As is common knowledge, the voting system of the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea (PNG) was adopted from the Westminster system of government when PNG gained its political independence on 16 September 1975 from its colonial masters. The system has, with much credit to the Constitutional Planning Committee (CPC), stood the test of time for over 47 years. For those 47 years as a country, the system has shown resilience in flexing its own muscles to accommodate the highly fluid political dynamics of a nation, so diversely blessed with many cultures, ethnic groups and over a thousand different languages spoken throughout the country. Far more diverse than Australia and Great Britain combined. From the election of the first Prime Minister of PNG, the Great Grand Chief Sir Michael Thomas Somare, there has been over 10 votes of no confidence facilitated by the National Parliament in Waigani, this is a hallmark of democracy in PNG. With the proposed law reform agenda of the “the people to vote the Prime Minister”, we pose the following questions:

1. What did the CPC said about the system of election of the Prime Minister?
2. Why did the CPC refused to consider the option of the Prime Minister being voted in by the people at the first instance?
3. What has changed NOW so as to warrant a change in the current status quo relating to the election of the Prime Minister?
4. Can a unilateral system, in relation to the election of the Prime Minister, work for a multicultural nation such as PNG?
5. Should the issues of RELEVANCE and SUITABILITY be social indicators in deciding the election system of the Prime Minister?

These are not trivial questions, in our respective view, to be ignored when paving a proposed path for PNG in terms of a system of election for the Prime Minister. These questions should be unpacked carefully and deliberated on, with much care and attention.

1. What did the CPC said about the system of election of the Prime Minister?

This has to be outlined first so as to provide a coherent trail of thoughts into understanding of how they (the CPC) recommended the system of election of the Prime Minister that is now being utilized. In understanding this, we pause to consider a pivotal and very important question that had to be answered by the CPC. The CPC was faced with the important question “Where should the executive power lie?”, a very thought provoking question, and that was where the CPC drew much of its reference from in its reports. We begin our discussion in that manner as well.

In the CPC Report 1974 Chapter 7, subheading “The Executive” at paragraph 3, the CPC committed to answering the above question and stated as follows:

“It is important in a constitution to say where executive power lies. In accordance with the practice of most of our societies, in which decisions are made by a group, we propose that the executive power of Papua New Guinea be vested in the National Executive Council. This is the name that we have chosen for the group of Ministers who, collectively, will administer the Country and be responsible for this work to the National Parliament.”

“Author’s emphasis bolded and underlined”

At paragraph 7, the CPC went on to considering “FOR and AGAINST” a separate Head of State and stated as follows:

“The case for a separate Head of State is sometimes associated with the view that too much power should not be placed in the hands of the Elected Head of Government. We have found that this view is widespread among our people; it has influenced the great majority who have expressed an opinion on the matter to reject the idea of Papua New Guinea having an Executive-type president. We share this view. However, we believe that in order to avoid a concentration of power in one man, it is neither necessary nor desirable to establish a new separate Head of State to act either as a representative of, or a substitute for, a king or a queen”.

“Authors emphasis bolded and underlined”

At paragraph 14, the CPC went on to stating the following:

“We have therefore concluded that as there is no clearly demonstrable need for a Head of State, we should not create one merely because it is the usual thing to do. We believe that our proposal for vesting the executive power in the National Executive Council, which comprises all Ministers, is most appropriate.”

“Authors emphasis bolded and underlined”

At paragraph 16, the CPC stated as follows:

“Our recommendations envisage that the Head of Government, whom we propose should have the title Prime Minister, will be the leader of the group of Ministers – the first among equals”..

“Author’s emphasis bolded and underlined”

At paragraph 17, the CPC stated as follows:

“In order to ensure that decisions are in fact made collectively, we have proposed basic rules of procedure or meetings of the National Executive Council. In normal circumstances, executive decisions should be made only after due consideration and by at lest [least] a minimum number of Ministers. We have therefore recommended that a submission to the National Executive Council should be circulated to all Ministers at least two weeks before any decision on it is made. Decisions of the Council must also be made by not less than one-third of the Ministers. This should reinforce the concept of collective responsibility. The same principle leads us to recommend that full minutes of proceedings be kept and distributed to Ministers. They must have a clear record of the decisions for which they are collectively responsible. Our recommendations include procedures which may be adopted whenever urgent action by the Council is required.”

“Authors emphasis bolded and underlined”

The rationale, as we can see, from the CPC’s report evidenced in the above extracted paragraphs was the fear of centralizing power in one individual only. This, as clearly pointed out by the CPC in many parts of the report, contradicts the traditional system of governance that has existed since time immemorial in PNG. Decisions have been reached in groups or in communal settings. In Namatanai, New Ireland Province, traditional clan decisions concerning issues are reached in the clan’s own Haus Boi (identical to a parliamentary setting), after much discussions by the elders. In the Namatanai society, power is not centralized under one person only. Moreover, even after that decision is made by the leader of the Haus Boi, that decision is validated by the women folk of the clan and should it have opposition, then it goes back for discussion in the Haus Boi and so forth until a consensus is reached. This is one of the characteristics of a “Matrilineal Society” which contributes to the multicultural reputation of PNG. In other parts of PNG, including some of our outer islands of PNG such as Manus Province, Nissan Island (Green Island) and certain parts of the Autonomous Region of Bougainville, they host “the Patrilineal Society” which is much practiced throughout PNG. The CPC, in many ways, captured the diverseness of PNG with the dreams of PNG citizens in taking part in power itself, enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution, the hallmark of the executive power which states as follows:

“WE, THE PEOPLE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA—

• united in one nation
• pay homage to the memory of our ancestors—the source of our strength and origin of our combined heritage
• acknowledge the worthy customs and traditional wisdoms of our people—which have come down to us from generation to generation
• pledge ourselves to guard and pass on to those who come after us our noble traditions and the Christian principles that are ours now.

