Canberra, 14 March 1968
Restricted
Papua and New Guinea elections 1968
Polling has been taking place throughout Papua and New Guinea over the last month for seats in the Territory’s new House of Assembly. In all, 484 candidates, including 420 indigenes, have sought election in 84 constituencies covering a total electorate of 1,200,000 people. Voting is expected to finish on 16th March and counting to commence immediately afterwards. The constituencies are made up of 69 ‘open’ electorates where election is open to anyone and 15 ‘regional’ electorates where election is restricted to people with an intermediate certificate or higher educational qualification. Voting in both types of electorate is on the basis of adult franchise.
A feature of the election campaign has been the participation of several political parties,2 although their importance at this stage should not be over emphasized. Very few of the candidates have openly identified themselves with the parties, and many of those whom parties have claimed to be sponsoring have denied close affiliations and insisted that they have non-partisan outlooks. Many prominent candidates, including those vocally critical of the Administration, have not been associated with any of the parties; and the parties appear in particular to have little support amongst candidates in the Highlands, where there is a general wariness of ‘premature’ political developments.
Although most of the existing parties claim a ‘national’ outlook, the majority appear to represent regional and group interests. They have so far failed to overcome the division between the more radical coastal groups and the more conservative inland groups, the vague wariness between different regional groups (including Papuans versus New Guineans), the emphasis of the rural mass on parochial, clan and village interests rather than their general interests, and a widespread suspicion in both rural and town areas towards parties as representing ‘outside’ influences. (For instance, just prior to polling five leading indigenous businessmen in Goroka condemned political parties as detrimental to individual freedom and national unity.) The net effect of the parties’ failure to establish national interests and overcome ignorance, indifference and hostility towards them at the village level is that the personality and prestige of individual candidates is likely to be the basic factor behind the results of most contests, just as in 1964 when there was but one party which disappeared soon after the elections. Successful candidates will in fact probably have more to offer the parties than the latter have to offer the candidates.
A major problem faced by the parties to date has been a lack of experienced and strong leadership. The parties were only formed during the course of the last two years—most in the latter half of last year—and are still experiencing growing pains and problems of finance and direction. Party administration has been quite casual and the formulation of their policy quite haphazard and vague. Not only have policies overlapped, but some parties have claimed the ‘allegiance’ of opposing candidates, while some candidates are believed to be ‘friendly’ with more than one party.
The future of the existing parties will probably depend to a large extent on whether they can gain the allegiance of members of the Assembly after the elections. Some commentators believe that although some of the successful candidates at present shun collective affiliations they will come to support parties as they begin to realize the value of collective lobbying. Many of the party leaders themselves consider that the real role of the parties is yet to emerge. It is however likely that some of the existing parties will be replaced by new ones, that some may amalgamate, and that there will be a different polarisation around new political issues in the years ahead. Much will of course depend on whether and when urgent ‘national’ issues arise to upset the existing pattern of regionalism. Despite the general reservations mentioned about the support and popularity of political parties in the Territory at present, they do represent more than ephemeral power bases and some are likely to survive the election in some form. Their orientation does therefore provide a guide to developing political forces and power blocks. Altogether seven parties have been noted in the campaign, although only one is properly constituted. Of these two—the Pangu Pati, and the United Democratic Party—appear to be clearly bigger than the others; while the other parties appear to be essentially regional, and in four cases partly reactions to the Pangu Pati. The following is a brief description of each of these ‘parties’.
Pangu Pati
Pangu Pati (Papua and New Guinea Union Party) has attracted the most public attention of all the parties. It was founded in June 1967 after the Select Committee on Constitutional Development advocated a greater degree of self-government for the Territory.3 It claims to be the ‘party of modernisation’ and is the only really radical political organisation in the Territory. In this respect it is an indirect descendant of the shortlived New Guinea Union Party. The formation of most of the other political parties has to some extent been a direct reaction to the platform of Pangu, which stresses ‘humility, honesty and hard work’ towards home rule and eventual independence, and advocates localization of the Public Service as a first step towards this goal. The platform also emphasizes the need for national unity —‘one name, one country, one people, one language’ —and the need for progress in the economy, in education, housing, communications, health and working conditions, with full indigenous participation in development projects.
Of all the parties Pangu Pati has been the most critical of the Administration and ‘pronouncements’ by the Minister for Territories. It claims that Papuans and New Guineans (‘ Panguans’) should be given credit for their ability to govern themselves intelligently, and at times has given indications of an ‘anti-European’ feeling, although this has been most apparent in the views of two prominent European members of the party, Tony Voutas and Barry Holloway. However, although Pangu Pati has attracted many of the more radical indigenous political leaders, such as Michael Somare, Albert Maori-Kiki and Paul Lapun, it has backed away from an extreme position on the question of independence. Its attitude towards independence is probably more evolutionary rather than revolutionary. One of its early leaders, Oala Oala-Rarua (a trade union leader in Port Moresby), was expelled from the party in August 1967 as a consequence of proposing independence for the Territory by 1972 during an address in Sydney last year;4 and {probably} the best indication of Pangu’s present attitude towards independence was given by Albert Maori-Kiki at the AIPS5 Summer School in Canberra last January when he stated that independence for Papua/New Guinea was still a long way off.
The party claims the ‘association’ of fourteen Members of the old House of Assembly, and to be ‘sponsoring’ 30 candidates in the election.
U.D.P
The United (Christian) Democratic Party was founded in May 1967. It claims to be the largest political party in Papua/New Guinea; but the basis of this claim—a ‘membership’ of 9,000—is open to dispute. It is nevertheless the only properly constituted party, and the only one to have declared its desire to win seats in the election as a principal objective.
The party, which has unofficial Roman Catholic backing, is strongest in the East Sepik areas, but has made efforts to gather support in the major coastal centres.
Its platform, like that of the other political parties, has been flexible. Originally, the party proposed seventh statehood for the Territory, but this aim was hastily abandoned after statements by the Minister for Territories in July last year appeared to imply that this was not a possibility.6 The U.D.P. supports the idea of one language—‘Pidgin’ (the lingua franca of New Guinea)—for all of Papua and New Guinea, and advocates extensive development of rural areas. Its platform also contains a number of democratic planks such as universal assisted primary education, and extended facilities for various types of secondary education, just wages, equal rights for Europeans and indigenes, and ‘civil liberties’ for all.
[ matter omitted ]
[NAA: A 1838, 936/4/6]
1 J.G. Powys, trainee officer, DEA.
2 For an overview of the development of parties, see Document 148.
3 See Documents 120 and 122.
4 See footnote 6, Document 148.
5 Australian Institute of Political Science.
6 See footnote 2, Document 122.