Nation building and Prime Minister Marape

By PNG Echo.

Papua New Guinea (PNG) has been an independent, legal State for over 44 years. Nevertheless, it is arguable whether it is a ‘nation/state’.

Pulling together such a diverse population into one entity to form a nation is fraught with pitfalls. There are profound challenges that have not entirely been met taking into account the Bougainville vote for independence, the independence rumblings from other quarters, such as (but not exclusively) New Ireland and the strong prevailing regionalism whereby regions are often in conflict with one another.

The State of PNG needs to put much more effort into ‘nation building’ and by that term, I am not speaking of the physical – such as infrastructure – but the cognitive, intellectual, psychological and moral reasons that people identify with a nation/state and find belonging to it desirable.

Having said that, I have noticed a certain national pride in specific circumstances – but all the circumstances have been negative – and usually defensive, employing all the negative nation-building tactics that ought to be avoided.

To be avoided… 

The most tried, tested and efficacious way to bind disparate citizens in loyalty and create a ‘national’ sentiment is to go to war. It worked in France, after the revolution and it is said that the nation of Australia was born on the battlefields of Gallipoli (before then, it was just a Federation of States.)

I don’t suggest PNG goes to war.

The idea of war as a nation-building exercise is to create a common enemy that defines who ‘we’ are as oppose to who we are not (them) and then add a deity for good measure ‘For God and Country’ and bingo, we’re all pulling together, as one, in a righteous battle that’s united us all. We are a proud nation.

There are ways to do this not involving war – they are not to be recommended either.

The Nazis did it when they targeted the Jews carrying along with them a population that was already suspicious of this demographic that Hitler further demonised to the point where genocide was tolerated and, in some quarters, even relished – by the whole of the German nation.

In this vein, I have recently been increasingly alarmed at how Prime Minister Marape has been whipping up negative feelings about perceived ‘outsiders’ to fuel the nationalism of PNGeans.

Firstly there was the slogans of taking back PNG and making PNG the richest black Christian nation.

In reality, PNG, being an independent state – the people through their parliament can do whatever it is that’s deemed legal – and even what isn’t.

Not so long ago, under the Prime Ministership of Peter O’Neill, OkTedi was expropriated, for instance. So, Prime Minister Marape can expropriate whatever he likes. But we know, in reality, that won’t happen because the Prime Minister knows that it would cripple PNG – his are just fighting words that mean little but they do serve to get the man in the street in a righteous, national lather.

In reality, the fox is in charge of the henhouse – the people leading the country politically are the ones who have given away PNG for their 30 pieces of silver. Do you think they’re likely to stop now?

What’s more, Marape’s use of the words “Black Christian nation” is problematic and provocative.

There are those in PNG that are neither black nor Christian and under his slogan you need to be both to be considered a part of the nation. What is he suggesting – a touch of ethnic cleansing – deport all not of the desired type or perhaps keep them in rehabilitation camps where they can learn to be black and Christian? (Reminiscent of Bougainville.)

I am surprised that so few people called him out on this – especially in the international community. I bet Scott Morrison didn’t – not even when they were at the football. Yet, if another Prime Minister, anywhere in the world, at this moment in time, had said s/he wanted to build a ‘white’ nation of any kind there would have been a huge outcry.

I have my own ideas as to why no one (at least, not many) registered shock at his new slogan and it’s about patronising. People excuse others that they think do not have the same faculties or capabilities as themselves, pat them on the head with the attitude of understanding that they ‘mean well,’ but don’t know any better – children, for instance (but not only, it seems.)

I have noticed this syndrome over and over again in academia. The expectations are that people from developing countries do somehow not need to, or are incapable of, attaining the high standards of others. That’s rubbish.

I have no intention of patronising Prime Minister Marape. What he’s said creates a dangerous undercurrent and it should be criticised – and not only by me.

