PNG as a democracy has never had a coup and when there was talk of them has been able to avert them. But a democracy has one severe constraint. It cannot move faster than public opinion or the ruling party/coalition will be removed from power.

Mike Manning
In a recent well-researched and very thorough article entitled 'Re-imagining PNG' (www.lowyinstitute.org) for the Lowy Institute in Sydney, Ben Scott persists with the description of Papua New Guinea as “an increasingly fragile state” with a “negative trajectory”- phrases which so infuriate politicians and opinion-makers in the country.

This author co-authored an article for another Institute in 2004 which resulted in a summon to appear before a Parliamentary Committee. Designed mainly for Australian opinion-makers, it sets out to describe PNG and its problems that could possibly result in the failure of the state. It was designed to shock and it achieved its aim.

Many authors have persisted with this gloomy analysis of PNG, enraging decision-makers who feel the country has taken steps to right many of these problems and that outsiders do not give enough credit for this.

Scott has acknowledged most of these gains but generally as an afterthought after he has emphasised the problems and their severity. It is timely to assess this debate and make some judgements about it.

The real problem is one of basic attitude. The old saying “is a glass half full or half empty” is very apt to this situation. The way the country is viewed depends on whether you think that the government has performed well under enormous constraints or whether you believe that the fundamental problems are too difficult to overcome and it will slide inexorably into anarchy and chaos.

The term “fragile” does not mean that the latter will happen. But it implies that it is a real possibility. It would never be used about a western democracy although it could be used about one Pacific and many African and emerging ex-CIS states.

As Scott points out, PNG as a democracy has never had a coup and when there was talk of them has been able to avert them. But a democracy has one severe constraint. It cannot move faster than public opinion or the ruling party/coalition will be removed from power. In any democracy, public opinion changes slowly. The acceptance of environmental dangers to the world is an example; many advanced states refused to ratify the Kyoto convention for reasons dictated by their constituents, whilst others have been quick to do so.

The change from the predominantly state ownership of utilities and services to private ownership has moved at an uneven pace around the world, depending on the way governments and communities felt about it. In Australia, the sale of the remaining state ownership in Telstra still sparks passionate debate, small wonder that Papua New Guineans are confused about the issue.

So let us look at the scoreboard from a PNG perspective that great changes have been made which have reduced the potential “fragility” of the state.

The fundamental problem about tackling PNG's problems was political instability. Three reforms have been aimed at reducing this and allowing the government a better chance to both govern effectively and remain in office.

The Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties was the first, aimed at preventing political defections without good reason and strengthening existing parties. The bill has had an effect but will not be properly tested until judicial interpretations from its many challenges have been settled.

Scott acknowledges that it has had an influence on the fact that the present government will serve its full term for the first time since independence. But he hesitates to accept its overall importance.

The introduction of Limited Preferential voting in recent by-elections and for the 2007 election is another change that has been made. It is designed to strengthen the political system by eliminating the election of people with less than 10-20% of the vote and forcing candidates (and therefore parties) to move outside clans and appeal to a wider constituency. Scott acknowledges this but is at pains to point out how this reform might not work rather than hailing it as a very significant step forward.

A reform that Scott did not discuss was the change to the method of appointment and dismissal of departmental heads and heads of statutory authorities. This sets out procedures for appointments and dismissal which removes direct political patronage and therefore the rapid turnover of senior managers. This allows them to give unbiased advice to government without fear of instant removal.

Other areas that have changed the outlook for PNG are the current resources boom; improvements to the taxation regime for the mining and petroleum industries which have increased the applications for new exploration licences from 5 to over 30 in two years; improved financial and budgetary management aided by Australian officials which has slowed unbudgeted expenses to a trickle; increased expenditure on infrastructure maintenance; the resurrection of the Public Accounts Committee; appointment of a taskforce to recommend changes to land administration and registration; appointment of Australian officials to various positions within the justice system; closer cooperation with the private sector; and rightsizing of the public service.

Some of these are “work in progress” but they are also proof of recognition by PNG leaders of its problems and an attempt to reach home-grown PNG solutions to these problems, ones which are achievable and lasting.

Some, as Scott correctly observes, are adopted reluctantly and there are strong vested interests operating to subvert them, some like public service reduction, have been tried before and failed. Nevertheless, they are reforms that are PNG grown and there is a commitment by PNG officials and politicians to their implementation.

It would be wrong to give the impression that all is rosy in PNG. Law and order and corruption are deep-seated and pervasive, infrastructure has virtually collapsed, human development indicators are bad and getting worse, and services barely reach most of the population.

But a small democracy cannot solve all these problems at once. It has to get the basic structures of government right in order to be able to get at other problems.

PNG is trying to do this and deserves recognition and support for its efforts rather than the repeated sobriquet of “a fragile state”-the glass is half full, not half empty.


Mike Manning is director of the Institute of National Affairs, PNG's think tank.