• Understanding Constitutional Crisis in PNG: A Political Perspective
  
  By Francis Hualupmomi
  
  
  1. Introduction
  With the recent constitutional crisis, PNG is highly perceptible to be susceptible to civil crisis thrusting a state of anarchy. PNG over the years have consistently experienced a pattern of constitutional crisis. This paralysis is more similar to civil crisis seen in other ‘failed states’ such as Somalia, Fiji, Solomon Islands, to name a few. A civil crisis is inevitable when the ‘right to rule’ by the ‘rule of law’ is in question. The prevalent systematic corruption compounded with recent Maladina Bill and William Kapris are few of the cases, which exemplifies at hand a worst case scenario of the ‘rule of law’ being deliberately undermined by the state. This paper is an attempt to conceptualise the constitutional crisis in a political perspective.
  
  
  2. The Logic of Constitutional Crisis
  There is a bonded relationship between constitutional crisis and the concepts of sovereignty, legitimacy, authority and anarchy. An understanding on constitutional crisis is absolutely necessary to inform the public. Constitutional crisis is a situation that can be best represented in a schematised logical sequence.
  
  The Constitution is a written’ rule of law’, which governs the behaviour of actors and institutions in a society. Sovereignty is the exclusive right to complete control over an area of governance, people, or oneself. A sovereign is the supreme lawmaking authority, subject to no other. Therefore a state is sovereign. Without a constitution there is no sovereignty. Legitimacy is having the ‘right to rule’ over a subject by the rule of law. Legitimacy sanctions a state to be sovereign. Authority is having the right to exercise power. Anarchy is non-existence of the ruler over the ruled (non-existence of right to rule by rule of law).
  
  3. Relationship between Constitutional Crisis and Sovereignty, Legitimacy, Authority and Anarchy
  In a political democracy, the state through its apparatus is the legitimate authority to exercise power in all aspects of human relation under the framework of constitution, which in effect gives state a sovereign. The government – a system constituting actors and institutions - is the apparatus of the state. The actors and institutions are elected and appointed into the system as authorities by the people on their behalf to represent ‘common interest’. This gives legitimacy to government as the process of election and appointment is legally binding. This is also applied to decision making and policy development. However, if the process is ignored, undermined or violated then the legitimacy of the state and government or its sovereignty is in question. This situation is called constitutional crisis. And when this happens this can spark a state of anarchy.
  
  
  4. Conceptualising Constitutional Crisis
  A. Constitutional Crisis
  More precisely a constitutional crisis is a total breakdown in government’s orderly operation. It may occur as a result of certain situations:
  • When factions are created in government over power play by a certain faction. This is common in conflict between different branches of government or level of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government (provincial and local level government); an example in PNG is the 2007 Southern Highlands Emergency.
  • When one or more parties to the dispute wilfully choose to violate constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention or when disputant disagrees over interpretation of its provision or convention; a cited example is the debate on Women’ s Political Representative Bill and;
  • Dispute arises because certain aspect of constitution is unclear or ambiguous which sets future precedence (Lipset, 2004). An example is on the Organic Law on Political Party and Leadership Roles of Politicians.
  Generally, it occurs when a person (political or bureaucrats, or ordinary citizens) undermines the ‘rule of law’ by breaking the existing law (constitution). A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war. One of the historic events of constitutional crisis is the ‘1997 Sandline crisis’ which almost renders PNG into an uncalled civil war. A constitutional crisis connotes the concept of legitimacy.
  
