My Say
Governance in Melanesia
Conditions In Four of Five Countries Are Deeply Dismaying
The affairs of most of Melanesia’s nations are murky. In Australia, New Zealand and in developed societies elsewhere, Melanesia is regarded now as an alarmingly unstable region. Not quite as bad as Africa but sliding that way.
This is not to say that the affairs of all of the nations of Polynesia and Micronesia are beyond reproach. However, the condition of four of Melanesia’s five countries are deeply dismaying.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Fiji went to independence in 1970, Papua New Guinea in 1975, the Solomon Islands in 1978 and Vanuatu in 1980. All four succeeded former colonial administrations with, quite naturally, bursts of enthusiasm and hope. Two, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, started ill prepared, with scanty financial resources, a minimum of infrastructure, and a pitiable lack of local skills, experience and competence.
If Australia’s earlier agenda for the independence of Papua New Guinea had been adhered to it would have been only about now that Papua New Guinea’s 4.5 million diverse people would have gained independence.
Fiji was luckier. It was more prepared, more developed and its literacy and other education standards were far higher. But many Fijians were still reluctant to be propelled into independence by a colonial power anxious to discard costly colonial liabilities.
After 20 to 30 years of independence, the affairs of all four are dismal.
Look at Papua New Guinea — inflicted with outrageous corruption and ineptitude shown by too many major political leaders that has pushed the economy to the brink of ruin. An array of social concerns includes an already catastrophic AIDS epidemic and grave law and order worries.
Consider the Solomon Islands — an economy ruined by communal strife; deeply imbedded political corruption. Ponder Vanuatu — islands of promise with a future distorted by farcical but high level corruption.
Fiji — it sees itself as being the superior of its neighbors, a regional kingpin, but it has been pushed by racial tension, corruption and three coups into an abyss.
But Melanesia’s difficulties are caused also by friction between its array of conflicting cultures. In Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and now in Fiji this has produced a succession of weak and short-lived coalition governments manipulated by opportunists whose first priorities are political survival and personal gain.
What must be acknowledged is that beginning with Fiji it is only 30 years since people who are expected to be au fait with globalization, information technology, creative accounting and e-mail fraud were allowed to leave the villages and subsistence living they were confined to by custom and colonial regulations.
In Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu 80 to 90 percent of the people still live in villages as their ancestors did, guided more by the influence of 3,000 years of custom than by 21st century whiz-bangery.
The numbers of educated, experienced and above all upright people able to cope with the distortion by Westernization, Asianization, Americanization and other forms of advanced civilization of Melanesian ideas of government are still very, very small. This, unfortunately, offers great opportunities for immoral (not that they know the meaning of the word) politicians to exploit political power in the knowledge that no matter how blatant they are, they will almost certainly not only escape retribution but profit immensely from their immorality.
How many of Melanesia’s past and present prime ministers and cabinet ministers should be rotting in jail for corruption? The list is long. With governance, stability, and economic and social advancement, it is still very early days in Melanesia. No matter how awful some leaders may be, the region needs to be treated with patience, sympathy, understanding and delicately for, say, at least another 20 more years.
New Caledonia is the exception. This may arrive as a surprise to those who recall how close the French territory came to an all out race war in the mid 1980s between indigenous Kanaks and white settlers over such issues as self-determination and a far greater significant role for Kanaks in the political, economic and social direction of New Caledonia’s affairs.
Fortunately both sides came to signed and sealed understandings, which on the whole are working and which in the second decade of this century, or earlier, should bring New Caledonia’s inhabitants to an amicable condition of political supremacy for the Kanaks.
Some far sighted Kanak leaders have remarked that they are prepared to be patient about the arrival of independence, or something a fraction of 1 percent short of it, because in the interim their people can be educated and obtain the experience to effectively manage their country, a place of great wealth and potential, with happy results for all.
