PHIL FITZPATRICK
THERE is a universal convention in all democracies that leaders accept responsibility for the actions of those under them.
The concept is captured concisely in a phrase popularised by United States president Harry S Truman and which he had mounted on a plaque on his desk. It read, ‘The buck stops here’.
It is a convention that applies to all organisations, including those in both the private and public sectors. It particularly applies to governments.
Many prime ministers and a few presidents have had to resign because of something a subordinate has done which they had inadvertently or unknowingly condoned or ignored.
The knowledge that they are ultimately responsible for what the whole of government does keeps most of them on their toes and curbs any inclinations they might have towards excess.
I was surprised, therefore, to read a recent comment by Peter O’Neill about SABLs (the controversial leases under which much of PNG’s forest has been logged) in a report by Eric Tlozek of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
In his article Eric reported that “Mr O'Neill had issued instructions for all of the countries’ SABLs to be cancelled last year, but many continue to export logs.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-03/pngs-illegal-logging-exports-continue/8770756
Mr O’Neill blamed his departments, saying they had not followed his instructions.
“Our government has already cancelled all the SABL licences,” he said.
“It is the agencies of government who are supposed to be doing their job, who are not doing their job.
“I've told the landowners who are complaining about SABL licences to throw the developers out."
To me this indicates that Peter O’Neill is not inclined to follow Truman’s aptly expressed democratic convention.
His preferred option seems to be to blame everyone but himself. It is an attitude reminiscent of dictatorial regimes rather than democratic ones.
It also made me wonder exactly what sort of power and strength of leadership he has as prime minister.
The SABL comment is, after all, an admission that public servants are ignoring what he tells them to do.
There seems no doubt that he sees himself as a master political tactician who will use every trick in the book to get what he wants, but is eh he capable of exercising real power?
We can blame him for the parlous state of Papua New Guinea’s economy and its poor social indicators but has it been all his doing or are other people, over whom he has little control, mainly responsible?
This is important because if he actually has very little control, how is he going to fix the mess over the next five years?
From where I sit, it seems that the only real power he wields is limited to his own members of parliament.
And he does this primarily through financial disbursement, distributing funds to some and deliberately withholding from others.
There is no doubt that some of those MPs are intelligent and committed individuals but it is also apparent that many of them are basically dross or part of an unruly mob that is hard to control.
O’Neill could merely be the leader of this disparate pack by virtue of his grip on the purse strings. In other words, he’s just another corporate alpha male.
If this is the case it is far from an ideal situation for a democracy.
It also highlights the difference between the O’Neill government and the new, revitalised opposition.
The Alliance seems to be a group of committed individuals with the best interests of the country at heart.
But time will tell whether this proves true.
In the meantime Papua New Guinea might have to look forward to a period under the control of a leader who has a very tenuous grasp on power and whose authority is weak.
If his cohorts and public servants can ignore his instructions on SABLs, what else can they ignore?