  B. Legitimacy
  Legitimacy is defined as the ‘right to rule’. Basically it refers to power bestowed upon government officials, acts, and institutions by people who believe that government’s actions are based on the use of power that is generally accepted and legally bonded. According to German political philosopher, Dolf Steinberger, "Legitimacy is the foundation of such governmental power as is exercised both with a consciousness on the government's part that it has a right to govern and with some recognition by the governed of that right” (1968).
  The right to rule is binding when it is based on true representation of people for the people. Government is elected through elections. Institutions, policies and decisions are made through proper means governed by the ‘rule of law’.
  Something becomes legitimate when one approves of it. This means policies and decisions made by the state must be mutually agreed by the people. For instance, the recent Maladina Bill cannot be legitimate when people disapprove of it. In a Lockean state government is not legitimate unless it is ruled with the consent of the governed.
  Civil legitimacy therefore becomes paramount. Modern constitution is premised on the general agreement of rule of law, which assumes that rules or laws exist to be followed to achieve a common good. Therefore ‘government offices are ordered by trust rather than exercised by dominion’.
  Moreover, constitutional crisis erupts when sources of legitimacy clash with one another. Constitution is the source of legitimacy. Constitutionalism is a modern concept that desires a political order governed by laws and regulations. It represents supremacy of law and not individualism, which embodies the principles of nationalism, democracy and limited government (Dogan, 2003).
  Hence, in a true ideal democracy, political legitimacy involves constitutionalism or the belief that an action is legitimate because it follows regular procedures which are part of the constitutional law because constitutional procedures are agreed to by a popular consent.
  Constitutionalism limits government’s action through separation of powers - a body of rules which ensure fair play and responsible government (transparency and accountability). Theoretically, democracy ensures that a government is operating under democratic principles and is subject to the will of the people. Because democracy is based on the will of the people it claims to have a popular mandate to exercise power, which is the ‘right to rule by the rule of law’. Exclusively, legitimacy of the state must be premised on these democratic principles:
  • Free and fair elections in which political parties participate without any fear or pressure;
  • Stable because the legitimacy of the state is not tied to an individual ruler or ruling party;
  • A constitution or well-respected constitutional conventions which are upheld by the judiciary within the state;
  • Popular participation of people in large numbers;
  • Strong and independent media which are unbiased and free from the control of the government;
  • A system of "checks and balances" and control of one organ of the state by another; and
  • Economic stability with continuity in policies for a specific period (Charlton, 1986).
  
  C. Authority
  Alluding to legitimacy, the concept of state authority also defines how power is wielded within the framework of rule of law to best service popular interest. Authority is often used interchangeably with the term ‘power’. However, their meanings differ. Power is defined as ‘the ability to influence somebody to do something that he/she would not have done’, and Authority refers to a claim of legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power (Dahl, 1971). In other words, the right to exercise power is legitimate when it is wielded by the rule of law. If it is not in the interest of the consent, ultimately the power exercised by that authority may be deemed as illegitimate.
  For instance, the covert operations undertaken by the state to deport Julian Moti out of PNG to Solomon Islands although is in the best interest of national security is absolutely illegitimate as the power of the authority to conduct that exercise is not justified by the rule of law and, even so, consent of the populous.
  Max Webber argues that legitimate authority is one which is recognized as legitimate and justified by both the ruler and the ruled.
  All states through the constitution sets up its institutions as its apparatus which are legitimate to exercise authority. For instance, the existence of Ombudsman Commission is a constitutional apparatus of the state bestowed with legal authority to ensure ‘checks and balances’ or a balance of power. Limiting its power by the state will contradict the notion of legitimacy. This, in extreme cases, may possibly lead to a state of anarchy.
  More so, jurisprudence governs the behaviour of individuals in the society, who are driven by human nature. Human nature is driven by self-interest, a stimulus to graft. Decisions and policies pursued outside the rule of law is egoistic in nature and remains only to serve the interest of certain individuals (elites) of the society. This often leads to conflict.
  Interestingly, with high impact projects such as LNG coming on stream in the market economy, certain individuals, government officials, political segments or regimes may use graft in the name of legitimacy to manipulate and bulldoze policies or laws to satisfy their own interest. Karl Marx sees it as a draconian capitalist mode of legitimacy. The irrational approach undertaken by the state in developing and managing the LNG projects which resulted in resource owners’ rebellion is a signal of civil crisis. In such situation, a state of anarchy is inevitable.
  
  D. Anarchy (Anarchism)
  Anarchy is the absence of government - a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power or political disorder. Anarchism is a political philosophy which considers the state undesirable, unnecessary and harmful, and instead promotes a stateless society, or anarchy. It seeks to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations (Christiano, 2004).
  Nevertheless, a state can delve into a state of anarchy should the legitimate authority distorts the rule of law. The state, its apparatus and officials may fall prey to graft behaviour to satisfy its human nature. When this occurs legitimacy is undermined causing constitutional crisis and leads to anarchy. The state theoretically will be in chaos, at the extreme of it, inexistent. In order words, if the authority violates the rule of law, the legitimate government is in itself anarchy – an illegitimate government. The civil society assumes full liberty at the expense of illegitimate government and wilfully takes the rule of law into their own hands.
  For instance, this scenario may pose an important strategic question of energy security. Increasingly, with a seemingly draconian political regime in PNG, manipulated by global forces – international actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs) penetrating and influencing state decisions and policies in energy industry, a possible civil crisis in resource theatres is a potential threat. Resource owners will no longer respect the rule of law – law will be taken into their own hands – thus sovereignty of the state will be at stake.
  
