Green Party co-leader James Shaw has compared the language of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters to former US president Donald Trump, saying it may be emboldening violence against candidates in Aotearoa NZ’s election campaign.

It comes after several candidates from different parties have spoken out about being targeted, including a home invasion on Te Pāti Māori’s youngest candidate, an assault on a Labour candidate, and another Labour candidate saying she has faced the “worst comments and vitriol” this campaign.

Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke, whose home was ram raided and invaded, put the blame on what she called race-baiting from right-wing parties.

Peters told Newshub Nation that notion was wrong, and accused Te Pāti Māori of being a racist party.

But Shaw — who himself was assaulted in 2019 — suggested Peters could be empowering and emboldening extremists.

“It makes me really angry. Because political leaders, through the things we say create an air of permissiveness for that kind of extreme language and now physical violence to take place and it’s not too dissimilar to what we saw in the United States under Donald Trump,” he said.

“Half of the argument about Trump was whether he personally intervened to make those things happen and at one level it doesn’t matter, he created an atmosphere where these extremists felt empowered and emboldened to kind of enact their kind of crazy, racist, misogynist fantasies.

Lead to physical violence
“And that did lead to physical violence there and it’s leading to physical violence here too.”

However, Shaw told RNZ he was not surprised given the “misogynist and racist rhetoric”, which he said had been at least in part been given permission by political parties in this election campaign.

“[It] has created a situation where that kind of online hate and violent language is only one or two steps from actual acts of physical violence and now you’re starting to see those manifest. It is really worrying.

“I think all of us have a responsibility to try and create an atmosphere for democracy to take place, which is respectful, where people can have different opinions and for that to be okay.

“And I think that at the moment we’re seeing a rise in this kind of culture or language which is imported from overseas, that is not just unhelpful but downright dangerous.”

Te Pāti Māori said the break-in at Maipi-Clarke’s house was yet another example of political extremism in New Zealand.

Co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer said some right-wing politicians were emboldening racist behaviour and needed to take responsibility.

‘Harmful inciting’
“We have seen a harmful inciting, a very harmful emboldening of extremism, this is an example of that.

“We’ve had it with our billboards – they’ve been so destroyed that we haven’t been able to afford to replace a lot of them now. It’s just been disgusting, the extent of racism.”

This year’s election had brought some of the worst abuse Te Pāti Māori had ever experienced, she said.

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters claimed of Maipi-Clarke’s incident that “it couldn’t have been a home invasion” and he would answer more questions about the case when he knew all the facts.

“As for the first one [alleged assault on Labour’s Angela Roberts], violence of that sort is just not acceptable, full stop.”

He believed the time for candidates was worse was during the Rogernomics period of the 1980s.

“With respect, I can recall during the period of Rogernomics, there was a full scale fight going on inside the Labour Party convention.”

Minorities persecuted
Labour Party leader Chris Hipkins — who has vowed to call out racism — said a number of parties were deliberately trying to persecute minorities and it was reprehensible.

Assaulting candidates or threatening their safety “shows total contempt for the very principle of democracy”, he said.

He had made it clear to all Labour’s candidates that if they thought their physical safety might be at risk, they should not do that activity, Hipkins said.

“I think there has been more racism and misogyny in this election than we’ve seen in previous elections.”

Hipkins said he had respect for women and Māori who put themselves forward in elected office, but they should never have to put up with the level of abuse that they have had to in this campaign.

National Party leader Christopher Luxon told reporters his party had referred several incidents to the police too.

Luxon said he condemned threats and violence on political candidates, or their family and property, as well as all forms of racism.

Number of serious incidents
“It’s entirely wrong. We’ve had a number of serious incidents that we’ve referred to the police as well, over the course of this campaign.

“I think it’s important for all New Zealanders to understand that politicians are putting themselves forward, you may disagree with their politics, you may disagree with their policies, but we can disagree without being disagreeable in this country.”

He would not detail the complaints his party had made to police.

He said political leaders had a responsibility not to fearmonger during the campaign.

“Running fearmongering campaigns and negative campaigns just amps it up, and I think actually what we need to do is actually everyone needs to respect each other. We have differences of opinion about how to take the country forward, we are unique in New Zealand in that we can maintain our political civility, we don’t need to go down the pathway we’ve seen in other countries.

“It’s just about leadership, right, it’s about a leader modelling out the behaviour and treating people that they expect to treated.”

Asked if National had a hand in being responsible for fearmongering, he said it did not, and their campaign was positive and focused on what mattered most to New Zealanders.

Worry over online abuse
Shaw was worried for his candidates, having seen the online abuse they were subjected to.

“It’s vile, it is really extreme and it is stronger now than it has been in previous election campaigns and like I said I don’t think it takes much for a particularly unhinged individual from whacking their keyboard to whacking a person.”

But it was worse for female candidates and Māori, he said.

“Not just a little bit, not just an increment, but orders in magnitude, from what I’ve seen my colleagues be exposed to. It is just unhinged.”

There has been increased police participation in this campaign, Shaw said.

“Parliamentary security have got new protocols that we are observing. We have changed, for example, the way we campaign, the way we do public meetings, or when we’re out and about, we’re observing new security protocols that we haven’t had in previous years.”

Hipkins said where there might be additional risk, they have worked with Parliamentary Service on a cross-party basis to ensure there was additional support available for some MPs.

All parties have an interest in ensuring the election campaign was conducted safely, he said.

What has happened?
This week, Te Pāti Māori candidate Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke’s home was ram raided and invaded, with a threatening note left.

Police said they were investigating the burglary of a Huntly home, which was reported to them on Monday.

