KEITH JACKSON
DESPITE the many observed (not by the official observers it seems) indications of election rigging– ballot box manipulation, ballot paper rorting, vote buying, election manager malfeasance and else – far worse than anything previously reported in Papua New Guinea – and the sheer incompetence of the electoral commission – this election of 2017 has been a watershed for a struggling nation.
And struggling it should not be. There has been sufficient wealth created in this place over the last 20 years to have this richly resourced land and its industrious people on a consistent upward-sloping economic trajectory.
But too much of the bounty of this land of seven million, far too much, has been wasted and stolen – denying an increasingly deprived people of their inheritance and their due.
The former colonial masta, Australia, instead of being a reliable friend and an astute strategic partner has participated in a cynical exercise of exploiting a complicit and avaricious PNG government in the interests of Australia’s own shallow and short-term political objectives.
The support – and negligence (not cracking down on money laundering for example) – that Australia has afforded PNG’s corrupt and incompetent government has been shocking in its naivety and short-sightedness.
Australia and Papua New Guinea need a mature, equal and collaborative relationship but it has become increasingly evident over recent years that the inspiration for this – if it is to happen – must come from Papua New Guinea not an Australia bewildered not just by its role in the world but by its role in its own region.
This inspiration and drive will have to come from a new breed of Melanesian leader because the narcissistic, kleptocratic, self-aggrandising mob we’ve seen develop over these last two decades has to be gotten rid of if PNG is to survive as a viable nation state.
Which brings me lengthwise to the recent election: an election of farce, failure and embarrassment where counting still grinds on.
Notwithstanding the euphemistic diplomatic stroking and blandishments by Commonwealth, Australian and sundry other outside observers, the election has been a disgrace.
Many observers compromised their own role and credibility by not explicitly owning up to the election’s manifold flaws – or by being side-tracked into locations where malfeasance wasn’t immediately obvious (this seemed to happen to the Australian parliamentary delegation).
All these people – promoted as both independent and expert – not only didn’t seem to observe with real acuity but made the many honest and patriotic Papua New Guineans who did know what was going on feel more vulnerable and isolated, except in rare places like Simbu where ad hoc citizens’ committees forced scrupulousness on local electoral officials.
All that said, I believe what we have seen already is enough to make a judgment about some profound change in PNG’s political dynamic.
The emergence of decent and strong activists with good political skills combined with the flowering of a boisterous and intrusive social media brings a mood of change to the nation’s political discourse. Many of these people, a number of whom will be elected, will never be the same again.
My guess is that they will be better able to organise, strategise, network, fundraise and produce the collaterals of campaigning – the leaflets, speeches, manifestos, posters – as a result of this experience, especially against an incumbent government which has not hesitated to play some ugly cards.
Their central tenet must be a determination to focus on the people of Papua New Guinea and to do so with integrity and energy.
It is possible that there may be enough of these people elected to form a half decent government – or at least a viable opposition.
So far, there’s just enough in the election results to hand to make me a little confident that this will happen.
If it does, out of this mess something much better may result.
It's first diplomatic job will be sorting out a more effective relationship with Australia.