http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20081008/wehome.htm
What is provincial autonomy?
Provincial autonomy, the greater devolution of powers to provinces, is seen as the way forward for national development by some leaders. However, autonomy in Papua New Guinea (PNG) has different meanings for different people.
Some question its long-term effect on national unity, while others argue that it will preserve PNG?s diversity. Two issues of concern are:
* how are negotiations for autonomy in PNG different from the experiences of other countries with established autonomous arrangements; and
* how will autonomous arrangements be managed.
Separating the complex political implications from the politically emotive concept of autonomy is the first step in understanding the governance system in which citizens will participate.
Defining autonomy
Greater autonomy occurs when powers under autonomous governments are used to accommodate marginalised sections of the community in the political processes and institutions of a country. This happens in countries where there are significant differences in territorial, demographic, linguistic, cultural, or religious identity.
The preferential accommodation of provinces (or states), which have deepseated relationships with the central government or other provinces (or states) is the basis for autonomy. Autonomous arrangements have also been used in post-conflict processes as seen in the Balkans in Eastern Europe, Aceh Province in Indonesia, and closer to home, in Bougainville. However, there is significant diversity in these models of autonomous arrangements.
For example, the level of power sharing differs from the extreme ?sovereign-like? status that Quebec enjoys in the Canadian federation, to the ?historical nationalities? of the Basque region within the Spanish de-facto federation. Also, although Malaysia has been described as having a highly centralised government system, its Constitution gives the states of Sabah and Sarawak powers that normally rest with the central government.
The Constitution gives Sabah and Sarawak greater autonomy than the 11 other states of Malaysia, in areas such as taxation (particularly customs and excise), immigration and citizenship, trade, transportation, communication, fisheries, and several social affairs sectors. The initial aim of this differentiation of powers is to protect the distinctive characteristics of the two states and their interests.
Autonomy in PNG
The Papua New Guinean Constitution recognises the central values of multiculturalism. Although representative governments continue to serve the interests of all Papua New Guineans, sections of the PNG community cannot necessarily adopt autonomy as a preferred way of accommodating their own perceived marginalised status.
For example, the recent call to incorporate matrilineal tradition in the New Ireland autonomy agenda is the province?s leaders? affirmation of its cultural identity. Provinces may use cultural differentiation markers to redefine the cultural diversity, which the broader PNG political processes should acknowledge because they believe that, through autonomous arrangements, the unique traditions and sources of provincial identity can be preserved or enhanced at that level.
Almost all autonomous arrangements are accommodated in some federal Constitution or de-facto federal arrangements. If a framework for autonomy is designed to accommodate those provinces seeking greater autonomy, it will be reflected in an Organic Law, or the Constitutions of the autonomous provinces, and will include the powers which autonomous provinces will have that others will not necessarily enjoy. Those provinces will have greater leverage outside of the ?one-size-fits-all? framework, which exists under the present Organic Law on Provincial Governments and Local-level Governments.
The extent of autonomy
PNG has a quasi-federal system of government, which means that the national government has overriding powers through the constitutional supremacy of the national law-making legislature. Some academics use the term ?unitary state? to describe the powers that the national government possesses (through the National Executive Council). These powers were used when provincial governments were suspended by the national government or had their functions, powers, or finances withdrawn. With greater autonomy, what would be the possible arrangement? In regard to legislative composition, the Organic Law on Provincial Governments (OLPG) comes to mind. The structure under the OLPG resembled a two-tier system of legislature found in established federal systems. Provinces had provincial assemblies in which their political representatives enacted provincial laws. The Open electorates and Provincial electorates have ensured that representatives from the provinces served as Members of Parliament at the national level. PNG would have gone full circle, back to where it began, in terms of political representation and legislative-making responsibilities at the provincial level. What would be the likely roles of the national-level representatives? Would they participate in political affairs in the province, or be symbolic provincial identities at the national level? Understanding the administrative and fiscal powers under autonomy is quite complex. Scholars who have reviewed the arrangement under the OLPG have used the term ?co-operative federalism? to describe the consultation process between the national government and provincial governments. The issues in relation to co-operative federalism are:
* provinces may not possess the necessary capacity to operate ?autonomously?, hence ongoing national-level co-operation would be needed in the process of provincial development; and
* the ?co-operative federalism? model suggests that some form of national standard should be maintained through constant consultation and dialogue between the different levels of government.
Ultimately, the national government will be responsible for national security (defence) issues, conducting foreign relations and macroeconomic management. The State, through its instrumentalities at the national level, owns a legal standing in the international community and may seek to justify its intervention in matters of national interest on this basis. For example, in early 2005, the National Fisheries Authority (NFA) had a running legal debate with the Milne Bay Provincial Government concerning the right to issue fishing licences. The Minister for Fisheries invoked the recognition of the State sovereignty in the UN convention on the Law of the Sea, and national interest as the basis for fisheries management by the national government. The then governor of the province was equally adamant that the NFA had failed to follow procedures or consult respective provincial governments in considering licence applications.
Another example is the recent signing of the new administrative structure for the East New Britain provincial administration after a series of consultations between the provincial administration and national government agencies. East New Britain has shown that it has been successful in exercising the powers and responsibilities within its jurisdiction. Also, the policy on public sector reform is a concurrent national-provincial initiative. Due recognition was given by the Department of Personnel Management in the designing and implementing of the province?s provincial administrative structure. Comparative lessons show that minority or marginalised justifications may not be the universal rule which applies to provinces negotiating with the national government for autonomy.
Practical issues of governance, political accountability and natural resource rights will be used as justification for greater provincial autonomy.
Patrick Kaiku is a project research officer in the social and environment studies division at the National Research Institute.
|
1 |
... |
195 |
196 |
|
198 |
199 |
...
| 217
Thread abonnieren
