Comments

Dear Sonja (and Bal), First and foremost: It is irritating when a foreigner makes mistakes such as misspelling of names. Such mistakes can be considered inexcusable, but such a mistake does not affect the argument made in my contribution to the blog. In fact, none of your accusations of misinformation affects the argument in my blog, which consists of three main points. First, O’Neill, in a fractious political culture, has managed to keep a broad coalition together. Second, he has shifted political alliances in ways that went against the people who brought the O’Neill/Namah government to power. Third, O’Neill deflects his criticism from corruption issues to a discourse on development. I made these arguments without declaring whether I found this a desirable or an undesirable state of affairs. The blog does not question the validity or sincerity of moral concerns about the O’Neill government. However, it pleads for observation and analysis in addition to such emotions. It tries to formulate, on the basis of observation, a logic that is manifest in the present political situation in PNG. As none of the criticisms made affect the argument, there is little intellectual gain to be made in debating the details mentioned. However, the criticisms doubt my intellectual integrity. These suggest that I wrote the blog off the top of my head without concern for sources. That is not true, and I will illustrate this in some points that deal with the central issues in my argument: (a) The size of the opposition consisted, according to you, immediately after the elections of 17 seats and not four seats. I do not understand where the figure of 17 comes from. My sources: On the <a href="http://www.opposition.gov.pg/members" rel="nofollow">official website</a> of the parliamentary opposition, four members are mentioned: Belden Namah; Sam Basil; Allan Marat; Ross Seymour. In November 2014, they were joined by <a href="http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2014/November/11-19-15.htm" rel="nofollow">Don Polye and his followers</a>: “PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea (PNG Post-Courier, Nov. 19, 2014) – Sacked treasury minister and leader of the Triumph Heritage Empowerment Don Polye has moved over to the Opposition bench, bringing three members of his party to beef the number of the Opposition to seven.” Even if the opposition were of the size mentioned by my critics, the size would be minute. (b) I remembered the mutual accusations between O’Neill and Somare from an editorial in the National after the post-elections reconciliation. I may be wrong to have assumed this to be in the public domain. However, there is no doubt about the shifting of alliances. The return of Arthur Somare as an influential consultant is the main point for my argument. I got this information originally from a personal source (a high-ranking ex-member of the judiciary who is a personal friend of Arthur Somare). There are more sources: It is found as a rumour on the internet (<a href="http://mangtariwantok.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.pngindustrynews.net/" rel="nofollow">here</a>); Arthur Somare’s sister Betha, the former government press officer, did not, however, deny the rumour (accessed 14 April 2014). See also his self-promoting interview in Business Melanesia in May 2014, accessible <a href="http://www.businessmelanesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bussiness_melanesia_may_issue_opt.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. (c) The most serious accusation against me is that: “it glosses over the facts and when it does deal with this issue of widespread and continuing allegations of corruption and the activities of the PNG authorities in regard to this its language is wishy washy.” Because of these matters, the article is considered “worthless” and an “insult”. I definitely do not gloss over facts: Above I mentioned for example the importance of discussing the position of Arthur Somare. That is an issue which is glossed over far too often. Whatever one’s feelings may be, O’Neill has thrown down the gauntlet to all institutions that are expected to bring him to account. To date, it is not clear whether any of the institutions mentioned will be able or willing to stand unequivocally up to O’Neill. That seems to me a fact. Sam Koim and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_Task_Force_Sweep" rel="nofollow">Task Force Sweep</a> did impressive work up to January 2012 under the O’Neill/Namah government. Thereafter it stagnated however, and definitely so after it challenged O’Neill in the Paraka case. Task Force Sweep has no foundation in law and can be ignored by those in power. The ultimate authority in prosecuting corruption is the DPP, and this is a prime ministerial appointment. This power is used because there are prosecutions for corruption under O’Neill. The latest one is the case against Ronnie Knight, which <a href="http://www.pngblogs.com/2015/03/post-analysis-ronnie-knight-found.html" rel="nofollow">showed clearly</a> the power of the DPP: “Mr. Knight was referred to the Leadership Tribunal by Public Prosecutor acting on the referral and findings by the Ombudsman Commission (OC).” Bryan Kramer: “Post analysis-Ronnie Knight guilty of misconduct in office”. Whether we like it or not, the prosecution of corruption is embedded in the game of politics: I am trying to bring out how it plays in the power structure. That has to be analysed. Finally: Corruption is a word that arouses overwhelming interest and emotion in PNG. That is laudable, but PNG also needs an intelligentsia that is detached and can analyse situations

