Authoritarianism and Corruption in Papua New Guinea
Photo credit: https://36th-parallel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Somare-ONeill.png
Introduction
In its 43-year history,
the Pacific Island nation of Papua New Guinea (PNG) is at the cross-roads yet
again. PNG’s ruling People’s National Congress Party (PNC) leader and Prime
Minister Peter O’Neill’s (O’Neill) political dominance has been shaken. His
coalition government’s solidarity and numerical strength has been weakened and
will certainly be tested in a looming vote of no confidence (VONC). Two weeks ago on May 7, 2019 the Alternative Government, led by the Opposition filed a
Motion of No Confidence against PM O’Neill. The Speaker is expected to inform
Parliament whether the motion is accepted on May 30, 2019.
The drive to grapple the
PM office away from O’Neill is growing momentum on the back of a string of
alleged cases of high-level corruption coupled with economic mismanagement
which O’Neill has and continues to downplay and denies any wrongdoing. He is a hard
man and will fight to hold on to his job. Papua New Guineans, however, have
become frustrated with the escalating costs of living and are expressing their support
behind the Alternative Government mainly through social media especially
Facebook to restore justice and rule of law.
High levels of corruption
are associated with authoritarianism. Corruption has deteriorated,
within the last seven years, from bad to worst. There is mounting public
tension that the PNC-led government is proving to be the worst within a short
period of time since O’Neill was controversially elevated to lead the country
in August 2011. Focussing on two cases where corruption was exposed will demonstrate
that authoritarianism rendered civil and public institutions frustratingly
handicapped and at worst toothless to investigate and prosecute, thus drastically
fraternising gross levels of corruption and abuse of official power. The
current political instability and lobbying could possibly chart a new course
for PNG. As one of Australia’s nearest neighbours, Australian officials are
closely monitoring these developments.
Definitions
The two variables (1)
corruption, and (2) authoritarianism appear to have a relationship in this PNG
context.
“In the political context
corruption means using public office for private gain, whether financial or
social, and without due regard for the public duties attached to the office in
question. A politician who accepts bribes in order to legislate in the
interests of the donor is corrupt in that sense, as is a politician who trades
publicly administered privileges for sexual favours. In certain parts of the
world, corruption is endemic, not because of any moral depravity in the
politicians, but because of social expectations that undermine the very idea of
public office and its duties. For example, it is expected of a politician in
many parts of Africa that he use his office to help members of his family and
tribe: not to do so would be a gesture of intolerable ingratitude, and a politician
who maintained a standards of honesty expected at Westminster would be regarded
as cold-hearted and even suspected of alien allegiances. Corruption is a matter
of degree, and there are an increasing number of marginal cases that make it
very difficult to distinguish the innocent from the guilty. The distinction
from the legitimate lobbying and downright bribery is not always easy to draw,
as recent cases in the US Congress show. Furthermore, in the UK, people can
obtain personal privileges and legislative goals by giving funds to political
parties: a great many peerages are purchased in this way, and the Political
Animal Lobby, which gave a million pounds to the Labour Party, was rewarded
with a ban on hunting for which it had lobbied. The Party responded to
criticism, however, by saying that it would have banned hunting in any case, so
that it was not influenced by the gift. This excuse, universally available, is
what makes the matter difficult to decide in any particular case” (Scruton
2007, p. 145-146).
“Authoritarianism, rather
like totalitarianism, is perhaps more of a technical term in political science
than one in ordinary political usage. An authoritarian system need not,
strictly speaking, be a dictatorship, and may well not be totalitarian. The
essential element is that it is one in which stern and forceful control is
exercised over the population, with no particular concern for their preferences
or for public opinion. The justification for the rule may come from any one of
a number of ideologies, but it will not be a democratic ideology, and ideas of
natural rights or civil liberties will be rejected in favour of the
government’s right to rule by command, backed by all the force it needs. It is
very much tied to the idea of command and obedience, of inflexible rule, and a
denial of the legitimacy of opposition or even counter-argument” (Robertson
2002, p. 33).
These definitions suggest
a clear connection between authoritarianism and corruption where through an
authoritarian-style system, the degree of high-level corruption and abuse of
official power in PNG has flourished systematically amid failed attempts of
containment by patriotic Papua New Guineans in the Opposition.
Research
Methodology
A Quantitative study was
used for this research. The focus was on two unique cases of exposed corruption
in PNG and not all cases. These cases were selected on the following criteria:
1.
A single sovereign nation state. PNG is a young
politically independent country still trying to ascertain its key role and place
in regional and the global political economy.
2.
Two cases. Case 1 – Grand Chief Sir
Michael T. Somare (GC Sir Michael) and, Case 2 – O’Neill. PNG has seen eight PMs
since gaining political independence from Australia in September 16, 1975 (inclusive
of Mr. Sam Abal who was acting PM in 2010 and 2011). GC Sir Michael and O’Neill
are the only two PMs who served long consecutive terms with nine years and
seven years respectively.
3.
PM reaction. In each instance we will look
at how each these PM responded to reported alleged cases of corruption and
abuse of official power during their term in office.
