Comments

Thanks Terence I would still argued that problems in PNG election is not to do with election process like LPV or FPTP systems or one day polling or biometric registration. Its none of these and others that people who were not on the ground seeing the campaign and polling making suggestions; are more of a common sense of understanding what supposed to be right as free and fair election and what it is not. We cannot blame the election systems and regulations, it is a matter of personality and embedded in the Melanesian way of living that needs to change; you need to explore more to understand not by looking from the fringes of what you read and saw in the media. You referred to fixing the fundamentals first, what are you referring to: For me as a man on the ground, addressing fundamental issues are; (1) one person one vote, (2) no votes buying, (3) no undue influence on voters, (4) minimize localized campaign and voting (5) bribery to persons directly involved in the local campaigns, pollings and countings..etc. These issues exist during FPTP system and even under LPV, nothing changed but today it is getting worse into the formal system and people in authorities tend to nurtured that. How are we going to improve on that is the question and it does not require a new set of system or laws, just a simple change on attitudes and character is the solution. We must also not forget that the fundamental issues discussed above is embedded into the way Melanesians conduct their lives-way of living, eg. Localized campaign and polling for a candidate, you cannot changes it, it was there in FPTP system and still trailing in LPV system. What was not seen before and seen today is the use of huge amount of cash by candidates in election (apart from the cost of campaign, polling and counting) that ends up in the hands of voters, election officials and those in the system overseeing the election. Do you see anything wrong with that, its part of Melanesian way of sharing and inducing others to maximize ones chances over the others, however it is seen as the intent of manipulating the outcome of election. That is our concern as it brings a lot of chaos. For example, currently the problems in SHP, you go down further you will see exactly what is described here. My views on the ground seeing the last seven past PNG elections, we just need people to understand what is public/common thing from private attributes, and being a politician or getting one to be a politician is a seasonal event and not a career job or not design for a particular ethnic group or person. The intrinsic value of Melanesian way that seems to be embedded into the Western democratic system of election needs to be re-looked at and some local options would hold key to some solutions.

Thanks Bal, that's a really interesting point. My sense is that their are pros and cons associated with LPV. You highlight an important drawback. Another one, in my opinion, is that LPV makes the counting process much more complex and time consuming. I definitely support your idea of looking into LPV more. Terence

Thank you Terence, some important insights for PNG government and partners to consider. The efficacy of the LPV system is also one to be looked at for future elections i.e. current structure directly encourages vote-buying.

Very interesting to read some really good comments. I agree with Bryant Allen and his analysis of the land tenure system. Definitely ILG System will not work for Huli's. The simple fact is that all the Huli's are related to each other. It will be mind boggling to recall the names of your ancestors back to 18 generations by heart. Only Huli's can do that. The issue of benefits and clan vetting is only with the Huli's and not other ethnic groups (Kutubu, Gobe & Pipeline). Any efforts initiated by the government will be like a scam and will never solve the problem. Previous attempts were a waste. In Huli, everyone is a leader and may want to express his/her opinion in a meeting. Even if the person has a solution or not, he/she wants will say something to maintain the status of the family and clan lineage. What the PNG Government fails to do is to facilitate and allow themselves to talk for as long as they want. Huli's understand themselves better than anybody else from outside. If we allow them to talk, they will sort themselves out. We need some Huli's to provide real leadership on the ground and allow representatives and leaders from each License area to talk and they will eventually reach a solution. Government Officers and Consultants become impatient with time and rush things. Good resolutions will be reached when Huli's are given enough time to talk among themselves even if it takes them 1 month of just talking. Michael

Thanks I have seen and witnessed the unseen and unreported side of this 2017 election unprecedented and wonder what the future holds in 5 years time for another PNG election, maybe time will tell

Hi John, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm particularly interested to hear your comment in the third paragraph about personalities and power brokers. That makes sense. Thank you for sharing it. Terence

Thank you Terence for your views on PNG 2017 national election Your views that the 2017 is not good enough is not only correct but also much worse in this election. As for an educated local experience person going through; the campaign, the polling, counting and the declaration of winners using and abusing the conventional election laws and guidelines covering this important democratic process, I would say this 2017 is much worse than the previous elections. We should not blame the legal elements governing the election process or the institutions mandated to run the 2017 election. As a man on the ground, I saw there is no anomalies with that. The only problem is that the process is driven by personalities of power brokers in authorities and by trend of the prevailing circumstances/situations over the last few years. People in authority are not doing what they are mandated to delivery but only serving a few people interests, and in doing so has caused problems across the whole process of election and democracy. The recent 2017 election is the 10th, and there should be little doubt if it is going to be a failed election, rather it should be a successful one. We are willing to support any post-election research in the future as a man on the ground and went through the 2017 election.

Please, get me a copy of the "Anti-corruption and its discontents.........in Papua New Guinea". Thank you.

Stephen, basic service provision - health, education, sanitation - would get my vote as making the most decisive difference and I think has the most evidence in support of its impact and cost effectiveness. I might agree with you on disaster relief if a bigger part of that was preventive and the (expensive and inexpert) military was less involved.

This is an important topic which is largely overlooked and merits further consideration. However, it is important to ensure that we start with information that is factually correct. Section 32(2) of the Public Service Act of Vanuatu states: "(2) A person who intends becoming a candidate for election to Parliament must resign from the Public Service before accepting nomination as a candidate for election to Parliament." This is markedly different from what appears here, that public servants must resign in order to be a member of a political party.

Agreed this is a great resource for which we are all very grateful - Clive is now leaning on me to prepare one for Vanuatu!

With respect, I must disagree with your characterisation of this blog, Mark. I think this blog addressed the basic facts surrounding the conduct of the 2017 PNG election (that you write of) and did so pointedly, whilst maintaining an objective, academic and dispassionate character - as one would expect from a professional social scientist writing in a credible forum such as Devpolicy. Perhaps you were looking for a more polemical piece? If so, I can understand that, having seen the 2017 elections firsthand and being personally concerned with what happened. But such writing is best left for other forums. There's more than enough emotion surrounding the conduct of the 2017 elections already, and there's an important place for dispassionate well-informed analysis, to try and get to the bottom of what went wrong. And this article in my view does that very well and is a very good contribution to the conversation.