Making—and missing

points on co-ops

Twenty years of active in volvement with co-operatives in Papua New Guinea must surely have caused Mr Jeebang Sifuyu to wonder whether the workshop in which he took part at Tu biana, North Solomons Prov ince, in June, 1976, had really been organised to discuss co operative movements.

Anyone reading the report by Father Patrick Murphy, a white priest who was the co ordinator, will find very little about co-operatives but a great deal about the need for the churches to be involved in politics and “integral human development”.

About half of the 26 partici pants had worked in co-op eratives or similar group en terprises, but the report leaves no doubt that North Solomons clergy (not participants but “resource persons”), inex perienced in co-operatives, carried the day.

It is worth keeping in mind that co-operatives throughout the world operate, in some

way or other, according to the Rochdale Principles: (1) voluntary membership; (2) democratic control one member, one vote; (3) re striction of interest on capital legislation usually limits this to 6%; (4) distribution of surplus as rebates on the value of members’ transactions with the co-operative; (5) goods sold at market price; (6) political and religious neutrality and (7) active education in co-operation Father Momis MP reaffirm ed some of the things which, as deputy chairman of the constitutional planning com mittee, he had sought to have incorporated in Papua New Guinea’s constitution; autonomous, village-based communalism, anti-capitalist, virtuous and, above all, the fourth tier, equal with the other three, in the nation’s politics and government.

“Our cargo cult people,’’ said Father Momis, “have so much to teach us here. They go ahead and do their own

thing. And 99% of the time they are right.”

One wonders whether this approach could ever be reconciled with that by the Bougainville Development Corporation, a multi-faceted, widespread and unashamedly capitalist enterprise praised by Dr Sarei.

In the past, PNG co-operatives have operated as business enterprises pure and simple. With one exception, they have not concerned themselves with village improvement. There is, however, no reason why they could not spread their net. In the 19505, lokea Co-operative Society in the Gulf Province used the surpluses of several years on a village water scheme. This is the kind of thing that one might have expected the Tubiana Workshop to discuss. And, even more important, there ought to have been some very serious attention to the greatest problem faced by every type of organisation in agriculture, commerce, industry and government and at all levels, from the village to ... . i .

Waigan. namely, how to achieve managerial com-

petence. In the case of the co operative movement and, in deed, other forms of en terprise, eg companies, prov incial development cor porations, Kabisawali, New Guinea Development Cor poration, local government sawmills the list is endless poor management has been the main cause of failure, As a report ot an educated elite’s views on what ought to b. e done to improve the villagers’ lot by “interaction °f church and society”, Co operative Movements in the Pa c ifi c: The Tu bia n a Workshop, is well worth reading because, although we are all equal, some are more equal than others and leader ship comes from the elite, As a contribution to the development of co-operatives »n the Pacific, this report is of little help. This is a pity in deed, as the Rochdale Princi- P^ es could be the underpin ning for rural development without the evils of capitalism or totalitarianism. Harry Jackman (co operative movements in the pacific: the tubiana workshop b v p Murphy. Published by Church and Society P , ci ; ic c..1.,.nc. .1 churches, po Box 5768, Boroko, png.)