O’Neill’s Big Man persona is incompatible with democracy
12 February 2016
SIMON DAVIDSON
IN THE traditional Papua New Guinea Highlands Big Man style of leadership, the leader was appointed based on his wealth and standing in the community.
He married many wives, had many children, owned a lot of pigs and possessed huge wealth. The wives, children and extended family members were used to build his massive fortune.
Through his enormous wealth, the Big Man gained influence in the community. He was regarded as a pillar and benefactor. The community gained economic confidence through the Big Man.
During tribal fights, the young men went and fought fearlessly, knowing their Big Man would support them by paying compensation for those they killed in tribal warfare.
The Big Man’s moral indiscretions, like adultery, were tolerated. The people in the community would not lift their voice to speak against him fearing that he might withdraw his support.
The norm in the community if a Big Man showed moral failing was to ignore it. To cover his misdeeds the Big Man would give the biggest pig to those people he offended and he continued to remain the Big Man in the community.
In contrast to the highlands Big Man system, the democratic system of government was established to do away with the divine right of kings and diminish the absolute power which corrupted those who wielded it. Its principles were derived from Greek political theorists, British empiricists and French Renaissance free thinkers.
Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address articulated the spirit of democracy as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The democratic system has checks in place to hold those who rule to be accountable for their actions. When political leaders are perceived to abuse power and rule for self-interest, they are called to account.
So what style of leadership does Peter O’Neill, the current prime minister of Papua New Guinea display? Is he using a highlands Big Man style or is he leading in the spirit of democracy?
From his conduct thus far, O’Neill demonstrates that he is using the highlands Big Man style of leadership.
He has used his power and enormous wealth to shield himself from damaging allegations levelled against him. When he was grilled in Parliament over his role in the former National Provident Fund saga, he pulled strings to lure those who spoke against him.
When he was implicated during the Parakagate affair, he disbanded the corruption busting Task Force Sweep, a contradiction from the man who said he would fight against corruption.
O’Neill makes ample use of litigation, continues to poach members from the opposition to maintain his government’s numerical strength and tries to remove those who speak against his undemocratic conduct.
Along his avowed targets are Professor Ross Garnaut, who spoke against O’Neill’s eagerness to raid the PNG financial nest, Don Polye for refusing his three billion kina loan, Dr Thomas Webster for speaking against his management of the economy and he maneuvered to end the tenure of the Chief Ombudsman for uncovering misconduct.
O’Neill’s actions to date indicate that he wants to have absolute power with no accountability. But absolute power has the ability to corrupt absolutely.
In any democracy, perceived abuse of power by the leader calls for swift accountability. If those who reign are seen by the masses to be drunk with power and refuse to be accountable, the masses may revolt.
The people in PNG are fed up with O’Neill’s constant gimmicks to save face and pretend that everything is well. Instead of covering up and using taxpayer’s money to buy political power, he should face the law to clear his name.
The highlands archaic Big Man system of tribal governance and modern western democratic ideals for nation building are incompatible. They are miles apart and cannot coexist. Transparency and corruption cannot dine together.
The prime minister is leading a modern democratic state and as such he should abide by the mechanisms established to protect this democracy.
His conduct whilst in power demonstrates he is working against the systems and principles that promote good government.
The writing is on the wall. His days are numbered. His demise from the political limelight will be his own making.
Simon E Davidson has a master’s degree in theology and is an independent political and economic analyst and freelance journalist
What Phil says is perfectly true. In the Trobriands there was a traditional titular head very similar to a king. While the Motu people were traders and used the big Lakatois to trade along the coast, the virtual 'Captain' was called 'Tau Bada' but that didn't really mean big man.
Therein lies the challenge. Can an amalgam of all PNG's many and varied cultures be designed and worked out or would it simply be better for everyone to accept that a new paradigm is needed?
And... to paraphrase that old cliche raised by ol' Abe Lincoln. "You can please all of the people some of the time but only some of the people all of the time."
What PNG desperately needs is true and altruistic leadership. Where that might come from and how it would be accepted by the current leaders is quite another matter.
They would have to be paid out in some 'acceptable' manner
Posted by: Paul Oates | 14 February 2016 at 07:14 AM
This is a problem mainly confined to the Highlands where the bigman tradition was/is pervasive. Bigmen didn't traditionally exist elsewhere. In other areas the criteria for leadership were quite different. There were no bigmen around Port Moresby for instance.
It wouldn't be fair on the rest of PNG if changes were made simply because of a Highland problem.
