Comments

Over the past five days, New Zealand First has amended its foreign affairs policy online. Now no mention of aid or the Pacific. (See <a href="http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/foreign_affairs_and_trade" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>). Perplexing.

Hi Stephen, Thanks for your comment. Stronger parties are probably a necessary condition for programmatic politics (it is hard to see how political collective action problems will be overcome without them). However, they aren't, on their own, a sufficient condition. Many countries with stronger parties than PNG (think Latin America) still have clientelist politics. A particular type of political party is required to shift away from clientelist politics: one that is (at least somewhat) national in scope and also born of reforming social movements. With respect to the quality of elections. There are two major causes of national level electoral issues. 1. Active attempts to capture the system nationally (think Malaysia) 2. Neglect (think PNG). In a country as ethnically fragmented as PNG, it is very hard for national capture to occur. As a consequence, what we typically see is neglect as politicians in a clientelist polity focus either on winning support through patronage spending or through cheating at a local level. (It is possible there were some attempts at actively undermining national electoral infrastructure in 2017 to make localised cheating easier. But the situation, while worrying, still wasn't analogous to Malaysia). Some of the cross-country empirical work on electoral quality finds an association between independent electoral bodies and better quality elections. (There is a lot of debate on this though.) I think a well-resourced and de facto independent electoral commission would help with electoral quality in PNG (the PNGEC is already de jure independent; this doesn't seem to have helped it). The question, however, is why doesn't PNG have a strong independent electoral commission already? The answer to that is, I think, the political dynamic I describe in my post. Should donors and domestic civil society organisations push for a better-functioning, better resourced electoral commission? Sure. I say as much in the other two posts. But the electoral commission's problems didn't emerge from a vacuum. Nor can a better electoral commission be magicked into existence independent of the traits of PNG's broader political economy. Thanks for your comment. Terence

Hi Terence, Many thanks for a great series of blogs on PNG's elections. I'm not sure you're right to lay PNG's electoral ailments at the door of patronage politics. It is no doubt true that "Most of Papua New Guinea’s members of parliament don’t care how well elections are run." But is this because "most voters vote for the candidate who they think is most likely to help them, their family, or their community"? We can think of other countries that have stronger parties and national policy debates, and yet unfair elections. Think of Malaysia, and think of aspects of US elections. There is also at least one country I know of that is typified by patronage politics, but that has pretty good elections, and that is India. The primary motive for politicians when it comes to elections is to win them, and if they can get away with manipulating the process to improve their chances, they will. A counterveiling force is required for good elections. Based on my admittedly limited knowledge, having a strong and independent electoral commission seems really important for good electoral quality. Why is it that some countries have very strong and independent electoral commissions (Australia, India), and other countries don't (Malaysia, India)? I don't know if there is an answer to that question. Perhaps it comes down to difficult-to-generalize differences in constitutions, traditions, and personalities. But until PNG's Electoral Commission shows greater strength and independence -- that is, more willingness to stand up against the politicians -- I am skeptical that we will see improvements in the quality of PNG's elections. Stephen.

Looking forward to seeing your reports from the Forum leaders' meeting next year, I might even tag along!

Hi Paul, Thanks for your comment. I don't think we're debating a totally unbelievable dream. I agree there are many problems, but there are also many, many people within PNG who would like positive change, and many trying to bring it. Recall that there was a time that politics in most OECD countries was heavily clientelist and very corrupt. Change is possible, I think. I also think incremental improvements are useful, that's how most change occurs. Systems work or fail to varying degrees. Indeed, electoral issues varied by degree around PNG in the last election. If PNG's elections are to improve it will be slowly over time. That said, I agree with you a good roll is a sina qua non for electoral quality. I also agree that the absence of good census data (as well as HIES and DHS data) is a real issue for just about everything. Data are a problem in most parts of the Pacific. Questions need to be asked about why this remains an ongoing issue region-wide. With respect to your question about who should do the pushing for better election: I think most will have to come from within. I think that's the source of almost all transformation. As I said above, while I share your appreciation of the problems, I am also impressed by the commitment to positive change within PNG. Like you, I think Australia has a role to play, although I don't think it will be the main driver. Like you, I wish Australia's politicians were performing better in this area though. My broader comments on what I think Australia should do are <a href="https://devpolicy.org/what-can-australia-help-with-elections-png-20170915/">here</a>. Terence