Hi Terence It is an issue that informative discussion forums appeared to be silent including PIF and MSG, so raising it here might hopefully stir some thoughts. Thank you for pointing out the 'counter-productive' aspect which is not covered by the article. Regards Bal

Thanks Paul, And thank you for your ongoing comments. I continue to learn from reading them. I think your point about 'civil-societal relations' rather than civil society (if that term is taken, as we usually do, to mean NGOs) is particularly well made. I confess to not having thought enough (or at least clearly enough) about this. Thank you again for your input.

Thanks for the ongoing commentary Terence. Your points about political economy problems vs. capacity problems are especially welcome. Re: capacity, I'd point out that they are intimately related: our SI political economy has begotten over time, a set of social contracts, including those involving state actors, that manifest as capacity deficit...and are therefore ripe for targeting by "capacity building", even though they emanate from systemic configurations that cannot be reached by typical capacity building donor-side inputs. I would also amplify your hope/guess about a "new form of domestic civil society" and suggest that changes are already well underway. The difference is that these are based on "civil-societal" relations rather than "civil society organisations". The fact of a peaceful governmental transition post the 2014 elections is evidence of new operating notions of society and politics percolating amongst a wide plurality of elites, but quite invisible to any analysis of organisations, parties or other institutions - including highly visible ones like FSII. Rebecca, despite the similarity of this discussion to many, many others over the years, I don't anticipate these messages to make a major impact this time around. However, perhaps ongoing, long term involvement by commentators such as Terence, who are increasingly familiar with the Solomons, will represent part of the "long term" capacity building that you speak of.

Thanks Bal, hope spying will help to gather ample evidence to table at the UN to stop the genocide of the West Papua people. If spying is for anything else than we are cynical.

Hi Bal, Thanks for a good post. I am glad someone has written about this on Devpolicy. I agree with you that, possibly perhaps, there might be a case for spying by NZ and Australia on other states in the Pacific (although like you I have many reservations), but what struck me as most egregious about the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11417386" rel="nofollow">allegations </a> is that we also appear to have been spying on legitimate civil society organisations. Speaking as a New Zealander I find this shameful. Speaking as an aid analyst I think it completely counter-productive, and an action prone to undermining our ability to work with one of the most promising forces for positive change in the countries in question. Depressing. Thanks again for a good post. Terence

I think Prime Minister Key's comments are phrased in unfortunate terms. But they are indicative of why a shift (which is actually a return) in approach is required. Both Sir Mekere Morauta during the review of the Pacific Plan and more recently Dame Meg Taylor have stated clearly - what is wanted at the level of the Pacific Islands Forum is political leadership. It is not about who pays for what, it is about the political leadership leading politically. The Pacific Islands Forum was formed largely out of the frustrations of Pacific island leaders who were constrained from discussing issues that were of political importance at the South Pacific Commission, including sovereignty, nuclear testing by the USA and France. Australia & New Zealand were allowed/invited to join in the belief that they shared the political vision of other leaders. In recent years, the political function of the Forum has been diluted and instead replaced with technocratic discussions in which Australia and New Zealand's other role (of principal donors) has been allowed to overtake their role as political partners. This has not been helped by their non-appearance at PIF Leaders' meetings and their sending of AusAID/DFAT officers to regional ministerial meetings. The PIF's requirement that membership be restricted to sovereign states should mean that each member has an equal voice and that each can introduce issues for discussion without worrying that they might be offending someone else with whom they may need to discuss development assistance at a later date. It is true and not surprising that the Fiji position is not one that will receive much support from other Pacific island leaders but that does not equate to an unequivocal approval of the Aus/NZ role within the Forum. If what the leaders of the region are seeking is a political (re)settlement then they need to be talking about many more things than aid.

