A Cynical Grab For Power

Opinion

Why this month’s proposed motion of no confidence in Mr Wingti is a flagrant abuse of the democratic process.

PAPUA NEW Guinea is destined for further dis ruption this month as the country’s leaders prepare to contest yet another vote of no confidence in a government. Of all the Pacific nations, PNG with its many problems is possibly the least well equipped to cope with the destabilising, debilitating and cynical exercise in power usurpation that this all too frequently used piece of leg islation has become. A prime mover of this latest motion, Mr Michael Somare, has himself faced no fewer than eight such votes and has lost office twice as a result.

What was enshrined in the Constitution as a worthy and well-meant safeguard against abuse of power by bad governments has become, in the hands of opportunistic politicians as little interested in integrity as they are in the will of the electorate, nothing more than a convenient tool

to facilitate blatant power grabs.

The PNG Constitution decrees that a motion of no confidence can be moved in the prime minister or a min ister provided that there is one week’s notice and that it is supported by 10 per cent of the total seats in parliament. The calling of the motion usually unleashes a round of political horse-trading and non-aligned politicians are engulfed in the largesse of those who are courting their support.

PNG’s latest proposed motion of no confidence, directed this time against the Prime Minister Mr Wingti, is scheduled for this month and is as cyn ical as any yet mounted. Its proponents the Pangu Pati and the National and Melanesian Alliance Parties claim

the motion has been necessitated by a plethora of Govern ment failings. Cited are a “billion Kina budget bungle”, the Government’s inability to provide free education, a K 46 million diversion of EEC funds meant for agriculture to “general” items, the oppressive mass media bill and a failure in housing policy.

True, there is much in that list to inspire a lack of con fidence. But it is understood that the Opposition has been plotting the no confidence motion since last August long before the advent of the above issues. Had the Government not precipitated or encountered these prob lems, it is reasonable to assume that the Opposition would have found another set with which to wallop Mr Wingti.

The bankruptcy of the latest motion of no confidence is further exposed by the Opposition’s courtship of the übiquitous Mr Ted Diro. The disgraced former Govern ment minister is a central figure in perhaps the one issue genuinely worthy of a vote of no confidence the timber

“The motion can contribute to instability in a nation that is crying out for steady, strong and long-term leadership”

industry scandal and the Commission of Inquiry’s charges of perjury against Mr Diro, not to mention the former def ence force leader’s alleged acceptance of funds from In donesian military strongman Murdani. But, beleaguered though Mr Diro is, this motion of no confidence puts him in a position of some influence.

Mr Diro makes no secret of the fact that he seeks the Deputy Prime Ministership. He has called on Mr Wingti to confirm that the post will be his once he is cleared of the charges that have shaken his career (but what will hap pen if Mr Diro is found guilty?). Confident of his position, he has warned that if his demands are not met he will cross the floor, taking his People’s Action Party with him.

It is ironic that Sir Julius Chan, the present Deputy Prime Minister who stands to lose his position in the

event of Mr Wingti bestowing the post on Mr Diro has himself been the ar chitect of many no confidence votes and himself used the legislation to tor ment and harass Mr Somare during the Chiefs time in power.

Once more it is left to Father John Momis, himself an Opposition stal wart, to be the quiet voice of reason and fair play amid a strident cacophony.

“Get rid of the vote of no confidence,” he says. “It has outlived its usefulness.”

It comes as no surprise that Father Momis has the support of Mr Wingti.

The PM says, quite rightly, that elected governments should be left to fulfil their mandate and not be distracted by mid term challenges.

But it should not be forgotten how in

1985 the then deputy leader of the Pangu Pati crossed the floor in a vote of no confidence, taking 15 party members with him and tearing apart PNG’s largest party in the process. This person was rewarded by Sir Julius Chan with the alternative Prime Ministership. His name was Paias Wingti.

The axiom about those who live by the sword often being themselves impaled comes readily to mind. But if Mr Wingti is defeated (an unlikely prospect) it will be the most hollow of victories for his opponents and, a dam aging blow to a nation in need of answers.

The fathers of PNG, in the interests of the country, must take a long, non-partisan look at the motion of no con fidence. They must consider whether its retention is worth the instability it causes in a nation crying out for steady, strong and long-term leadership. Then they may well pass a no confidence motion of their own on this counter-pro ductive piece of legislation. □