• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Political Parties

PNG's politics are highly competitive with most members elected on a personal and ethnic basis within their constituencies rather than as a result of party affiliation. While there are various parties, the main ones include the People's National Congress (PNC), the Triumph Heritage Empowerment (THE) Party, PNG Party, United Resources Party (URP), People's Progress Party (PPP), and the People's Party (PP).

The political parties themselves are not distinguished so much by ideology as by the personality of their leaders and their regional bases. Generally, there appears to be a remarkable degree of consensus about the kind of society that should be created. All parties favor a mixed economy, with governments overseeing and, sometimes, operating alongside private enterprise; only the details and emphases differ.

The national parliament was initially elected on a first-past-the-post system in which the voter was allowed to mark just one preference for the most favoured candidate. This system is also used in the United Kingdom. In practice, this meant that MPs were frequently elected with less than 10% of the total vote, which meant that 90 per cent of the voters wanted somebody else.

This not only led to widespread disenchantment at election time but also to corruption and tribalism. For instance, it is possible for a candidate to split the electorate's vote along tribal lines by encouraging representatives of each tribe in a constituency to stand. The candidate would then concentrate on ensuring the loyalty of their tribe and perhaps picking up a few votes here and there by spreading a little bit of 'financial goodwill'.

Members of parliament are now elected in a limited preferential voting system. There are several parties, but party allegiances are not strong. Winning candidates are usually courted in efforts to forge the majority needed to form a government, and allegiances are fluid. No single party has yet won enough seats to form a government in its own right.

• In 1967, Michael Somare and others formed the Pangu (Papua New Guinea Union) Party, which has been the most successful party. In 1982 it won 52 seats-only 3 short of enough to form a government by itself. Later, however, dissatisfied members split off into new parties, and Pangu won only 26 seats in 1987. Generally, Pangu emphasises business and industrial development, health and education services. Among its founders are Sir Maori Kiki and Sir Ebia Olewale.
• Melanesian Alliance, led by Father John Momis, is the 'conscience' party. It has championed provincial government and individual rights. Other leaders have been John Kaputin and Bernard Narokobi.
• National Party, led by Michael Mel, has a conservative, business orientation. Its early leaders, Sir Thomas Kavali and Sir Iambakey Okuk, were among the minority of Highlanders who pushed for early independence.
• People's Progress Party, led by Sir Julius Chan, has a business orientation. Warren Dutton was another founder

In PNG, no party has ever achieved a clear majority in Parliament, so several parties have joined together (negotiated a coalition) to form the governments since independence in 1975. Some political parties in PNG were the Pangu, People's Progress, National, People's Democratic Movement, United and Melanesian Alliance. Most parties have provincial branches that have businesses to raise money for political campaigns. Every year, the parties must file financial reports, listing what they own (their assets), their income, bank statements and details of election spending, with the Ombudsman Commission.

Since achieving independence in 1975, Papua New Guinea was beset with political instability including numerous motions of no-confidence, frequent party-hopping, and changes of government and Prime Ministers. Until 2002, no government had been able to survive a full 5-year term. From 2001 to 2003, new laws were introduced to provide stability. The Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC)was an ambitious and far- reaching attempt at political engineering. OLIPPAC provided for the registration of parties, and the funding of party administrations (based on registration and the number of MPs). In an attempt to create greater stability, oliPPac also required that:

• independent MPs either remain independent or join a political party prior to the election of the speaker following a general election;
• independent MPs who voted for the Prime minister when the Prime minister was first elected support the Prime minister in any subsequent no-confidence motions;
• MPs not change parties during the term of the legislature; and
• MPs who were affiliated with parties vote according to the resolution of their party on: the election of the Prime minister; no-confidence motions; the budget; and on changes to the constitution and organic laws (MPs could be dismissed from Parliament for failing to do so).

These reforms appeared to be successful, as the Sir Michael Somare Government of 2002 to 2007 became the first government to survive a full term. The Somare Government was re-elected in 2007. Somare stood aside in late 2010 due to ill health, but his coalition, remained in power as of late 2011. This apparent stability can be viewed as a success of OLIPPAC. However, while Somare survived eight years as Prime minister, he regularly replaced his deputies, and in July 2010, the speaker adjourned parliament for four months to avert a possible challenge to Somare. The challenge to Prime Minister Somare was prompted by a supreme court ruling in July 2010. The supreme court ruled that the sections of OLIPPAC which forced MPs not to change parties, and to vote according to party lines, were unconstitutional restrictions on citizens’ freedom of association. As a result, MPs now had the freedom to change parties, vote against party caucus decisions, and support whoever they want as Prime minister. It was not surprising therefore that in the weeks following the supreme court ruling there were regular media reports of new alliances, and various efforts to oust the Prime minister. Parliamentary coalition formation is a standard of Papua New Guinea politics, and most voters believe it is a useful tool. They like that a coalition represents a range of ideas and can promote collective decision-making, resulting in better policies and actions. Similarly for some, the representation of more than one party in government is comforting because they do not like the idea of a single party dominating government. The symbolism is important as well because they see coalition formation as an inclusive act that promotes the unity of the country.

