By
Dr HENRY OKOLE
I cannot claim to speak for the public, but most of my
acquaintances have had enough with the current political impasse between the
Somare and O’Neill camps. I would go
along with my associates not because they are the bearers of righteousness, or
their choices are divine, or that they are aloof well above the vicissitudes of
PNG politics; far from it.
It is about time a semblance of normalcy and common sense is
brought back into the Waigani political circles. At the outset, let us remind ourselves once more
of a fundamental fact: the public elects its representatives into the National
Parliament primarily because not all citizens above a certain age are able to
represent their own individual interests in a legislature. Members of
Parliament (MPs) are often referred to as elected representatives because that
in essence is what they are; representatives of the people. This is not a government for Hon. Peter
O’Neill, Chief Sir Michael Somare, any of the other 107 MPs or any political
party. This is a government that
rightfully belongs to the people. On
that basis, the two factions of this impasse need to put aside their
differences and seriously consider steps that can be taken to find a way out. They have a moral obligation to do what is
right for the people of this country.
Society suffers because Parliament’s role to impart leadership to
the state machinery and society is curtailed. MPs need to get away from the
blame game since it is a vicious cycle without any agreeable ending to the
parties concerned. In that vein, parliamentarians as responsible leaders will
have to realize that enough is enough – even if they agree to disagree on
certain issues – and end the impasse.
Part of the problem that PNG faces is how the national political culture
is in variance with state institutions that were adopted to suit the
particulars of a PNG society of 40 years ago. The National Parliament in
particular in its present design can no longer address the wide and cumbersome
political interests of a more sophisticated brand of MPs and how they see
themselves as leaders for high maintenance voters. To a certain degree,
therefore, both sides of the current impasse are victims of circumstances that
transcend this particular parliamentary term.
False Guise of the OLIPPAC
People
have diligently followed this political wrangling since Chief Somare checked
into a Singaporean hospital in early 2011.
Personally, I start with the Supreme Court ruling in relation to the Organic
Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC) in July2010. The National
Alliance’s protective cover was blown wide open when specific provisions in
that law that assured the continuity of a prime minister were rendered null and
void. The OLIPPAC was well crafted but it was not the right solution for a
problem (i.e. weak parties) at a time when there were other issues that were
already in play. In the end, the law
further strengthened the executive arm of government when it was already
encroaching on the powers and responsibilities of the legislative arm. The
disproportional strength between these two arms of government was already
evident in the 1990s.
The Supreme Court ruling was what finally unscrewed the bolts of a
period that many people regard as a period of ‘stability’ under the
OLIPPAC. I prefer to call it a period of
‘continuity’ because the nine years under Somare (2002 – 2011) were hardly
stable. Having four consecutive deputy prime ministers and numerous cabinet
reshuffles were hardly indications of stability by any intelligent expandable
definition.
In the haste to stabilize parliamentary politics, the OLIPPAC
guaranteed a prime minister to serve out a full five year term while the option
to invoke a vote of no confidence was technically shunned. In that regard, the inability to change the
Somare government through a vote of no confidence did not create stability;
rather it created animosity. No doubt,
Somare’s hospitalization – as many people would argue - did precipitate the
domino effect that culminated in everything that has happened and ended with
the current stalemate. People can talk
about the divisive issues in the National Alliance, the acting role of Sam Abal
as prime minister and the medical condition of Chief Somare, among many
things. But the seeds of destruction
were already sowed way before the Chief entered hospital. The change of government on 2 August 2011 was
not only a change of prime minister and government. To some MPs, it was to avenge themselves -
after feeling victimized and betrayed - against certain colleagues of theirs
who plied their alleged dirty trade behind Chief Somare. In a way, the public support for the
O’Neill-Namah government was a reaction also to some of these leaders who saw
themselves as being indispensable to PNG politics.
Entangling the entangled
If we were to pick our way through the rubble, it might happen
that we will lose direction given that there are now layers at end of events,
factors and court cases (including counter cases) that have built up since the
O’Neill government came into office in August 2011. There has been so much bad
blood washed under the bridge that it would be confusing to know exactly where
to start the corrective healing process. A five-man bench of the Supreme Court
ruled in favour of the Somare government, but they are in the minority in
Parliament. How do they get to run the
government unless of course some MPs from the O’Neill camp cross the
floor? Only a test of numbers on the
floor of Parliament would give an indication.
However, it would be interesting to see whether such a vote – if it does
take place – would compromise the coveted victory that the Supreme Court has
given the Somare group.
Furthermore, Parliament has been able to rescind some of the
decisions it took previously. It has
also been able to take undertakings in reaction to the Supreme Court decision
of 12 December 2011. Where is the state
of play now for many of the issues?
Thus, is the reinstatement of Chief Somare – who was supposed to
have been dismissed from Parliament – still tenable? What is the fate of the cabinet that he has
put together? The O’Neill-Namah government continues to perform its duty as if
it is the only government in existence.
This government’s budget was passed in December. A few weeks back, Treasury Minister Hon Don
Polye declared that the roll out has started for the 2012 national budget. Among the key undertakings to be funded and
implemented is the Free-Education policy, something that has captured the heart
and imagination of ordinary Papua New Guineans.
What would be the implications if such policies were reversed? Needless to say, much of the agglomeration of
things is very confusing to the public. More than that, it is the fate of the
National Constitution and the image of the judiciary that should concern
everyone.
We can go on, but my point is something has to give. This impasse should not deepen the mysteries
of ordinary people, who - once again - are rightfully owners and partakers of
the PNG government. A dual legitimacy claim to the executive arm should not go
on unresolved indefinitely. It undermines our laws and institutions and it does
not portray a positive image of the country abroad. It is time for Hon Peter O’Neill and Chief
Michael Somare to put their respective political paraphernalia on the table,
talk through their issues and agree to move the county forward to the eighth
national elections in the post-independence period.
A Way Forward
It might not be possible for any quick solutions to be reached if
the O’Neill and Somare camps were to sort out their differences as first order
of business either in court or in Parliament.
It is likely that such avenues would attract additional animosity and
create more divisions at the outset before any understanding and compromise is
reached. Therefore, it would be best if a group of eminent individuals were
commissioned to broker a deal. Eminent
individuals could come from either PNG alone or the Pacific region – or even
beyond.
Once a way forward is agreed to, the proposal can then be brought
to Parliament for debate and/or endorsement. It is the prerogative of
Parliament to decide what exactly can be done between now and polling.
Finally,
there should be an endeavor to review existing laws and institutional designs
against our national political culture. An all out effort should be conjured to
ensure that such a stalemate is never to be repeated again. It is dangerous and debilitating for the country.
Dr Henry Okole
is a Senior Research Fellow under the Institutional Strengthening Pillar at the
National Research Institute