Hi Grant Thanks for sharing this very interesting research. It's always great to read work that provides local insights into complex social issues - especially issues like corruption, which so often enters into development discussions with the baggage of external judgment. It's helpful to understand the ways in which we can use the same words with very different intended meanings, and to consider the implications of this divide when designing development initiatives. I agree with your introductory observation that much of the literature on corruption focuses on 'abuse of power' definitions, but I was a little surprised at your finding that no policy documentation considers corruption as a form of individual or institutional 'decay'. Although that term may not have been widely used, both individual psychological / values-related corruption and institutional 'culture' are areas in which I think some interesting research has been undertaken. I’ll provide some examples from my limited personal experience. Some years ago I worked with a team developing World Bank source books on corruption in the <a href="http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/12/10313572/deterring-corruption-improving-governance-urban-water-supply-sanitation-sector-sourcebook" rel="nofollow">water</a> and <a href="http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTENERGY2/Resources/WBelectricitysourcebookpub.pdf" rel="nofollow">electricity</a> sectors, which attempted to understand why and how whole sectors can 'decay' to the point where corruption is rife (e.g. kick backs in procurement, cost-cutting in infrastructure work, bribe-taking in making connections, extra 'taxes' collected with monthly payments, etc.) - and also how these problems can be avoided through better design and functioning accountability loops. Interested in discussions around the development of a 'culture' of corruption (and mindful not to be labeling any particular culture as inherently corrupt, as has been discussed elsewhere on this blog), I then conducted <a href="http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/08/0022022111402344" rel="nofollow">some research</a> into the links between socio-cultural values and corruption, across countries and across time - a little too 'macro' level to really be getting into individual psychology, but still connecting the way individuals act to the prevailing norms (and incentives) in their social context. Importantly, as you point out, this context extends far beyond the boundaries of government—all who have power and access to resources have opportunities to be corrupt. With that said, however, I do feel that care needs to be taken in promoting a view of corruption as (solely) individual decay or failing—which doesn’t mean, of course, that we shouldn’t engage with this view to the extent that it’s already held by communities. I’d be interested in your further thoughts about how to work commonly-held local definitions of corruption into the public debate around how corruption can be effectively and systematically addressed. Perhaps one starting consideration is that, as has been found elsewhere, there’s no point in importing foreign anti-corruption institutions and exhorting people to ‘punish the corrupt’ if they feel powerless to do so, or are genuinely benefitting in other ways from the system being as it is. Seini

PM has at least done something good if you look at it carefully. He needs us all to contribute ideas...

Professor Donge did get several facts wrong. However, his central argument that O'Niell is a skillful politician cannot be dismissed easily. O'Niell's actions has invoked overwhelming criticisms and many failed to see the political genius he appears to be. How has is been possible for him to maintain his government despite controversial decisions and firing close associates? Lack of accuracy in facts should not dismiss the central argument: O'Niell appears to be a clever politician!

Well Prime Minister Key <a href="http://www.fbc.com.fj/fiji/28514/no-forum-without-australia-and-nz-key#sthash.EaRiqoEB.dpuf" rel="nofollow">said that</a>: ‘’When it comes to the Pacific Island Forum its Australia and New Zealand that put in the money and most typically and we there to support our Pacific friends whether its Fiji or Tonga or Samoa or in Melanesia or Solomon Islands or PNG whatever it might be – so a Pacific Forum without Australia and New Zealand would be an interesting thing I suppose and that those leaders would be able to talk about things but exactly where will they get the money to do anything and the answer is nowhere – none of them have that – So I don’t think you want to take him seriously… I am not and I don’t think other people will be either’’.

I have a narrow interpretation of the article, as I am of the view that the underlying idea I gathered from the article is that Peter O'Neill is a skillfull politician. Despite some factual errors regarding names, and chronoolgy of events, the point made is not without basis. He has outmanouvered his opponents. Of course, there is existing allegations against him, and the methods used to win and maintain political support rasies some eyebrows. However, he played his cards well to maintain and remain a prime minister despite all the adversity. That demonstrates that he is a skillfull politician.