  5. Conclusion
  In conclusion, theoretically, constitutional crisis is a situation that occurs when the ‘right to rule’ by the ‘rule of law ‘is under question. When this happens civil crisis is inevitable which can lead to anarchy. Practically, the recent constitutional crisis in PNG has reached a critical point of ‘brinks of demise’. The people have lost confidence and trust in state’s legitimacy. The future scenario is gloomy. A civil crisis remains highly possible, which can lead into a state of anarchy.

The Nexus between Vision 2050 and Energy Security Conundrum

Francis Hualupmomi

Introduction
Competition of energy by hegemonic powers in the Pacific region, in particular PNG has the potential to trigger inter-state or intra-state conflict or war. It is predicted that between 2015 and 2020 at macro level, conflict and war is possible between the two major conventional rival powers, US and China, whilst at micro level, civil conflict or war is possible between the state, Multi-national Corporations (MNCs) and disgruntled resource owners. These assumed scenarios posed an energy security conundrum. Therefore it is argued that China and PNG must play an important role in maintaining a ‘balance of power’ in the region through soft diplomacy. This article is an attempt to analyse and forecast future security implications and challenges in quest for energy by China and US in PNG and how these scenarios will affect Vision 2050. This will be approached at macro and micro level.

Political Economy of Energy Security: Competition and Power
Energy is both renewable and non-renewable resources. Non-renewable resources constitute fossil fuels such as petroleum (oil), hydrocarbon (gas), coal, steal, and others whilst renewable resources compose bio fuel such as solar, windmill, and others. The demand for these energy sources is so high compared to other market commodities as indicated by trends. The demand exceeds supply as non-renewable resources are over-consumed by industrialised states mostly NICs (Newly Industrialised Countries) and big economies such as the US, China, Japan, etc. The energy supply bases for the global market economy are mostly from resource-rich regions of South America, Africa, Asia and Pacific.

Historically countries within these regions have been conquered by imperialist powers in quest for ‘scramble of resources’. More precisely, these countries have always been their (imperialists’) national interest. The demand and supply of energy is a function of economic and military power. Energy resources will remain the national interest of any state in the drive towards modernisation and industrialisation.

US, China, Japan are the largest consumers of energy followed by ‘New Comers’, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Indonesia and others. For instance, China is the second largest importer of energy apart from US, especially in oil, as a result of a constant 25 years of economic growth. Its consumption from oil has risen sharply since 1993. Today it imports 40% of oil and its dependence on energy has continued to grow. According to a UN Economic Commission & Social Commission report China accounted for less than 1% of world’s energy consumption (2008).

Increasingly, as countries face rapid economic growth, urbanisation, demographic challenges, and military capability build-up, the appetite for energy will surge and fuel stiff competition among rising powers because of its economic scarcity.

The rise of NICs and or emerging powers such as India, and Pakistan will also spur more fierce and intense competition, which has already create tensions between hegemonic powers in the Asia Pacific region. More over, this scenario can potentially affect the socio-economic growth instigating civil crisis mostly in developing countries as demand for energy exceeds supply.

Macro Level:
The Pacific region in the southern hemisphere is identified by hegemonic powers as the last frontier of resource-rich nations, and in fact PNG alone has been indentified as the key geo-strategic economic base for energy supply in international relations. Therefore, Pacific in particular, PNG is or will be hegemonic powers’ national interest. As far as geo-strategic relation is concerned competition between China and US is absolutely inevitable.

At the macro level, the US assumes traditional hegemonic power in the Pacific through its deputy sheriffs; Australia, New Zealand, Japan and Britain. The end of Cold War delineates scaling down of US’s role in the Pacific with some of its missions being closed, for instance, in Solomon Islands.

Until recently, US increasingly refocus its foreign policy with respect to China’s increasing role in the region. As a result a strategic shift took place in 2008 when US announced to have its military base be relocated to Guam with a strategic objective to contain Chinese expansionism. This was evidenced in 2008 when the then Bush Administration declared the “Pacific Year” as part of its foreign policy. The US has always perceived China as its major threat in Asia Pacific. The region is closely watched by the eagle eyes in order to contain dragon’s infiltration.
In contrary, China has always played a smart game diplomacy through soft diplomacy to secure friendship with an aim to spread its culture and philosophy across borders. Indeed, Chinese diplomacy is based on Confuciasm philosophy of ‘harmonious society’. She promotes this philosophy through soft development Aids unconditionally to developing countries. In so doing, China provides a win-win situation for all actors. In PNG, Chinese foreign direct investment is voluminous. For instance, Ramu Nickel mine, the proposed International Conference Center, and many others.

Consequently, Chinese dominant role in development bilateral relations in the Pacific region has stimulated and accelerated economic growth; while at the same time increasingly instils fear and insecurity to US and its deputy sheriffs in the region. Australia, though a middle power, have competed to protect US backyard through its conditional loans, is still struggling to contain Chinese influence.