By authority of our inherent right as ancient, free and independent peoples

WE, THE PEOPLE, do now establish this sovereign nation and declare ourselves, under the guiding hand of God, to be the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

AND WE ASSERT, by virtue of that authority

• that all power belongs to the people—acting through their duly elected representatives
• that respect for the dignity of the individual and community interdependence are basic principles of our society
• that we guard with our lives our national identity, integrity and self respect
• that we reject violence and seek consensus as a means of solving our common problems
• that our national wealth, won by honest, hard work be equitably shared by all”

…………………………………………..

“Authors emphasis bolded and underlined”

The question “Where should the executive power lie?” was properly crafted, and answered by the CPC in the Preamble of the PNG Constitution. It was not just a mere question raised in thin air. In our National Goals and Directive Principles, point 5 being PAPUA NEW GUINEAN WAYS provides emphasis on the need to integrate PNG Ways in our development. The relevant section is provided below for ease of reference:

“5. Papua New Guinean ways.

 We declare our fifth goal to be to achieve development primarily through the use of Papua New Guinean forms of social, political and economic organization”.

“Authors emphasis bolded and underlined”

In accommodating the diverse traditional governance systems of PNG, the CPC safely placed it as “Power belongs to the people” as enshrined, and accordingly, in this day and age, it is only proper that the system must be working FOR THE PEOPLE, not against them.

2. Why did the CPC refused to consider the option of the Prime Minister being voted in by the people at the first instance?

After much deliberation on the first issue, the answer to the current issue is crystalized in the following points, as we see it, as the reasons as to why CPC opted not to choose a Presidential voting system for PNG:

1. Power cannot be centralized in one person;
2. It is contrary to PNG traditional governance system where people take part in power itself;
3. It is foreign to PNG; and
4. It will have a divisive rather than a unifying effect in PNG.

Paragraph 10 of the CPC Report 1974 under the subheading “Arguments for and Against a separate Head of State” stated as follows:

“We have not overlooked other arguments that are sometimes put forward in favour of a separate Head of State. One of these is that a Head of State helps to symbolize national unity. We recognize that this may be true of nations which have their own king or queen, but this has often been achieved only after a long period, perhaps centuries, during which the people as a whole have come to forget the regional or foreign origins of the royal dynasty, and the battles or wars that gained it ascendancy. There is no historical basis for anything of this nature in Papua New Guinea. Moreover, experience elsewhere in the Commonwealth indicates that a Governor-General acting for the Queen is unlikely to be an acceptable alternative. In few of those nations comparable to our own has such an arrangement lasted for long. Furthermore, were we to opt for a Presidential substitute, we would be creating an additional institution which, having no traditional roots, would need to gain acceptance among our diverse peoples. It is quite possible that the installing of a titular or ceremonial President would have a divisive rather than a unifying effect in Papua New Guinea.”

“Authors emphasis bolded and underlined”

One may pose the concern that this is only in relation to the “Head of State”, however, the approach that the CPC took was holistic which boiled down to the reasons as to why a Prime Minister – as the first among equals, be installed rather than a President type executive head. The same principle was applied in line with the voting in of the Prime Minister by the people directly.  The result would be divisive rather than a unifying one.

3. What has changed NOW in PNG so as to warrant a change in the current status quo relating to the election of the Prime Minister?

For the system to change to a completely new system, specifically relating to the voting in of the Prime Minister – by the people directly, there has to be a huge shift in the fabrics of the societies of PNG, one that requires such to happen. One that is sine qua non to the function of governance itself in PNG. For this, we kindly request your office, in its consultations, to provide evidence that such has happened and as a result, a new system should be introduced, bearing in mind what has been discussed above in light of the findings of the CPC and its recommendations.

It is our respective view that the customs and traditions of PNG will take centuries to evolve into a new political paradigm that would draw in the requirement for change in the system of election of the Prime Minister. Until that happens, status quo relating to the election of the Prime Minister must remain for the sake of unity in PNG. It is at the backdrop of UNITY, that the people must know the reasons for the shift in the election of the Prime Minister.

Perhaps as well, CLRC can also clarify to the general populace about the existing system and why we need to change it? Should we not just evaluate it and maintain it rather than replacing it with a totally new system? These are issues, we believe, should be properly outlined and addressed by the CLRC in light of the main agenda of “the people to vote for the Prime Minister”.

4. Can a unilateral system, in relation to the election of the Prime Minister, work for a multicultural nation such as PNG?

It is our respective view that in a society such as PNG, an Egalitarian Society canvased by multiculturalism, a unilateral system for voting of the Prime Minister by the people, will not work. We dare to dream that come a time such may happen, the risk of having one region overpowering the other will be inevitable and this will cause a divisive problem that we will have to unpick again; for a unified PNG. It is futile and not an exercise worth exhausting.

• Should the issues of RELEVANCE and SUITABILITY be indicators in deciding the election system of the Prime Minister?

We are of the view that RELEVENCE and SUITABILITY, both – considered hand in hand, should be social indicators in deciding the change in the election system of the Prime Minister.