by Erika Morishita
Clockwise from top: Melanesian leaders signing the MSG Constitution; an elderly Kundiawa man from PNG displays a wooden carving he made of PNG’s coat of arms for sale; PNG’s parliament building under siege during the Sandline crisis of 1997. All photos by Ben Bohane, wakaphotos.com.
After 30 years of independence for most of the nation states of Melanesia, nation-building and forging a collective identity is still a work in progress. The great diversity of peoples, languages and cultures spread across the arc of Melanesia was always going to make drawing boundary lines and building a cohesive, national identity difficult. Has it succeeded? Is there ownership of governing systems and a transcendence of tribalism? What lessons are to be learnt from this dynamic region’s experiences of merging introduced systems (Westminster parliamentary democracy) and customary values?
Although there is often talk about ‘square pegs in round holes’ and a string of problems around corruption, wantok-ism and poor leadership, Melanesia presents an interesting case study in global governance issues since it is trying to build arbitrary nation states with a hybrid system, and the general sense is that the kava bowl remains half full. Adaptation is underway but there is need for significant reform of governing systems so that these nations have a chance at evolution rather than revolution.
With the exception of Fiji’s military regime, the region is still made up of democracies, but this trend could change unless Melanesian nations embrace reform to avoid the chronic instability of coalition governments, improve service delivery to their peoples, accelerate the decentralisation process, enhance policy debate and take meaningful ownership of national and regional institutions.
Building states in the Melanesia region has been a process that goes beyond governance and globalisation to history and culture. The nation building project is still evolving and the modern state systems are relatively new and culturally foreign. In this context, the transition from custom economies (societies) to modern nation states presents a myriad of challenges and conflicts.
Nation building is part of the process of establishing sovereign ‘nation- state’. While ‘state’ is about law, force, administrative institutions and rationality, ‘nation’ is about identity, history, culture and language that bond one group of people together. This theoretical linkage between nation and state in Melanesian countries as a form of political entity seems to have little significance to populations who have relied on the security, both physical and economic, provided by the clan, tribe or ethnic unit.
John Connell points out that many of the countries in Melanesia, including PNG, had to forge a sense of nationalism after independence. This was a very different situation in many other emerging states (in Asia and Africa) who built a national identity through resistance to former colonial masters:
The struggle for and achievement of independence in Melanesia abundantly demonstrates that, despite the term ‘nation state’, there can be no presumption that where there is a state there is necessarily a nation. Throughout Melanesia nationalism has been exceptionally weak, founded primarily on a basis of opposition to colonial and to a lesser extent, economic development strategies.
Many Melanesian nations began with a couple of strong parties that dominated political leadership for the first 20 years. But in the past decade we have witnessed a fracturing of the political process with the entrance of dozens of new parties and independent candidates. This has resulted in politicians spending too much time managing coalition alliances rather than dealing with policy and governance.
Ashley Wickham says
For over thirty years [Solomon Islands] has tried to use the Westminster system but our people do not have the history, ideological culture, political conventions, precedents and communication systems of the British. We don’t even have a national electricity grid, research institute, university or recognised national think tank. It seems we don’t know that we need these things, or we would have created them.We are constrained by many things including narrow minded leadership more concerned withpersonal than national advancement.
As consequence there is a constant inability of the Melanesian governments to serve full parliamentary terms, with regular no-confidence motions disrupting governance and performance in policy legislation. In the current parliamentarian term, for example, Vanuatu experienced regular no-confidence votes, around sixteen ministerial cabinet reshuffles, and six changes of government.
In PNG, more than 33 parties contested the general election in 2012 with an average of 24 candidates for each of 111 seats in Parliament. So many candidates put themselves forward that they collectively diminished their chances of success and thus the new government has formed another large coalition, strong now but likely to fracture as time goes on. Solomon Islands has had fifteen prime ministers in nine parliamentary terms since independence in 1978.
Roland Rich speaks of a related issue; personality over policy ideas.
In Melanesia, most political parties are organised around one or more powerful political leaders, with the consequence that personality tends to override policy importance in the decisions of parties.
So how do Melanesian nations build on what they have to better position themselves for the future? There are already some positive developments and a yearning to find better outcomes.
- Some nations are already prioritizing reform, such as several former presidents of Vanuatu opening discussion on a directly-elected presidential system that devolves power to outer islands. In PNG, PM Peter O’Neill recently called for major constitutional reform.
- The growing importance of the Melanesian Spearhead Group is highlighting the need for regional, as well as national strategies. Having a strong sub-regional group like the MSG brings new resources and ideas to help build national and regional solidarity.
- Growing international engagement is giving Melanesian nations more leverage in negotiations with external powers and foreign business. Melanesian countries can use this to build not just stronger identity, but stronger protections for their citizens.
Economic issues are clearly among the factors associated with the capability of the state to respond to the needs of society. Local communities have been affected by certain economic activities that have brought development but adversely rather than positively. The resource boom in PNG and in Solomon Islands has weakened rather than enhanced state capacity. Mismanagement of resources revenues —and complicity of the extractive industries to some extent—have had corrosive impacts on transparency, accountability, and government competence in the delivery of public goods and services. In PNG, for example, the living standards have barely risen and social indicators are the lowest of the region despite the current resource boom and the economy growing at a breakneck speed, averaging 6.5 per cent a year from 2006 to 2010. Similarly in Solomon Islands its economic situation has significantly improved and recovered after its civil war, with an average annual growth of 6 per cent since 2003, but its human development indicator is the second lowest of the region and paradoxically Vanuatu and Fiji—which both had lower economic growth than those rich in natural resources—have better rankings on human development.
Land is at the heart of the identity and tradition of Melanesian societies. Its ownership, tenure, and usage in all Melanesian states have been key drivers of conflict mainly produced by landowners’ lack of trust in and knowledge of what modern legal systems offer; inadequate compensation paid to landowners; intergenerational disputes over the transfer of land; few job opportunities for traditional owners in resource projects on leased or sold customary land; and emergence of environmental degradation caused by climate change and extractive industrial activities (particularly in PNG and Solomon Islands).
While Melanesian nations have suffered their share of conflict in recent decades, the use of custom to broker peace and reconciliation has not only led to successful outcomes at home, in places like Bougainville – it is being seen as potential models for conflict resolution elsewhere in the world. This is something that Melanesian states can be proud of, and shows an inherent wisdom they possess in resolving conflict at the community level that has lessons for national governments, in the way they can work with communities to build long term trust and goals.
The fact that there was little public disturbance in PNG during a recent 6 month constitutional crisis involving rival PMs also displays a maturity in allowing the systems in place to slowly work out solutions rather than dramatically resisting them or forcing the issue through violence.
Democratic governance is not alien to the culture of Melanesia; it is customary to have chiefs let everyone have their say and then build consensus. Many argue that today the problem is not the system itself, but the manipulation of the system or lack of teeth for the watchdogs (like ombudsmen, public prosecutors and leadership tribunals) overseeing the system.
Says PNG’s Dame Carol Kidu:
I think we need to build ‘one people, one nation’ again. When it comes to independence time, people do think in ‘one people, one nation’, but in between, it is‘me and my tribe’ perhaps more dominant than ‘me and my nation’.
People’s patience with failing governing systems is not infinite. It may be time for leaders to re-engage and excite their populations in a sense of national purpose again, to begin reform and decentralization of their governing system as it absorbs more involvement from women, business, churches and chiefs. This will help restore faith in country, constitution and culture and better prepare the Melanesian nations for the challenges ahead.
Pingback: New Flags Flying: Pacific Leadership | Pacific Institute of Public Policy