Bigmen didn't traditionally exist in the Southern Highlands either. This is where O'Neill originates so he isn't some sort of pseudo bigman. He comes from a warrior society not a bigman society. He's something else, maybe just a cunning business warrior.
What people are claiming as politician/bigmen are a modern invention without a firm basis in tradition.
I doubt very much that there are a lot of politicians in the Haus Tambaran who could be classified as traditional bigmen. They just like to think of themselves that way. They are simply big ego men.
Posted by: Philip Fitzpatrick | 13 February 2016 at 08:59 PM
Mathias, the problem about the PNG bigman syndrome is it originally only applied to the clan in a paradigm that was not affected by external forces and influences(read money, power and foreign based influence). Thus the bigman of the clan was not only recognised by clan members but could also virtually be held accountable because of this level of recognition and availability.
Political leaders these days, as you have commented, don't reside in the village and mostly aren't able to be held accountable at the village level.
The essence of the issue is one where the style of government created by those who wrote and those who accepted the PNG Constitution did not truly understand the reality of rural PNG or the powerful influence of her traditional culture. They had their own personal axes to grind and didn't listen to those who had been in working with the PNG people for many years and were in the most part, independent of both village level politics and the Canberra 'Ivory Tower' syndrome.
In other words, the 'mix and match' didn't work except as is now recognised, to help the corrupt and the opportunists to manipulate the system without being able to be held accountable by anyone.
There really needed to be a step by step process whereby a suitable system of government was introduced but this required those in charge to accept advice from those they mostly despised.
Can there now be a change in the system of PNG's government? That would require those in charge to accept change.
Here perhaps, endeth the story......
Posted by: Paul Oates | 13 February 2016 at 08:28 PM
Two issues that 'big men- politicians' struggle with is obligation and responsibility.
They have a cultural obligation to their clan, but they have a political responsibility to the nation.
The problems for them begin with society.
Rectify the way society defines 'big men' and we'll rectify the big-men.
Posted by: Michael Dom | 13 February 2016 at 07:13 PM
Bal Kama, Matias Kin and others clearly think that constitutional change is needed to overcome the current dysfunctional parliamentary system.
If such a course of action is to be pursued, I would like to suggest that any new arrangements be aimed at disconnecting MPs from electorates based largely upon populations with well developed clan or tribal loyalties, thus forcing them to appeal to a broader base of voters who are not even distantly related to them.
One possible way to do this is to abolish single member electorates and introduce multi-member electorates that cover, for example, an entire province or other suitable defined geographic area.
In theory at least, this will ensure that there is still a "community of interest" amongst voters but reduce the chances of a candidate being elected mostly on the strength of established tribal relations.
In principle, to be elected, a candidate could no longer rely upon wantoks and bribery because there would simply be too many voters within the electorate to make this feasible. As a consequence, he or she would need to articulate policy positions that were attractive across the whole electorate, not just within a fairly narrowly defined group.
This, in turn, would create an incentive for a candidate to join with others both within and outside the electorate to develop and articulate common positions i.e. form a political party.
Of course, this is all theoretical but I agree with Bal and Mathias that sticking with the current arrangements clearly is not going to produce a new or better result.
Perhaps Gary Juffa and others will be able to think about this sort of approach (including alternatives I have not canvassed) but all based upon the idea of disconnecting MPs from their wantoks and giving them incentives to act in the wider public interest.
Certainly, those interested in constitutional reform need to think through the issues carefully and devise a policy position that makes both legal and practical sense.
Then, of course, comes the larger problem of figuring out how to market this idea to a potentially very resistant electorate.
Posted by: Chris Overland | 13 February 2016 at 06:49 PM
That was a great article by Simon Davidson. I only have these points to contribute.
In the highlands big man culture, the big man’s wealth is not personal. They share whatever they have with every other family in the village that are in need, many times at the cost of self-betterment and that of the prosperity of his family also.
A true big man will always leave a debt with others. Every time there is compensation to be paid, marriage ceremony, food exchange, even contributions for school and college fees, the big man will always outdo his other clansmen by contributing the most, the fattest or the biggest amount at every meet.
He makes his name and remains a big man in this way. There can be more than one big man in a village or clan/tribe and different levels of them also. It is a beautiful system of existence where around these big men, the people cohabited.
These days modern politics had intertwined into this beautiful traditional system and made the very name “big man” a tag so forsaken and rejected by everybody; academics, expatriates, journalists and even our young highlanders who have not truly lived lives in the villages. These opinions are developed by people who do not truly understand the “big man” and the culture that exist around it.
