PHIL FITZPATRICK
THERE are always two sides to a story, or so the saying goes.
It’s reminiscent of that law of physics that says for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Both pieces of wisdom are often misused.
Despite what people think, poking something with a stick and having it bite back is not provoking an equal and opposite reaction.
And more often than not there are more than two sides to any story.
However, in our increasingly simplistic world, these black or white, right or wrong, goodie or baddie, left or right interpretations are all pervasive.
Much of the blame can be laid at the door of tabloid journalists, particularly in media like television.
These media are looking for sensation and paint any situation in stark black and white terms as a sure fire way of achieving that outcome. As a result the public is now trained to interpret situations the same way.
It is a primitive instinct now revived. It is the sort of instinct that perceives the tribe in the next valley as cannibals and monsters.
It is an instinct that deliberately provokes conflict. And conflict now seems to be the modus operandi world-wide.
Most notable it seems to be an instinct that has been wholly adopted by social media.
The days of reasoned argument, the careful weighting up of evidence and listening to all the conflicting points of view seem to be well behind us.
Rule by slogan rather than reason seems to be the order of the day.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the way the recent problems in Papua New Guinea are portrayed.
You either believe that Peter O’Neill is corrupt, economically inept and evil or you believe he is some sort of saint upon whom Papua New Guinea’s salvation rests.
You either believe that the students leading the protests against him are valiant patriots with right on their side or that they are a disorganised rabble being manipulated by dark men in the shadows.
Any of these views might prove correct but to my mind they all sound unreasonably simplistic.
The situation is much more nuanced than people realise.
It may be that there are opportunists using the situation of Papua New Guinea’s increasingly parlous political and fiscal situation to undermine the government.
However, given that some of the loudest voices seem to be coming from people whose credentials in political and fiscal propriety are highly questionable, doesn’t inspire confidence. You can only count the truly honourable among them on one hand.
Many of the problems Papua New Guinea is currently experiencing are not within its own hands to remedy. Conversely, many of its problems are of its own making.
Some of the latter can be sheeted directly home to Peter O’Neill but many others are the fault of others in government and many of them are simply problems inherent in the particular psyche of Papua New Guinea.
To focus on something as simplistic as getting rid of Peter O’Neill to solve Papua New Guinea’s problems is exceedingly naive. But I get the distinct impression that many people are thinking this way.
He might be, rightly or wrongly, a symbol of all that is rotten in Papua New Guinea but his demise will not fix anything.
In fact, if he goes, things are likely to get a whole lot worse.
Whoever replaces him will have to be some kind of superman to make a difference. I can’t see anyone on the horizon who fits that bill.
The only wisdom any new incumbent from the current crop of aspirants will bring is knowledge about how far the packet can be pushed before it bites them.
The problem is not about the prime minister.
The problem is about Papua New Guinea itself
Getting rid of O’Neill will only be a first tiny step.
I wonder if Papua New Guinea is ready for the hard work and steep incline it will face after that.