ANY LESSONS FOR PNG IN THE CURRENT U.S SHUT DOWN?
By SAM KOIM
The current Shutdown in the United States of America begs my interests to share my observations in light of the recent announcement by our Prime Minister for the change of our system of Government.
The powerful nation on earth (USA) has gone through its 2nd day of shutdown after the Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to approve funding for President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reforms –the Obamacare. President Obama has had similar challenges when he required the House’ approval to intervene in the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government in the very recent past. Coming up, a more serious piece of legislation that needs both the Senate and the House approval is the raising of the debt ceiling which is approaching very near (17th Oct). The fear that is looming in the State’s now is that Congress might be so caught up with the shut down and the same tensions might be drawn into the debt ceiling hence potentially affect the US economy.
Whilst such rigorous scrutiny of Government policies and decisions, the extreme of which can be frustrating and daunting for the President and his Executive Government, in my view, it is however generally healthy for a well-oiled democracy. The bicameral system of government that they have does provide proper checks and balances before major decisions and legislations are passed.
These incidents, though isolated, are occurring at a time when our Prime Minister Peter O’Neill expressed his intention to adopt and develop the proposal by New Ireland Governor, Sir Julius Chan to scrap our current Westminister System of Government and have a federal system where the people can vote the Prime Minister directly. Last month (September 2013), the Prime Minister directed the Constitutional Law Reform Commission (CLRC) to conduct a year-long nationwide consultation and report to Parliament of their findings.
Though the details of the proposal are yet to be known, the experiences we’ve had as an emerging democracy requires such a change to consolidate our system of governance. The question now remains as to the model we can adopt.
The USA, regarded as the protector of democracy, has a federal system of government where the head of the Executive Government (President) is directly voted by the people through direct universal suffrage.
PNG derived its Westminister system of Government from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and Australia have bicameral Parliamentary systems but the head of the Executive Government (Prime Minister) is not directly voted/appointed by the people. PNG has a tripartite Westminister system of government, where the power to govern is distributed among the three arms of government, namely Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
In principle, the three arms of government are kept separate from each other and are expected to provide check and balance on one another. The Judiciary further enjoys an entrenched independence guaranteed by the Constitution.
I have observed that our Parliament is supposed to hold the Executive Government in check but when most of the members of Parliament fill the Government benches, it then becomes difficult for those MPs to be critical of the initiatives of the Government that they are part of. Successive governments over the years used their numerical strengths to bulldoze legislations without proper debates and scrutiny.
At other times, some of our MPs are naïve and lack the knowledge to critically discuss issues of national interest, hence hardly participate during debates and question times.
In those circumstances, the way forward may be to adopt a bicameral system of Government with two houses like that of the UK and Australia without converting to US model of federal government. One house can consist of eminent people appointed by each province (as Governors) whilst the other one can consist of MPs elected from each electorate. In that arrangement, Budgets and legislative amendments go through both houses for approval. Supplementing that, laws can also be passed to set minimum requirements/qualifications intending candidates. Whilst those can be for long term, in the immediate future, Parliament should take the initiative to raise the bar on the Parliamentary services such as the provision of skilled and knowledgeable First and Second Secretaries so that these people can in turn advise the MPs and Ministers accordingly. Most of the MPs recruit their political cronies to fill those positions hence they are not appropriately appraised to debate on national issues.
The other observation I had is that in our system of Government, we have always had coalition governments and sometimes, the Prime Minister can spend so much time trying to satisfy all hearts/interests and less time in governing the country and set long term plans. Appointments to certain portfolios can be dictated and/or prioritised on coalition commitment than on merits. Political horse-trading during the lead up to the appointment of a Prime Minister can compel the incoming Prime Minister to make promises or sign accords that he could be bound for the rest of his term. In this context, electing the Prime Minister (or President) directly by the people can help minimise such issues. The Prime Minister can have the confidence of the entire population to serve a full term of Parliament and set the nation on course for long term prosperity.
In contemplating such major reforms, we also need to learn some lessons from other countries like Nigeria who’ve changed course. Nigeria is a black nation that we have certain things in common; rich in oil and natural resources, communal cultural setting, similar land laws, rampant corruption in Government, etc., except that they had some periods of military rule. Nigeria, as a British colony adopted the Westminister System but then changed to the US Federal system of Government. However, the problems they intended to run away from have never gone away and instead grew with the change. They had four republic constitutions since independence in 1960, the latest being in 1999.
I believe the decision to change our government structure is pivotal and all concerned citizens should help contribute to chart a new course. Contribute your piece when the CLRC undertakes the consultation. As a growing democracy, changes are necessary, but we must know “what” we are changing and “why” we are changing.
