Is Melanesian liberal democracy doomed?
19 May 2021
CHRIS OVERLAND
ADELAIDE - It is a guilty pleasure to read a Marxist analysis of Michael Somare's contribution to Papua New Guinea’s history.
The pleasure lies in its character as a useful antidote to the fawning hagiography which characterised many of the Grand Chief’s obituaries.
It takes me back to my student days when I was studying philosophy under Professor Brian Medlin, a renowned Marxist and leader of the Moratorium Movement against Australia's participation in the Vietnam War.
At one point he was imprisoned for his participation in a Moratorium march. This hugely increased both his profile and notoriety amongst the students at Flinders University, hence my desire to study under his tutelage.
Anyway, Professor Medlin taught his students that there is more than one way of seeing the world and that this usually is done through the prism of culture.
All philosophy is an expression of culture in some way: there is no purely objective way for humans to see and understand the world.
Professor Medlin strove to at least diminish the distortions such prisms caused amongst his students although not with much success in the case of most of them.
Indeed, his impact upon my thinking came long after I ceased being his student.
I mention this because I believe that, fundamentally, modern PNG is a product of its prevailing cultural norms
Somare and others were almost certainly doomed from the start in their efforts to create a Melanesian version of a liberal democracy.
The sheer weight of PNG's ancient cultures, notably the pattern of life based upon mutual reciprocity and familial and tribal communalism, was always likely to make it very hard indeed to create a political system in which the power of the wantok was muted.
Like many kiaps, I recognised this potential problem early on, but the great and the good were certainly not listening to the kiaps or even the people as Pax Australiana ploughed on towards independence.
Another major mistake at the time was to assume that PNG was and would be easy to govern.
After all, it was probably thought, if a comparative handful of kiaps and police scattered around the country could exert effective control over such a diverse and untamed population, surely an indigenous Melanesian government could do even better?
While I think that Michael Somare was, on balance, a positive force in PNG history he was hardly without his flaws.
In particular, he succumbed to the enormous pressures exerted by the cultures he was a part of and the added pressures arising from having to engage with the voracious neo-liberal capitalism that had always been lurking in wait for the day when PNG's colonial masters and protectors departed.
PNG is still struggling with these same stresses and seems likely to do so for the foreseeable future.
It has the added pressure of having to deal with the rise of a new imperial power in the east.
China is no less self-interested and determined to assert its dominance than were the European imperial powers of the last century.
It is not inconceivable that PNG will once again find itself caught up in conflict between the world's great powers just as it was between 1942, when Japanese imperial forces invaded, and 1945.
What form that conflict will take is an open question but that it will occur seems certain.
On the theme of PNG democracy and nationhood, I received the following from a Papuan nationalist:
“Papuans are in real trouble with modern slavery, discrimination and abuse from PNG. I guess Australians are very happy wanting this outcome so they created an environment for their concept to grow and manifest. Well done, we remember this very well.”
I replied with a quote from Chris Overland’s article:
"In particular, he [Somare] succumbed to the enormous pressures exerted by the cultures he was a part of and the added pressures arising from having to engage with the voracious neo-liberal capitalism that had always been lurking in wait for the day when PNG's colonial masters and protectors departed.
"PNG is still struggling with these same stresses and seems likely to do so for the foreseeable future. It has the added pressure of having to deal with the rise of a new imperial power in the east.
"China is no less self-interested and determined to assert its dominance than were the European imperial powers of the last century.
"It is not inconceivable that PNG will once again find itself caught up in conflict between the world's great powers just as it was between 1942, when Japanese imperial forces invaded, and 1945."
I have read the accounts of William MacGregor and Sir Hubert Murray. These great men, Governors of Papua, spent their whole lives raising, nurturing and protecting Papuans from bad influences.
Once they were gone, we had Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam and the United Nations decolonisation committee urging independence for all 'oppressed' colonial people.
It was a worldwide force, pushed by the left liberal mood of the times. The kiaps opposed it, but nobody listened. The result is a corrupt country, without accountability or real governance.
This is serving rapacious capitalism and Chinese communism, which is stripping the world of resources. It is not sustainable, and we have five times more humans than earth can support.
PNG is being ripped off by foreign companies who evade taxes; Australia is the same. PNG would be better off just relying on agriculture, tourism and fishing. It is suffering from a 'resource curse' like Africa.
I have sympathy for the Papuan people, overtaken by these vultures and by the indiscriminate migration of non-Papuans into your lands.
The highlanders and others are very motivated and strong people, and will soon be running the country, if not already.
The mixing of tribes makes this hard to slow, but it isn’t impossible. Bougainville will test of the whole idea of one country.
I wish you well with Papuan independence, but I see no strong movement from here. I feel that a United States of Melanesia is more realistic, with Papua, New Guinea islands, New Guinea north coast, Bougainville and Highlands as separate states.* The [much smaller] national government would only control defence and foreign relations.**
Thoughts?
*West Papua may join later, if they can work out what to do with 1 million non-Melanesians.
** Half the MP’s would be women, under a revised constitution.
Posted by: John Greenshields | 22 May 2021 at 08:21 AM
“The sheer weight of PNG's ancient cultures, notably the pattern of life based upon mutual reciprocity and familial and tribal communalism, was always likely to make it very hard indeed to create a political system in which the power of the wantok was muted” - Chris Overland
Chris, take a bow. This goes to the DNA of the issue.
I agree with you that the system of government inherited from 'pax Austaliana' while fine in theory has failed to deliver on the ground where it counts.
I am not suggesting it be tossed into the bin, however there is a need for reflection on how a model reliant upon strict adherence to governance at every level and a nationwide vision of the common good can be applied to the reality you describe.
If governance is the key, then my suggestion is to start where it exists: within traditional structures.
Re-think and possibly re-align service delivery with those structures and customs. Not a one size fits all approach and certainly not one that assumes public servants can do it all. But one that may have a fighting chance of being successful.
Posted by: Stephen Charteris | 19 May 2021 at 03:25 PM
I agree with the last two paragraphs of your informative observations.
In any future conflict within the South West Pacific Area, the strategic importance to Australian sovereignty lies at Manus Island, Simpson Harbour. the Solomons, Milne Bay, Bootless Bay and Fairfax Harbour.
PNG has some very hard choices to make, now.
Posted by: B J Gough | 19 May 2021 at 09:27 AM