For, continuing on the theme of demonising the outsider, the Prime Minister’s latest missive to the people contained a section where he pointed out that a “…lady guest” of PNG had publicly said that PNGeans were “poor” – he begged to differ.

The Prime Minister pointing out what a perceived outsider said (note she is not only a foreigner but a women to boot) is bound to provoke the ‘how dare you’ response from all those who feel slighted by the term, especially coming from a woman.

I suggest that the Prime Minister goes to one of the villages in his electorate and looks for himself. For according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein on a visit to PNG in 2017, almost 40% of PNGeans live in poverty and child malnutrition is up there with the statistics from war-torn Yemen.(See here)

This is the sad reality, no matter how stridently he begs to differ. The majority of PNGeans are economically poor and that was what this person was, no doubt, alluding to. (I can pinpoint the identity of this ‘lady guest’ to two possible candidates – neither of whom would have been saying it as an insult.)

Positive nation building

It would be so much better if the PNG parliament went about building the nation of PNG by making it a desirable entity to belong to which, at the moment, it isn’t.

I am tempted to call PNG a ‘rogue State’ except it doesn’t attack anyone else but itself. Parliamentarians and public servants rob their own people blind so that not enough is left to provide basic services and the male half of the population physically attacks maims and kills the female half with indecent frequency, relish and with few consequences.

How does a State that seems tacitly to approve of the oppression and degradation of women endear itself to that demographic?

Giving them 22 reserved seats in parliament would have been a good start. Marape, once again, used manipulative words to justify his decision not to – citing that he didn’t want to ‘patronise’ PNG women (my word – not his) – that they can do it on their own. Except, in this case, they needed patronising – government patronage to be precise – circumstances dictate women will not succeed alone, as is in evidence by the current, all-male PNG parliament. Marape knows this full well.

So, while adhering to a religion that emphasises ‘humility’ – the Prime Minister scandalously whipped up false pride to justify a bad decision. That’s ignoble.

And then there’s the scrapping of free education – something bound to impact on female children as cash-strapped citizens most likely educate their sons in preference. So, a woman’s future in PNG does not look any better than it has in the past.

A nation where one can easily educate one’s children (male and female) would be an excellent nation-building exercise and would indeed create the warm national feelings that are desirable.

Let’s face it, Marape is not batting a thousand so far (to use a cricket metaphor) – so many hoped he would.

A comparison 

Australia is an example of a successful nation/state (but please let’s not talk of the Morrison government). In fact, so desirable is it to belong there that refugees risk their lives to reach Australian shores and while PNG is only three kilometres from Australia, at the closest point, refugees have gone back to the original place of their escape rather than settle in PNG – what a contrast.

Manus Island was set up as a deterrent to the unwelcome refugees trying to access Australia. It was a devilish pact that has no heroes and I have only used it to illustrate the wide gap between Australia as a desirable nation/state and PNG as an undesirable one. (See here)

What’s more, I have had occasion recently to read a post by Bryan Kramer (Yes, I have THAT much time on my hands) where he was sending off five of his constituents to fruit pick in Australia. He was waxing lyrical about what a splendid opportunity it was and how the wages they could expect to earn had the potential to set them up financially. He juxtaposed what he was paying them to pick up rubbish in Madang (K100-150) to the expected wages in Australia (K2,500 before deductions).

The sad part of that story is that these are jobs Australians won’t do (too hard, not enough pay) yet they seem like a gold strike for the young Papua New Guineans. PNGeans are grateful for the dregs. How can Prime Minister Marape bear the ignominy?

It’s therefore easy to see why there are so many PNGeans living in Australia and why there is so much chagrin about the difficulty of getting visas to enter and/or stay in Australia, isn’t it?

In conclusion

To build the nation of PNG it is just necessary to make it a more desirable place to which to belong. I believe it is too late to attract and keep Bougainville – PNG had 20 years to do so – and it didn’t. Smarten up the game before more regions follow suit because they feel no loyalty or adhesion to a state from where precious little flows.

–