The current Shutdown in the United States of America begs my interests to share my observations in light of the recent announcement by our Prime Minister for the change of our system of Government.
The powerful nation on earth (USA) has gone through its 2nd day of shutdown after the Republicans in the House of Representatives refused to approve funding for President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reforms –the Obamacare. President Obama has had similar challenges when he required the House’ approval to intervene in the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian Government in the very recent past. Coming up, a more serious piece of legislation that needs both the Senate and the House approval is the raising of the debt ceiling which is approaching very near (17th Oct). The fear that is looming in the State’s now is that Congress might be so caught up with the shut down and the same tensions might be drawn into the debt ceiling hence potentially affect the US economy.
Whilst such rigorous scrutiny of Government policies and decisions, the extreme of which can be frustrating and daunting for the President and his Executive Government, in my view, it is however generally healthy for a well-oiled democracy. The bicameral system of government that they have does provide proper checks and balances before major decisions and legislations are passed.
These incidents, though isolated, are occurring at a time when our Prime Minister Peter O’Neill expressed his intention to adopt and develop the proposal by New Ireland Governor, Sir Julius Chan to scrap our current Westminister System of Government and have a federal system where the people can vote the Prime Minister directly. Last month (September 2013), the Prime Minister directed the Constitutional Law Reform Commission (CLRC) to conduct a year-long nationwide consultation and report to Parliament of their findings.
Though the details of the proposal are yet to be known, the experiences we’ve had as an emerging democracy requires such a change to consolidate our system of governance. The question now remains as to the model we can adopt.
The USA, regarded as the protector of democracy, has a federal system of government where the head of the Executive Government (President) is directly voted by the people through direct universal suffrage.
PNG derived its Westminister system of Government from the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom and Australia have bicameral Parliamentary systems but the head of the Executive Government (Prime Minister) is not directly voted/appointed by the people. PNG has a tripartite Westminister system of government, where the power to govern is distributed among the three arms of government, namely Legislature, Executive and Judiciary.
In principle, the three arms of government are kept separate from each other and are expected to provide check and balance on one another. The Judiciary further enjoys an entrenched independence guaranteed by the Constitution.
I have observed that our Parliament is supposed to hold the Executive Government in check but when most of the members of Parliament fill the Government benches, it then becomes difficult for those MPs to be critical of the initiatives of the Government that they are part of. Successive governments over the years used their numerical strengths to bulldoze legislations without proper debates and scrutiny.
At other times, some of our MPs are naïve and lack the knowledge to critically discuss issues of national interest, hence hardly participate during debates and question times.
In those circumstances, the way forward may be to adopt a bicameral system of Government with two houses like that of the UK and Australia without converting to US model of federal government. One house can consist of eminent people appointed by each province (as Governors) whilst the other one can consist of MPs elected from each electorate. In that arrangement, Budgets and legislative amendments go through both houses for approval. Supplementing that, laws can also be passed to set minimum requirements/qualifications intending candidates. Whilst those can be for long term, in the immediate future, Parliament should take the initiative to raise the bar on the Parliamentary services such as the provision of skilled and knowledgeable First and Second Secretaries so that these people can in turn advise the MPs and Ministers accordingly. Most of the MPs recruit their political cronies to fill those positions hence they are not appropriately appraised to debate on national issues.
The other observation I had is that in our system of Government, we have always had coalition governments and sometimes, the Prime Minister can spend so much time trying to satisfy all hearts/interests and less time in governing the country and set long term plans. Appointments to certain portfolios can be dictated and/or prioritised on coalition commitment than on merits. Political horse-trading during the lead up to the appointment of a Prime Minister can compel the incoming Prime Minister to make promises or sign accords that he could be bound for the rest of his term. In this context, electing the Prime Minister (or President) directly by the people can help minimise such issues. The Prime Minister can have the confidence of the entire population to serve a full term of Parliament and set the nation on course for long term prosperity.
In contemplating such major reforms, we also need to learn some lessons from other countries like Nigeria who’ve changed course. Nigeria is a black nation that we have certain things in common; rich in oil and natural resources, communal cultural setting, similar land laws, rampant corruption in Government, etc., except that they had some periods of military rule. Nigeria, as a British colony adopted the Westminister System but then changed to the US Federal system of Government. However, the problems they intended to run away from have never gone away and instead grew with the change. They had four republic constitutions since independence in 1960, the latest being in 1999.
I believe the decision to change our government structure is pivotal and all concerned citizens should help contribute to chart a new course. Contribute your piece when the CLRC undertakes the consultation. As a growing democracy, changes are necessary, but we must know “what” we are changing and “why” we are changing.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please free to leave comments.