Png’S Elections: A Cliffhanger

And A Lesson For The Future

By Percy Chatterton

Papua New Guinea has just held its first national elections since in dependence. In 1975, the Constitu tion decreed that the legislature should, in future, be known as the National Parliament, but no im mediate arrangements were made for elections. Instead, the pre independence House of Assembly underwent a name change, and became the National Parliament for the remainder of its term of office.

Nation-wide elections were held in June and July, following a lively, but, in the main, good-tempered campaign, in which nearly 900 can didates nominated for the 109 seats.

The number of candidates con testing each seat varied from two to 21. Voting was on the first-past-the post system, in contrast to previous elections, in which a modified form of the Australian preference system was adopted.

Voting in one electorate had to be postponed due to the death of one of the candidates in a road accident, so that the polling,which took place between June 18 and July 9, was for 108 of the 109 seats. The lengthy period of voting is made necessary by Papua New Guinea’s rugged ter rain and scattered population; poll ing teams have to travel strenuously from village to village collecting the votes.

A characteristic of Papua New Guinea’s elections is the confidence of the contenders, both individuals and parties. In one electorate, two of the candidates arranged “victo ry” parties before the vote-counting started.

As many of the candidates cam paign as “independents” and decide later, if they are elected, which par ty they will join, the shape of our new parliament will not be com pletely known till it holds its first meeting, in August, to elect a Speaker and a Prime Minister. Until the crucial vote for the Prime Minis tership is taken, no one can be quite sure which way the cat is going to jump.

The main contending parties are the Pangu Pati, the People’s Progress Party and the United Party.

Roughly these may be regarded as

being left, centre and right respec tively in the political spectrum, but the differences in their policies are very slight indeed. In addition, there are several smaller groups and, as I have said, a number of “in dependents”.

At the conclusion of counting, the score board stood as follows; Pangu Pati (endorsed) 30 Peoples Progress Party (en dorsed) 16 United Party (endorsed)... 23 Papua Besena (endorsed)... 5 Mataungan Association 3 Country Party 2 National Party 2 Independent (ie not officially endorsed by any party) 27 108 Immediately a battle began for the hearts and minds of the minor groups and the “independent”, or, as I would prefer to call them, “un committed”,members.

At first it looked as if it would be a case of “the mixture as before”, in other words, that the Pangu-PPP Coalition which has governed the country since 1972 would be able to secure the allegiance of enough un committed members to win the cru cial vote for the Prime Ministership.

However, the United Party was not prepared to concede defeat. “I can get 60 votes,” declared Michael Somare. “We can get 56,” replied UP leader, Sir Tei Abal. Clearly so meone was counting his chickens before they were hatched.

Most observers, including myself, thought that it was a foregone con clusion; the United Party hadn’t a hope, we decided. Then came the big surprise.

Among the uncommitted mem bers was Sir John Guise, our erst while Governor-General, who re cently resigned from that exalted position in order to re-enter the po litical arena, and who had secured a run-away victory in his Milne Bay Provincial electorate.

The United Party, declared Sir Tei, would nominate Sir John as Prime Minister, and form a “Na tional Alliance” of the United Party and such minor groups and uncom

mined members as wished to join it.

Sir John, if successful in securing the Prime Ministership, would form an Alliance government in which he (Sir Tei) would be Deputy Prime Minister.

This spectacular move threw the whole issue back into the melting pot.

At the same time a move was afoot for the formation of another kind of alliance. This move, instigated by those stormy petrels of the New Guinea Islands, Father John Momis and Mr John Kaputin, was a call to those members, who shared their view that party politics is a colonial hangover not appropriate to Papua New Guinea, to join them in opposi tion to all parties and in seeking to replace them by regional and special interest groups.

Ideologically, this stance should appeal to Miss Abaijah, who has al ways claimed that Papua Besena is not a party. In the meantime, it looks as if the Momis-Kaputin alliance will support the Guise-Abal alliance in trying to outnumber and defeat the Pangu-PPP coalition.

With 2V2 weeks still to go before the chips go down, anything could happen. But it does look at the mo ment as if the Pangu-PPP team will have the numbers. However, the possibility that things might go the other way cannot be ruled out. This is, of course, very worrying to those “independents” who want to make sure that they are on the winning side. A newly-elected Highlands member, when asked which party he was going to join, replied that he would join whichever party became the government, because in that way he would have a better chance of getting things for his electorate. He’s not the only one, though he was a lit tle more outspoken than the rest.

One thing’s for sure. Whoever is elected to the Speaker’s chair will look out over a sea of new faces. An exceptionally-large number of sit ting members, including nine minis ters, have suffered defeat, being replaced in some cases by new in cumbents and in others by pre-1972 parliamentarians who have staged a come back, continued over

Miss Abaijah will no longer be the only woman member; she will be joined by Mrs Nahau Rooney from Manus Island and Mrs Waliyato Clowes from the Western Province.

There were several other women candidates, and although they did not win seats they accumulated sufficient voting strength to en courage themselves and others to give it a go next time round.

Party leaders who lost their seats include Sinake Giregire, the leader of the Country Party, whose mem bership of parliament goes back to 1964; John Poe, deputy leader of PPP, and Paul Langro, deputy leader of the United Party.

Among the defeated ministers are Sir Maori Kiki, who was unsuc cessful in his attempt to oust Miss Abaijah from her National Capital seat, and Gavera Rea, who lost the Moresby North-west seat to Port Moresby’s Lord Mayor, Mahuru Rarua Rarua, by a narrow margin.

Whoever becomes Prime Minister is going to find it difficult to assem ble a cabinet of experienced parlia mentarians which is at the same time fairly representative of the various regions and provinces. Some of the “new chums’’ may well jump straight to cabinet rank. However, this is less serious than it might be, as the ranks of the new members include a num ber of young, well-educated people who will be able to adjust rapidly to parliamentary life. Among them are several university graduates and ex senior public servants.

The Electoral Commissioner and the polling teams have come in for some harsh criticism, but the fault probably lies with the system rather than with the people implementing it. It is much to be hoped that the in coming government will take a hard look at the system before elections come around again.

A good polling system should en sure that, as far as possible, those eligible to vote are able to do so without unreasonable and frustrat ing delays; that those not eligible to vote are prevented from doing so; and that the path of the would-be double voter is made as hard and dangerous as possible.

In addition, there should be a ban on high decible electioneering in the vicinity of the polling booths a practice which in some instances has rendered the task of the polling clerks almost impossible.

We live and learn.