Coalitions are also viewed as a practical solution by voters. First, they understand it is rare for a single party to win enough seats to form a government on its own, and second, they believe coalitions with multiple parties gives them a better chance to have their own representatives in positions of importance in government. Fewer, but a significant number of voters, though, say that coalition formation has significant risks. These voters believe coalitions are the root of conflict between parties who fight over ministerial positions and that shifting alliances, including the possible disintegration of coalitions, result in government instability.

The need to consider multiple views in a coalition can also lead to indecisiveness and inefficiency in government. The last area about coalitions that concerns some voters group is what they describe as a tendency for corruption in the formation process. Their contention is that individuals or party leaders are often bribed, with public money, to join or leave a coalition.

Most voeters express a strong dislike of the relatively common practice of MPs switching party allegiances once elected. They view party switching as unfair to the original party who provided the resources for the MP to campaign and an indication that the MP is simply power hungry and not interested in his constituents. More concerning to many participants is the suspicion that party switching is driven by bribery and corruption and means the MP is selling himself to the highest bidder. One voter described party switching as “similar to prostitution.” There is also a view that a candidate who won votes based on a party’s visions and policies is abandoning that by which he was elected and not fulfilling his promises when he switches parties. Some are so opposed to party switching that they suggest that a law be adopted to prevent it. Independent candidates are not held to the same standards, and it is seen as fair by most for them to choose a party to become affiliated with once elected. For those that have existing party affiliations, some do not offer any acceptable reasons for switching parties, but others indicate there is one instance in which they would view party switching as legitimate. That is when the elected official’s original party is performing poorly and not delivering upon its visions and policies. Political parties could operate without restriction or outside influence. In some areas tribal leaders determined which candidate a tribe would support and influenced the entire tribe to vote for that candidate. Parties promised a lot and delivered very little and are tainted by their involvement in bribery and corruption, including vote buying and the use of the public’s money to campaign.

The proliferation of political parties has distorted the country’s politics. With so many parties, voters are confused, they say, and the likelihood of conflict is increased. With the large number of parties, there is a lack of differentiation among them with most supporting the same policies and making the same promises. Despite their disappointment with the performance of their elected officials in the past, voters say they are happy with the candidates they have to choose among in elections and believe they have had or will have many good quality choices. Voters say they had personal knowledge of the candidates and understood their qualities and character. They are convinced those they voted for are the type of leaders who can bring better services to their areas. The candidates that were most attractive during the campaign period, they say, were those that had proved themselves in the community and spent significant time interacting with the people in the area. Good campaigns were judged to be those that had good candidates but also those that had major resources, Candidates obtain some money from their sponsoring parties, but beyond that several funding sources fuel most political activities. Candidates’ or party members’ personal money is viewed as a key source and one that is legitimate for politicians to use. The other primary sources of political funding are much more questionable. The perception is that, aside from personal money, candidates and political parties use misappropriated government funds and contributions from international and domestic companies to finance campaigns. Most voters view both sources as inappropriate. The use of public funds for political reasons is seen as wrong not only because it is unfair and corrupt but because it also reduces the funds available to improve services. The fear with contributions from business sources is that many believe that in practice the contributions function more like loans and that government money will be used to corruptly repay them once the party or candidate is elected. The public’s affiliation to political parties is considered relatively weak in Papua New Guinea. Despite this, most voters indicate they could provide lasting support to a political party that met their approval. The key attribute that would determine whether they could connect to or join a political party is performance. A party must first prove its worth by acting in a manner that establishes it has the good of the country and the people at heart. The most effective demonstration of this would be the successful implementation of service delivery improvements. The party that accomplishes that, votersindicate, is likely to see a significant increase in loyalty. Other signs of good political party performance that voters use in their evaluations of parties are the quality of policies and leaders. Parties that develop people-centered policies, such as free education and rural area initiatives, will win their support, as will those parties that field dynamic, qualified and competent candidates and leaders. Though to a much lesser extent, there are some voaters who say their support for political parties is determined by which parties are affiliated with their areas or province or which parties can personally benefit them by offering them money or shares.