Today our politicians once elected, live in Moresby away from the voters and rarely come home. Over five years they embezzle much of the money meant for their peoples’ education, health and infrastructure and keep them for themselves, their families and supporters. Then after five years, they come home and give these millions to the people, who willingly open their mouths and eat them.
It has gotten worse over the last 20 years between 2002 and 2015. Skate, Somare and O’Neil’s and their supporters get big slices at every possible opportunity. They only give scraps and crumbs to the little puppies that make so much noise under the dining tables.
These puppies I really mean the MPs who usually carry brief cases of these PMs. Of course these crumbs are in the millions and these MPs can’t talk. We hear of loud mouths in parliaments who suddenly go quiet and into hibernation. While Prime Ministers do their dealings in the billions.
This is truly opposite to the true big man system where the people always come first, never himself. Even the big man would avoid favouritism (for his family members) because others around would bad his name.
On the governance side, as discussions by Bal and others, should this big man culture (and other finer traditional cultures) have a place in a modern Westminster Democratic government?
If our theorists (and I know of many PNGians like Bal) can carefully plot this, I think there can be a place for it where the goods from our traditional culture can be mixed with the modern Westminster democratic ways. I do not think we have come too far infield to turn back. The good thing, we can draw lessons learnt from this past.
Maybe we have been brought up too close and up front to this wall to think the system we have is the only and one system that can win for PNG. It has failed us thus far!
I suggest PNG draw further from here, maybe go back 40 years, unwind from our neo-colonial upbringing and take a stand off from afar. We might just be able to navigate a way through this sophisticated socio-political and economic system of our world today. PNG might just find a way around it.
My thoughts.
Posted by: Mathias Kin | 13 February 2016 at 02:55 PM
Main thing: Bigman's wealth is the product of his people. All he does is organise it. Modern politician's wealth is from outside -- rents on resources, aid, loans. Nothing to do with his people: it's not like taxation. And nothing to do, really, with the politician.
So a system that used to organise production & distribution rather well has become simply a way for a few 'leaders' to fool their followers into thinking they, the leaders, are somehow making this wealth.
(Issues with parliament & separation of powers are something else -- but looks like you're on track, Bal Kama!)
Posted by: Ian Fraser | 12 February 2016 at 11:18 PM
You could get a whole bunch of consultants working on it Bal. It would probably only take them a couple of years to milk it dry. Then the government could ignore it like they do everything else.
The idea is good and timely, we could do with a similar exercise in Australia, but the dangers are huge.
Who would be game to risk it?
Posted by: Philip Fitzpatrick | 12 February 2016 at 06:18 PM
I think that Bal Kama may have misunderstood the nature of Parliamentary Democracy, at least as it derives from the Westminster model.
While it is certainly true that Parliament's can and do come under the influence of powerful individuals, I think that it is a bit of a stretch to describe these individuals as being analogous to the "Bigmen" of PNG's past.
Even the most powerful Parliamentarians have had to do an awful lot of behind the scenes work to keep their potentially restive colleagues on side.
For example, Churchill's position as Prime Minister of Britain during World War 2 was, at very times, sufficiently tenuous that his supporters had to do a fair bit of arm twisting to shore up his position. In doing this, appeals could be made to basic unifying ideological conservatism of Churchill's fellow party members plus, of course, the appalling external threat posed by the Nazis.
The issue with PNG is not that the constitutional arrangements are inherently inappropriate but that the people who drafted it assumed that a party system like that to be found elsewhere in the world would develop "organically".
They had reasonable grounds for this belief because, at the time, the Pangu Party looked and behaved very much like a traditional political party. What they failed to understand was that only one shared ambition kept Pangu together: once independence came, that ambition was achieved and the slow and remorseless disintegration of genuine party structures began.
In the absence of coherent, unifying and disciplined party structures based upon a shared set of beliefs and ideals, the spoils of office are shared based upon one to one bargaining, led by the most compelling and articulate members of Parliament.
Such an environment does indeed foster a quasi-Bigman system, of which O'Neill is the current exemplar.
Amending the constitution will do nothing whatsoever to correct this problem. Parties and the party system arose outside of the formal constitutional arrangements in Britain, famously in the coffee shops that proliferated in London during the 18th century.
What is needed is a revolution in political affairs that creates a genuine party system. This will be a hugely difficult task because it requires Papua New Guineans to identify more with a set of political ideals and aspirations than with local clan or tribal interests.
