to us in common sense discourses that we do not know we are subjects of this colonial order.
As much as you and me are necessarily part of our families, clans tribes, province and the country, Papua New Guinea is necessarily part of the globe and so we can resist being part of the world and all that goes all too often in and around the world.
But, I like many others before me, am persuaded by reflection that in the face of this dialogic encounter of power relations, there is lasting hope in Papua New Guinean ways of doing things which have survived the test of time to this day.
Before we get caught up in rhetorical illusion brought to us in universal discourses, I ask again, where is the place of Papua New Guinean ways?
Dr Andrew Moutu is director of the Papua New Guinea National Museum & Art Gallery. You can read the complete paper here
I can't see that anything in PNG politics has actually worked so far Paul.
Andrew isn't advocating some sort of wholesale change to a Melanesian Way style of government i.e. communism. He is advocating a selective process so that some of the useful aspects can be incorporated into PNG governance.
That said, most of these things evolve in their own good time and no amount of planning or debate will alter that.
I suspect that if the 2017 election throws up another dysfunctional government there will be a movement for change sometime during its term.
I just hope its not too bloody.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 02 January 2016 at 10:34 AM
Rather than waffle about what system is best for PNG or for that matter, any nation, let's look at the most important issue: Does the system in place work or not?
Take a helicopter view of PNG today and recognise what has happened over the last 40 years. Have the efforts to remove a simple bureaucratic dictatorship (District Administration - i.e. Kiaps) and modify the imposed Westminster system of Parliamentary democracy to suit a Melanesian paradigm actually worked? It has only worked for those who have used the hotch potch of results reportedly for their own gain.
Clearly more tinkering and waffle about installing a Melanesian model of government is missing the point. It hasn't and won't work. Why? Because the Melanesian model was suitable for the clan and village but not for running a nation.
Unless you start out with the known and investigate the untried it will just amount to more of the same and we know that doesn't work.
Concentrate on what works and dismiss as fantasy what has been proven doesn't work. Em pasin longlong tasol na tingting ikrungut pinis ya! Rausim sno istap lo het bilo yu na opim ai tru na lukluk igo lo ples klia.
Posted by: Paul Oates | 01 January 2016 at 02:17 PM
Andrew Moutu is always worth listening to.
In this paper he argues that there should be a place for 'Papua New Guinean ways of doing things' in the evolution of the PNG polity and state.
He contrasts those ways with western ways which are being adopted in PNG because they are assumed to be superior or more evolutionarily advanced.
We've seen this idea of the evolution of ideas and systems expressed in numerous articles and comments on PNG Attitude.
The central theme of these comments is that things like the Westminster system evolved over a very long period of time and that PNG, as a young nation, hasn't had time to get used to its tenets but will, given enough time.
It is a view that conforms to the idea that western systems are naturally superior to traditional PNG systems and that history is lineal i.e. much of PNG and its ways of thinking are pre-capitalist and therefore inferior.
In his paper Dr Moutu argues that the impact of western thought on PNG in all its various forms is a new form of colonialism - not so much as something to be resisted but something to be very wary about.
The danger for PNG he identifies is the perpetuation of the vested interests of those agents, such as resource developers and media interests. He has an interesting take on 'development' where he suggests it is actually pillaging.
He suggests that 'a judicious appropriation of different systems of knowledge, information and information technology' might be a good idea.
I've argued elsewhere that appropriation of these systems, including the Westminster system, have been less than judicious and their appropriation has been scatological and determined by exigencies not in the nation's best interests.
What Dr Moutu is suggesting, I imagine, is a re-think of the way PNG is run so that Papua New Guinean ways are given much more prominence i.e. modifying the Westminster system to suit PNG social and cultural conditions - refocusing the blurred image of reality.
That to me seems like a really good idea.
Dr Moutu's paper is an academic one and is couched in fairly dense academic jargon. You have to read it very carefully to get his drift. That, in itself, is a bit ironic considering what he is arguing about.
What I think would be really good is if he produced a simple English version comprehensible to the man and the woman in the street (or bush).
It would then be a valuable contribution to the pre-election debate as it gathers momentum during 2016.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 01 January 2016 at 01:42 PM