Looking forward to lodging my journalist visa application for next year. 🙂

Bal thanks for sharing your informative analyses on the corrupt practice that is usually being ignored to be addressed for improvement by our representatives. What you addressed in paragraph six about 'fake candidates' did really caught my attention. Fake candidates tend to regard elections as an occasion to have access to obtain money and resources from sponsors just by practicing corrupt practices in the election. These intentions portray an image of a self-centered power hungry candidate. The system deprives eligible voters to exercise their constitutional rights to choose their leaders because there's a great probability that split voting will occur and furthermore, it creates conflicts within communities just as you've mentioned. I'm just curious about this issue so here's a question. How can we minimize this system of 'fake candidates? Is LPV system the root of this issue or is it our self-centered approaches?

Great analysis of a busy Forum. My only quibble would be with this line: "Climate change was still prominent, but in terms agreeable to all." There was palpable concern about the Australian governments plans to subsidise new coal mines and coal-fired power plants. And it wasn't only Tuvalu. See <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyzMK1vapvM" rel="nofollow">this abc report</a> for example.

Hi Terence, your comment in the above article says it all: "But PNG’s political dynamics mean politicians won’t focus on resourcing national electoral infrastructure unless they’re pushed." So who exactly could or should do the 'pushing' and what will galvanize this to happen? Certainly not any succinct and insightful comment from our PM or Foreign Minister who were significantly silent over the rorting and corrupt practices reported by many during the general election. Why for instance, was the PM declared a winner before the final results of all the seats were known? As there is now another five years to cement those in control in place and they're very happy with the results of the election 'Tenkyu tumas', so why change? 'Maski, larim istap', could well be echoing around PNG parliament's corridors power for the foreseeable future when the question about resourcing the Electoral Commission might possibly come up. If the Census books are now a creative nonsense and no one really knows who is on the electoral roll, how can there ever be any real accountability or responsibility? Either you have a system that works or you don't. Axiomatically, there can be no half measures. Aren't we now really debating a totally unbelievable dream?

Thanks for your comment Edie, it goes to the issue that we raise here (and have discussed elsewhere) - that the diversity of the region makes it challenging to identify issues that everyone considers to be of equal importance. Also, we would note that the PM of Tuvalu's concern was with the influence of 'big countries' which he appears to consider disproportionate - Palau, FSM & RMI are many things, big isn't one of them.

Let's remember that North Korea is threatening Guam, and hence the northern states of Palau, FSM and RMI. This is certainly an issue they feel keenly, given they still deal with the impact of past nuclear testing.

Hi John, Thanks for a good comment. Like you I don't think biometric voting will make any difference. Like you I don't think the electoral system played a major role in most of the issues that occurred in 2017 (though Bal has an interesting point about vote buying). I agree with your 5 points too (although I think there are many other problems in addition to these 5). My focus is slightly different though: I'm looking at feasible changes that might help reduce some of the issues. Transparency might reduce the effects of bribery for example. The one area where I disagree with you is with respect to whether these are uniquely Melanesian problems. All of the problems we've discussed can be found in many parts of the world, and can also be found in the history of countries--like the UK--that currently run quite good elections. I think the issues are more universal and are to do with power, wealth and human nature. As a consequence I think the solutions tend to be associated with placing effective checks in the formal and informal electoral system. I'd also add that there's a lot of variation in electoral quality across and within the different countries of Melanesia. I think there's a lot to be learnt from why this occurs. Thanks again for an interesting, thought-provoking comment. Terence