Figure
1. A graphical view of citizens living standards compared to national GDP
growth and freedom rating between years 2002–2018. Note that data available
from 2002 up to 2018 as at time of writing.
Case
1. GC Sir Michael: 2002–2011
The country’s founding
father led the National Alliance Party (NA) to win the 2002 national general
elections. “…Somare led NA to win the 2002 elections and his popularity in the 2007 elections helped
NA to remain in power until it began to splinter towards the end of the
electoral cycle. Around 2010-2011, Somare fell seriously ill and during his
absence Abal acted as PM. Growing public concerns about corruption led to
political unrest that opened an opportunity for the realignment of
parliamentary power. O’Neill took over the PM post amidst public unrest and
Constitutional upheaval. Returning to parliament from his illness, Somare
stepped aside as the political leader of NA, but not before consolidating the
party’s position in government by joining the O’Neill coalition in a move that
Somare reportedly explained as
being to stabilise government and avoid disruptions” (Rooney 2019). During his reign there
was widespread instances of corruption and abuse of official power. These
factors continued to hinder efforts to improve law and order and spur economic
growth. In contrasts to O’Neill, GC Sir Michael did allow justice and the rule
of law to prevail in certain circumstances.
Case
2. O’Neill: 2011–2019
“In August 2011, Peter O’Neill became prime minister after Michael Somare
stepped down amid corruption charges and health problems. In October, Somare
claimed that he had never formally left office. Although the Supreme Court in
December ruled that O’Neill’s election was unconstitutional and Somare should
be reinstated, the speaker of Parliament continued to recognize O’Neill as
prime minister, in defiance of the court’s ruling”. (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/papua-new-guinea)
His initially efforts to address widespread
official abuse of power and corruption, enabling successful prosecutions of
several former and current high-ranking officials worn the hearts and minds of
the people. This façade immediately collapsed ensuing his increasingly
autocratic leadership style, including his disbanding of an anticorruption task
force after he became subject of a corruption investigation.
“In
January 2014, Prime Minister Peter O’Neill and other lawmakers faced
allegations of wrongdoing involving $28 million in government fees paid to a
private law firm. Taskforce Sweep, O’Neill’s special anticorruption
investigation body, first concluded the allegations were unfounded, but later
said new evidence supported an arrest warrant for O’Neill. Following this
development, O’Neill declared Taskforce Sweep to be politically compromised and
disbanded the group in June, putting the police in charge of the investigation.
Acting Police Commissioner Geoffrey Vaki was arrested soon afterward by fraud
investigators for interfering with the course of justice in relation to the case
against O’Neill. O’Neill then dismissed the deputy police commissioner who
approved Vaki’s arrest and initiated an investigation against Sam Koim, the
anticorruption group’s director, for alleged mismanagement. The affair inflamed
political divisions, and political protests were banned on grounds of avoiding
violence.
In July, the
National Court reinstated Taskforce Sweep. The government subsequently removed
Koim from the payroll and withheld funds for the taskforce, though the group
continued to work” (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2015/papua-new-guinea).
Conclusion
My findings
reveal that the freedom rating and political rights in PNG deteriorated to
between 3.0 and 3.5 (‘partly free’ where 1 = best and 7 = worst) during the
term of both PMs. This data suggested that both leaders had to rule amid
widespread instances of corruption and official abuse of power. There was
increasing crime, weak government, and prevalent abuse and corruption continued
to hinder attempts to better law and order and spur economic expansion. Per
capita GDP (Figure 1) appears to be slipping down to 2002 and 2008 levels. This
indicate that PNG, despite a wealth of agricultural and mineral wealth, has
seen a drastic drop in living standards since 2014. It is a concern that world
bank 2019 data, once become available would likely signal further decline in
living standards.
O’Neill
seven-year stewardship of PNG could be described as authoritarian with total
disregard for justice and the rule of law. With increasing revelation of
alleged high-level corruption, gross abuse of official power combined with
deteriorating living standards; PNG citizens are intensifying calls for him to
step down as PM. The opposition are pushing to topple O’Neill through a looming
VONC. O’Neill’s short history as PM dictates that he will not go down without
fighting and may possible exhaust all avenues to cling onto power.
The
hypothesis can be expanded further or be the basis to explore the effects of
authoritarianism in a developing Pasifika economy. There are lessons, good or
bad, to be learnt and whatever these lessons are, they should be a beacon to guide
and build a better democracy that is unique and pragmatic in Pasifika.
References
1. Scruton,
R. 2007. The Palgrave Macmillan
Dictionary of Political Though (3rd Edition.). London: The
Macmillan Press.
2. Robertson,
D. 2002. A Dictionary of Modern Politics
(Third Edition). London: Europa Publications.
3.
The Devpolicy Blog. 2019. “PNG politics: the dawn of a new
era?”. May 14, 2019. http://www.devpolicy.org/png-politics-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-20190514-2/
4. The
Devpolicy Blog. 2019. “Political developments in Papua New Guinea in a
historical context”. May 3, 2019. http://www.devpolicy.org/political-developments-in-papua-new-guinea-in-a-historical-context-20190506/
Comments
Post a Comment