The PNG legal system appears to me to work reasonably well, notwithstanding its misuse and abuse by the wealthy and powerful. That it pretty much the situation every where in the western world, where deep pockets can buy the legal firepower to beat off competitors or, sometimes, the authorities. It was ever thus.
Posted by: Chris Overland | 12 February 2016 at 05:38 PM
Thank you Simon for making the distinction of a Bigman and Western democracy. It is something I am interested in my PhD thesis as I try to understand the intra-governmental conflict between the judiciary and the executive/parliament in PNG, and the effect on the doctrine of separation of powers. Some of my findings suggests that the western democratic notion is not as objective as it appears. Its early emphasis on parliamentary supremacy also encouraged a kind of 'bigman' type system, but presents it formally as part of common law. This was part of the colonial system, and predominantly existed in the minds of politicians and judges in post-Independence, creating a ‘hybridity’ that from the beginning, already undermine the systems of accountability under the PNG Constitution. The Australian High Court judges were adamant of parliamentary supremacy in those years as well, but to them, there was no hybridity.
The PNG Constitution was not designed to counter the practice of 'bigmenism.’ The drafters appeared to deny its existence, and where they did admit, they believed that it was only to be shot-lived. They focused on eradicating traces of colonialism. As a result, they overlooked the debilitating effects of some of the cultural notions of power and government i.e. 'bigman' that wields all power unto his own (i.,e. three arms of government in one per say). The colonial administrators used it to their advantage in parts of PNG and mostly in Africa through the indirect rule system, and in a way, encouraged its growth.
I join with Paul Oates to recommend for a relook at the making of the PNG society – a national reconstruction. As former Australian diplomat Ben Scott once wrote, PNG needs a complete “re-imaging”, getting back to the drawing board. It needs to conduct wide consultation, and redraft the Constitution to ensure that the country does not continue to run on flowering ideals of decolonisation and liberalisation that emancipated itself in the 1970s, instead design a Constitution that reflect on its own present realities. The benefit of hindsight will add to this “national reconstruction.” The 2011-2012 constitutional crisis reminds us of the many loopholes in the Constitution and the society as a whole. I think the way forward is not a change of government, (although this may help), rather there should be a systemic change of mindset through an integrated institutional reform that is relevant and appropriate to present realities.
Posted by: Bal Kama | 12 February 2016 at 03:38 PM
Simon, you remind me of my first foray into a policy area from what could be termed an administrative and managerial role. My boss at the time read my meager written offering and laughingly told me: "You have very effectively described the problem. What you haven't done is to provide an answer."
While one definitely can't work on an answer until you define a problem, the difficulty now seems to be that while everyone knows the problem, no one seems to be able to come up with an alternative solution. It's a bit like the previous system of South American politics where a revolution by the people simply replaces one dictator with another.
O'Neill will move on. Whether it will be soon or sometime later depends on whether the opposition can muster enough support (errr... or whatever it takes), to outvote him.
What worries me is that there does not seem to be anyone who is looking further past O'Neill's demise. As I suggested before, if there isn't a viable alternative being proposed and the necessary action taken now to build that alternative, what will happen is that there will just be a change in name but no change in the system.
I fully applaud and support the feelings there should be a PNG solution designed by PNG people for PNG people. The problem now is that the traditional PNG culture, as you have correctly pointed out, does not possess one.
Recognition of that hurdle may well be the first step in moving forward by now looking at what model of leadership and government would better serve the PNG people.
This is not anything new and many new nations have provided really good examples of what not to do. We in Australia turned our back on the US model and it took ten years of active discussion and debate before we settled on a model that while not perfect, has stood the test of time.
While PNG has had discussions about constitutional change they have be negated by the lack of general education and communications throughout the country.
Maybe there needs to be an empirical plan that has a managed, step by step process that builds on each achievement.
But then who will manage that system in an impartial and non corruptible manner? For some reason I'm reminded of a system that used to exist all those years ago...... Can you still hear me Gough? Hello....
Posted by: Paul Oates | 12 February 2016 at 09:24 AM
I think you have articulated something that many thinking Papua New Guineans already know Simon but are loath to acknowledge.
O'Neill isn't any different to all the prime ministers before him, including the Great Thief.
Somare fought tooth and nail to remain in power and used every dirty trick in the book. I imagine O'Neill will do the same thing.
Perhaps it is a lesson for Gary Juffa. Drop the warrior image and try a bit of humility. If anyone can do that it's Gary Juffa.
Posted by: Philip Fitzpatrick | 12 February 2016 at 09:16 AM