Comments

At the fiftieth anniversary since the independence of Papua New Guinea there is introspection and reflection on the achievements or otherwise during the first half century. A common theme that has emerged is the lack of basic services and economic opportunity for much of the population. The work by Howes et al; Struggle, Reform, Boom and Bust an Economic History of Papua New Guinea since Independence has set out the causes of the symptoms. But as the need for assistance is arguably greater than ever, have we got the right prescription? Communities are the bedrock of PNG society. The common factor in an ocean of diversity and difference that characterises the country. By contrast, the aspirations of all communities are surprisingly similar: dependable health and education services and economic opportunity for the burgeoning under 25 year demographic. However, for two generations communities have not shared in the process of nation building in any meaningful way. The political process has seemingly forgotten them except at election time when the those chasing votes hand out cash to buy support. The only assistance the average man or woman can expect for the following five years until voting comes around again. In my view if development partners have made an error, it has been to seemingly put all the eggs into strengthening an alien system of governance that has no relevance to those living at community level. A system inherited at independence that does not throw up elected or appointed leadership with a desire to apply the concept of administration for the common good. In practice unless the elected person is a relative, it is unlikely they will be relevant to you. An example of hyper regionalism with all it entails. This situation of inherent distrust of people not related to you or who do not come from your immediate area exists everywhere. So, what is decided by 122 members in the national parliament in Port Moresby or even at provincial level might just as well have taken place in a parallel universe as far as most communities are concerned. Despite the passage of time since 1975 this undercurrent of distrust applies to nearly everyone including elected representatives and public servants at every level and the evidence is there to see. A visit to any district or local level government area will reveal closed schools, un-stocked clinics, broken bridges, an absence of local enterprise and a rising tide of youth dissatisfaction. Without at least a minimal level of trust from the 85 percent of the population who live in rural settings in the commitment of government or integrity of public servants, there is no mechanism to leverage community development. And yet it is this system that has dominated the focus of the development effort for five decades. I would argue that until communities are included as partners in the process and given an equal seat at the table, a tangible stake on their terms in the outcomes that affect them where they live, there can be no change. And adjusting focus to give communities equal billing would require a fundamental shift in how partners conceptualise and apply models of change. I can’t see this happening while funders continue to “improve” service delivery via a top down one way street through a government instrumentality. When I observe that models emanating from Canberra appear to be focussed on ensuring sub national provincial administrations take ownership for setting and implementing polices to meet the needs of their people I see meaningless jargon. “Their people” do not share this view. In a country of 850 languages and untold independent clans living on their country they see another level of bureaucratic impediment to progress few can relate to staffed by people they do not trust who will do nothing for them. That is their reality. Nation building has to be a two way street. I believe that until we collectively envision solutions around economic activity, food security, primary health, education and women’s empowerment through a community lens as seen by the bedrock units of society and importantly support them to drive that process on their terms in an enabling partnership with government, there are unlikely to be any solutions. Unlike 1975 when good will and optimism prevailed and people were prepared to give it a go, in 2025 the mood has changed. In particular the under 25 demographic, now connected by X are fed up with the lack of options and open to promises offered by less desirable parties. The Bougainville question has to be resolved lest Bougainville leadership declare unilateral independence and look for a strong backing partner. Some other provinces are of similar mind and are watching from the wings. Other actors could exploit this. Our own performance has not been without fault. Over the years our institutional memory has been found wanting, policy prescriptions inconsistent and naive and attention to the impact of our own corporate citizens and government regrettable and not just on Bougainville. A situation that I think indicates our political class do not understand a vitally important country 4km north of the Queensland/ Torres Strait Islands border. A November 2020 article by Professor Howes in this forum entitled “PNG on the border. Too close to ignore but what to do?” posed questions about this but five years later the situation remains largely the same. Stability is fragile and time is running out. Hence my prescription as someone who has much affection for this incredible country is to stop travelling in ever decreasing circles and with urgency in partnership with respected traditional and government leaders develop a powerful, visionary economic, health and education enabling package directed at improving equity and opportunity for 12 going on 20 million rural people to grow their economy from the ground up in ways that respects their wishes, preserves their environment, paves the way for more reliable and sustainable services and gives the young demographic renewed hope because the alternatives do not bear thinking about.

This article is clearly articulated and addresses the real issues of external influence, particularly the alliance between these two states in the Pacific and how it could undermine regional solidarity in the Pacific.

Thank you Mike. Congratulations to you and team in Vanuatu Govt for leading the case. Indeed, the outcome of this case affirms the agency of Pacific states and their independent leadership.

