Democratic system of governance is not good for Papua New Guinea

Is democratic system of governance being good for development Papua New Guinea?  Or, Papua New Guinea’s own transitional chief system of Governance, which largely based on guided system of governance is good for the development of Papua New Guinea?

Papua New Guinea is in the southwestern Pacific region. It covers the eastern half of New Guinea and its offshore islands. It stands as a leading nation of her massive rich cultural and biological diversity with her untouched beaches and coral reefs.  No country beats Papua New Guinea on her record. 

A country of 8 million population of diversified tribal social and cultural background, scattered in many villages in rugged mountains terrains arose the nation with over 800+ languages.

The idea of bringing those divided tribal villages into Regions/Districts was achieved through the installation of western democratic system of governance by western powers to spread their influence. 

In the aim to take control, they deliberately overlooking the elements that holds the foundation of those villages since its establishment many years ago.

The establishment of western democratic system of government is not fitting well with the Papua New Guinea traditional.  

Papua New Guinea is not evolving from the elements of her social and cultural foundation, which have given meaning to its survival throughout generations.  

Consequently, the country is struggling to develop economically and socially.

The country is richly blessed with natural resources yet it’s not translating into development of people lives.  It is still running around the circle and finding difficult to become a robust society where everyone is equally served.

Chief system of governance- traditionally guided system of governance  

The entire village hamlets were divided thus isolated from each other. It was not managed through free and open democratic system of governance, but by the rule of traditionally guided system of governance or a chief system of governance.  

The social structure was in order which people lived and operate without fear of social disorder. Under the rule of controlled system of traditional law, the social disorder was minimal. The village hamlets were rule by Chiefs, and the community were subject to Leaders, who want nothings else but peace and order in the community.

The leaders were only found through the biological line/bloodline. They were not greedy or selfish people. They rule only for the well-being of the community.

For example: If a pig is killed by the Leader, he distributes it to the entire community, or someone looks after a big pig, it’s belonged to the community and not for one person, thus everyone shares the resources. In other words, everyone was working for the benefits of entire community.

In Manama Island in Madang Province, the villages were managed by Kukurai-the Chief of the village.  If the Kukurai wants a pig, he gets it from one of the community members. They bring it to him, but he will not eat it by himself. He kills it and distribute to everyone in the community. This notion is not working under the free & open democratic system of governance in Papua New Guinea. The resources from many mining industries in the country is not shared equally among the communities. Only greedy politicians and leaders are eating the best part and entire country is suffering.

The guided system of governance has social structures.  They had their own arms force - tribal warriors, traditionally certified medical healers, the farmers, there were economic activity like exchange of barter system of trade etc.

The social structure is guided by traditional laws. For example: If another man has sexual affairs with a married woman, the man is put to death.  As a result, it brings respect to marriage homes and reduce law and order issues.  Stealing, adultery and fornication (etc.) are forbidden thing in a controlled society. The traditional laws like no stealing, no adultery [etc.] is common throughout the country.  

If anyone breaks the rule set by the Chief is summoned to appear before the Council of chiefs.  He or she is punished for their wrongdoing.

Free & open Democratic system of governance 

The introduction of democratic system of governance is foreign ideology, implanted in the traditionally functioning system.  This system is not suitable for country like Papua New Guinea. It is not helping the nation's development.

For example: Election of political leader is driven by material power and the true traditional leaders are suppressed by material power, thus many good leaders are not born.   

The chief system of governance was based on common good and well-being of the people.  While free and open democratic system of government is full of greed, self-fish leaders who work for themselves thus accumulate wealth to stay on power.

Free and open democratic system of governance confused the way Papua New Guinea is developing.  Hence, Papua New Guinea needs to review what best free and open democratic system of governance can offer and what traditional system of government can offer. 

It not too later or too early, the country must not struggle to work through the thick jungle of free & open democratic system of governance. The nation needs to manage system where all our development progress is guided through. Otherwise, Papua New Guinea will run within the same cycle until the country is destroyed.

Many Papua new Guineans believes that a guided democratic system of governance will be better for Papua New Guinea’s development aspiration.  

For example: Betelnut sales in Papua New Guinea requires a guided system of governance.  Now, everyone has right to do informal business wherever they want to, thus buai is littering the cities and town, which is an eye sore.