Hence, Chinese diplomatic approach in the Pacific in assisting Small Island states such as PNG through investment in energy – LNG Projects - may perhaps be perceived by US as menace as far as regional stability is concerned. More so, whilst US may perceive China otherwise, China is also promoting ‘collaborative diplomacy’ in Pacific to secure its potential energy suppliers of oil, gas, nickel, etc to build its economy, whilst establishing friendship.

Hence from a hegemonic stability perspective it is argued that diverging interests and ideational dynamics can possibly cause inter-state conflict which can trigger possible war. One would also argue that energy diplomacy may oscillate the reconfiguration of hegemonic power relations in the Pacific.

Micro Level:
At micro level it appears that legitimacy crisis and civil war are potential threats to national security as far as energy security is concerned.

First, there is possibility that the disgruntled resource owners may rebel against the state which could trigger legitimacy crisis and civil war. Second, disgruntled resource-rich owner may rebel against the MNCs which can cause civil crisis or possible military intervention (although war is unlikely).

In the former, experiences over unresolved issues relating to energy economy have demonstrated a rebellious scenario. Resource owners in most mining and petroleum projects in PNG have been treated unfairly in terms of redistribution of wealth by the government. Poor Royalties and lack of development services were a great concern. This asymmetry can lead into civil crisis when the people take the ‘rule of law’ into their own hands.
State graft by government officials in siphoning project money covertly into their empires through illegal means can cause legitimacy or civil crisis. For instance, The LNG project in Southern Highlands Province is an assumed scenario. Resource owners in the province have military capability to revolt against the state. The Singirok Gun Report suggested high and semi- powered factory guns owned by the people.

In the latter, civil war between the state and MNCs is highly possible. The operations of Exxon Mobile and G4S in LNG sites have already question the sovereignty of the state and a concern to national security. Exxon Mobil is the richest US Company in the world, which has close relationship with the US government. Exxon Mobile’s presence in PNG is a US national interest as far as its security is concern.

G4S is a highly militarised private mercenary company of US protecting its interest in different Oil fields under various berets. G4S presence also questions its immunity to the state law. The nexus between rebellious resource owners against Exxon Mobile is a threat to US and therefore is deemed as its high priority national security. In the event that the state and G4S fail to contain and stabilize the civil rebellion US military intervention is possible, although it may seem unlikely, however the 1994 Gulf War speaks for itself. There are also other civil crises such as in East Timor, Nigeria, Somalia, instigated by energy competition.

Challenge for Vision 2050
The government’s aspiration to attain ‘Middle Income Country’ by 2050 and thereby, becoming a ‘Wise, Smart, and Happy Society by 2050 may not be not fully released if it does not critically evaluate energy security systematically and respond thoughtfully at a global scale. This new paradigm shift in government thinking is a grand challenge as a nation state in modernisation. It appears that this vision may not achieve its stated gaols and objectives if security issues are not critically conceptualised at grand level. I am of the view that the greatest conundrum will ultimately rest on energy security.

PNG is predicted to see a spiralling economic growth rate of 8% annually with the full economisation of LNG projects by 2014. Although energy projects may transform PNG into a MIC at forecasted growth rate similar to China echoed by some economic analysts, its security implications are incalculable.

Energy security is strategically vital to assess ‘where we are, where we want go and how we will get there’ with energy. This will involve analysing security at macro and micro level that appropriate strategies can be framed to systematically respond thoughtfully to emerging security threats. Security of the state and individual is absolutely vital to fully realise the vision.

Role of PNG-Sino Relations
In order to avoid future conflict or possible war China and PNG will have to play an important role to maintain a balance of power in the region. PNG as an economic and strategic interest of hegemonic powers in the region will have to play a neutral diplomacy within ‘the axis of evil’ whilst China continues to play a soft diplomacy based on ‘collaborative and consensus diplomacy’. China must convince US misperception in its role in the Pacific region. PNG on the other hand must refocus or res-cope its foreign policy to contextualise the regional security perspective.

Conclusion
In conclusion energy security is a national security priority of any state. At macro level, since energy is scarce, competition between rival powers and other emerging powers can cause conflict or war in the region. At micro level legitimacy crisis or civil war is inevitable. It is argued that PNG will become a mere spectator as economic competition between China and US intensifies in the region. These scenarios pose a great challenge to PNG with respect to Vision 2050. Therefore, PNG and China will play an important role to avoid such crisis and maintain a balance of power in the region.

Any views presented here are the author’s own and it does not represent anyone or any organisation. For further information I can be informed through this email address: profdrakes@gmail.com