Thanks, Stephen and team for the artful work into this book. As a development practitioner engaging extensively in the donors' programs in PNG, I would like to share few thoughts and observations. I had seen the unfolding nature of development in the country with different leaders in the political and bureaucratic institutions of this country, as a child in the 80s, as a schooler in the 90s, as a development practitioner in the 2000 and current. The category would be this; the early leaders – the makers of this nation, the developers, the reformers, the users and invaders using systems to legitimize illegitimate public goods. Whilst observing the turnover of times, there is the population boom, the urban migration, the deterioration of infrastructures and the increase development of the resource industries and emergence of social insecurity - limited and weak law enforcement institutions and increase in law-and-order issues and the reminiscence of regionalism among diversity. With the above features, more money from donors, resource sectors and public tax poured into development, but it continues to sink in deep pockets, and it seems will not end. Everything the current systems and players are doing is extensively exposed through the availability of technology – provides both facts and fake to the public domain. The development in ARoG into self-determination will create a major shift in the regionalism of diversity across the country. Not a majority political party government will sustain stable government while all development will take on reactive approach to emerging situations and not a long-term solution. The call now for PNG is – what were the thoughts and minds of the makers of this nation? This should be the evaluation question of the PNG 50th Anniversary (apply basic principle of project design- objective vs outcome evaluation). At least many of the forefathers are not around to provide this evaluation feedback, but what we still have are the foundational institutions, constitution and the enabling legislations which still provides the conner stone of the thoughts and minds of the nation makers. The risks are that users and invaders (politicians) of today are trying to continuously attack the very foundations, (amendments to laws and duplications of institutions) with selfishness. This is a bad trend for PNG. The old terms like political patronage and clientelism would fade and new jargons will emerge like – systemic and systematic action, legitimizing the illegitimate, selective warranting and weaponizing legislation and allocation. Thanks

Good one.

Thank you for sharing your perspective, Jane Smith. The words you used in your comment, in many ways, already addressed the very questions you raised. But let me be more specific for the wider readership. I do not know you, so my apologies if I am mistaken, but I presumed from your name and your opinion that you may not have a deep connection to one of these islands. If so, your reaction to this blog is both understandable and unsurprising. The ontological and epistemological standpoint from which you formed your opinion shapes how you interpret the piece, and this is reflected in your emphasis on “classification…helps us identify geographical locations and similarities.” Yes, such categories simplify things — but for whom, and to whose benefit? These simplifications are not harmless. They amount to a kind of generational conditioning, and their consequences are profound. The ongoing power struggles over these very labels are clear, for example, in debates about leadership within the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). Some member states have even threatened to leave, arguing that being labeled as “Micronesia” marks them as micro, less important, and excluded from broader Pacific conversations. For those of us who grew up in outer islands, away from urban capitals, and were raised with the wisdom and practices of our ancestors, the philosophical foundation is quite different. That is why our interpretations may diverge. In that sense, both your comment and the blog stand on their own and reflect the positions from which they were written. Have a good one.

Congratulations on this important work. People with disabilities in developing countries remain the poorest of the poor. Their voice needs to be heard in every forum, including parliament. remain the

This post exposes a real experience of disability equity case in local election participation in SI, a similar situation would be seen in education and health care access. The less to no participation or limited access by disabled persons in development is inevitable across developing economies- why? It depends on the nation's political and socio-economic development that may or may not focus on inclusive development. How nations like Australia see and read disability equity in Australia may not be the same as local SI see disability equity and access or participation in development activities - the same across other Pacific Island nations. Also note that, there are other enabling environment or development segments have to be in place for a disabled person/s to effectively participate and different forms of disability require different forms of enabling environments for him/her to fully participate and develop oneself. The first thing in a disability program is to undertake a data collection and needs assessment to develop a meaningful program for disability and gender equity mainstreaming activity. Then trial out a pilot project and use the evidence to advocate for greater integration. With the recent launch of Australia's IDEARS, it will be interesting to integrate a disability pilot program and share the outcome.

Thank you for the information. As the country celebrates its 50 years, there is much to reflect upon and a reminder of our journey. The countribution of many in both countries is acknowledged and much appreciated in this space.

I support your idea on name tags. For PNG, we should probably rename Port Moresby to Somare City or etc. and also probably change the name Papua New Guinea to other local names like Hanua etc..

What is a Pacific islander? I think defining 'unity' under the chapeau of "Pacific Islander" is misleading and oversimplifying an incredibly complex context. I think the article is over fixated on colonization without considering day to day complexities in the individual Pacific countries. The Pacific is not the European Union where there is binding unity in matters of day to day life. The Pacific is a region comprised of individual countries, some independent. some still remain territories with diverse cultures, identities, social, economic and political making. Let's be more clear and practical, yes Fiji Veikoso is a Pacific Islander with Fijian descent (I believe he's a naturalized US citizen also). The Pacific pageant is unique in demonstrating the cultures of different countries. The classification of Polynesia, Melanesia and Micronesia helps us identify geographical locations and similarities amongst countries. The negative connotones about this classification is not really that relevant.

Yes, it's about time! Thank you.