Human beings have an inate ability to corrupt.

I think George Orwell was talking about communism, which is quite different to socialism.

However, there is very little semblance between the idea of socialism and the way it's actually practised.

Even authoritarian regimes become corrupted, viz China. (I'm not sure what sort of system China now practises).

No matter how good a system of governance might be devised for PNG there will be individuals who will corrupt it to their own advantage.

The Westminster system is now corrupt in most countries that use it, as is the presidential system and, for that matter, democracy.

That's what immediately sprang to mind when Stephen Charteris suggested turning governance on its head and letting the grass roots have a say.

In my social mapping forays, which were conducted at the grass roots level, there was inevitably some local spiv who would arrive and start manipulating everyone.

Regrettably, Phil, socialism, as has been practised in the past, tends to go the way portrayed by George Orwell in Animal Farm.

'Everyone is equal but some are more equal than others.'

There are any number of examples in today's world or in yesterday's for that matter.

My experience when traveling in post Communist Europe is that many people at the lower socioeconomic levels contrast their lot with what they have today.

Many say they were better off under the communist yoke than under the control of governments that are run by the mob masquerading as capitalists.

The answer may be one of perception and experience. Do you look at each individual tree or the forest as a whole?

I believe Paul’s comments show us where government effort could be more strategically focused.

I am reminded of the Matais in Samoa gathering on the oval to discuss matters of importance in their community. United under one culture and a common language.

It seems to me that PNG is a thousand different versions of Samoa living in one country. If government is to remain relevant to the many groups of men and women, who meet throughout the nation to discuss issues of importance to them, then the objective of every layer of the administration should be to connect meaningfully with those decision making groups.

I believe that would require a significant readjustment in focus from a top down model towards a more nuanced “two way street” that incorporates the wishes and inputs of the end users.

Potentially resulting in a partnership that enables them to contribute meaningfully to a shared journey with government, towards the outcomes they all desire.

Let’s look at the traditional method of peaceful Melanesian decision making. Seniors, in a fairly flexible way, get together and conduct lengthy discussions where everyone is allowed to have a say depending on their perceived status and age.

If there is eventually general agreement, then the village decides to go that way and there is harmony in the community.

Under the Westminster system, there is a constant battle for the hearts and minds and support of the populace by at least two sides who compete against each other to achieve the best outcome.

This produces potential conflict and disharmony in the community before a decision is achieved and even after that when potentially majority decision is made and taken.

If you look at the classic example being enacted out in Australia today between the major political parties, between States and the Commonwealth, between the haves and the have nots, etc. there is constant disharmony which is encouraged and played up to by political leaders and the media.

Business constantly tries to create envy by promoting new products and suggesting consumers need to keep up with the latest gadget etc. or fashions. Again, this creates disharmony when people feel they are not paid enough to maintain an expected level of keeping up to date. Thrift is discouraged and class consciousness is amplified, especially with the young and impressionable.

Over the last century, the western world has promoted this society as being the best on offer. Really? The East has now out performed this rabid effort to ‘modernise’ consumers through advertising.

Can anyone see where we have lost the plot? Undoubtedly, many Melanesian's can. Could a truly traditional Melanesian parliament work? Not with the capitalistic system being currently promoted.

An interesting read that left me hungry for more. What are examples of successful post-colonial re-adjustments that are closest to PNG?

Isn't the Westminster system actually pretty well-suited to a society based on consensus, especially when compared to the presidential system?

There's a fair bit of truth in this report. This may be why the patriarch is a bit reluctant to have women in parliament despite having the opportunity of reserved seats. It doesn't justify the means, but it makes sense. We have already shot ourselves in the foot by the look of things.

What an interesting read.