Te Pāti Māori issued a statement saying it was the third incident to take place at Maipi-Clarke’s home this week.

Also this week, Labour candidate for Taranaki-King Country Angela Roberts said she had laid a complaint with the police about being assaulted at an election debate in Inglewood.

Hipkins said he had great respect for Roberts, and he told her she could take any time off if she needed to, but she has chosen not to.

“She’s an incredibly staunch and energetic campaigner and I know it knocked the wind out of her sails a little bit, but I know that she’s bouncing back.”

On Thursday, Labour candidate for Northland Willow-Jean Prime told reporters she has faced the “worst comments and vitriol” in the seven campaigns she has been through – two in local government and five in central government.

“I was being shouted down every time I went to answer a question by supporters of other candidates primarily, there were not many of the general public in there,” she said of a Taxpayers Union debate in Kerikeri.

“Whenever I said a te reo Māori word, like puku, for full tummies, lunches in schools, I was shouted at.

“When I said Aotearoa, the crowd responded ‘It’s New Zealand!’. When I said rangatahi, ‘stop speaking that lanugage!’ that is racism coming from the audience, that’s not disagreeing with the gains I’m explaining that we’ve made in government.”

She said she noticed that type of “dog-whistling” in other candidate debates, but not whilst out and about with the general public.

“What is really worrying is that they feel so emboldened to be able to come out and say this stuff publicly, they don’t care that other people that might be in the audience, that might be listening or the impact that has on us as candidates.”

The New Zealand general election is on October 14, but early voting begins on October 2.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) has condemned the phenomena of former corruption convicts becoming active again in political parties after serving their sentences.

However, it says this is not a new phenomenon in the world of politics.

ICW coordinator Agus Sunaryanto revealed several names of people who were caught up in corruption cases and who were now active again in political parties.

He cited names such as Andi Mallarangeng from the Democrat Party, who was indicted in the Hambalang sports complex case and released from prison in 2017.

Nazaruddin, also from the Democrat Party, was indicted in two cases — the 4.6 billion rupiah (NZ$4.65 million) bribery case involving the Wisma Atlet (Athletes Village), as well as graft and money laundering.

The latest is former United Development Party (PPP) chairperson Muhammad Romahurmuziy (Romy) who was indicted over receiving bribes for selling posts in the Ministry of Religious Affairs in 2019.

After being released from prison, Romahurmuziy was appointed as chairperson of the PPP’s Advisory Board.

“So (the phenomena of ex-corruptors becoming active again in political parties) is not just happening in the PPP. The Democrats are also like that, Nazaruddin and Andi Mallarangeng for example,” Sunaryanto told journalists.

‘Internal problem’
Sunaryanto said he suspected there was an “internal problem” in the political parties so that in the end they accepted former corruption convicts rejoining the party.

He also gave a flashback over the actions by the political parties when their members were indicted in corruption cases.

Sunaryanto said that the parties “fall over themselves publicly” in taking stern measures against corrupt members, such as dismissing them.

But these dismissals were just a political gimmick because party members could easily rejoin after they had served their sentences.

“I think there is a problem in the political parties. The political parties actually take good steps when [members] are declared suspects. Before, the Democrats immediately dismissed them [Nazaruddin and Mallarangeng], but then after they’re released, they come back in again. This is simply a political gimmick,” he added.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “ICW Sindir Eks Koruptor Masuk Partai Lagi: Seperti Gimmick Politik”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The opposition FijiFirst party still “seems to be confused” about the role of its general secretary Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, says prominent Suva lawyer Richard Naidu.

“Mr Sayed-Khaiyum appears to have triggered his exit from Parliament by accepting a position on the Constitutional Offices Commission,” he said.

“That means he is a ‘public officer’ as defined in the Constitution.

“An MP who accepts appointment as a ‘public officer’ loses his seat in Parliament. That has already happened.

“Mr Bainimarama is now suggesting that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum will continue as general secretary of FijiFirst.

“But Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is still a ‘public officer’.

“Under section 14(1)(b) of the Political Parties (Registration Conduct Funding and Disclosures Act 2013) a ‘public officer’ is not eligible to be a political party official.

“In fact, under section 14(1)(a), while he holds office in the Constitutional Offices Commission, Mr Sayed-Khaiyum is not allowed even to be a member of the FijiFirst party.

“So FFP’s plans for Mr Sayed-Khaiyum, now that he is out of Parliament, still seem confused.

‘Other parties will be writing’
“No doubt other political parties will be writing to the Registrar of Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, asking him to ensure that the FijiFirst party is complying with the law.”

Naidu was referring to a video statement on the FijiFirst party Facebook page on Tuesday night where FijiFirst leader Voreqe Bainimarama said Sayed-Khaiyum’s exit from Parliament would mean that “he will be able to fully concentrate on FijiFirst matters outside Parliament”.

“I will be leading the charge inside Parliament and he will be leading the charge outside Parliament,” Bainimarama said.

“So to ensure that we are constantly in touch with our supporters and all Fijians on a daily basis, I have tasked our general secretary to be our voice outside Parliament.

“He will be in our parliamentary office, he will give us advice and also issue statements on behalf of FijiFirst when Parliament is not sitting.”

Registrar of Political Parties Mohammed Saneem confirmed that any person taking up public office must ensure that they comply with section 14(1) of the of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013.

In a media statement issued after questions from The Fiji Times, he said public office holders according to section 14(1) of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013 (Act) were not eligible to be an applicant or a member of a registered political party, not eligible to hold office in a registered political party, are not to engage in political activity that may compromise or be seen to compromise the political neutrality of that person’s office in an election; or publicly indicate support for or opposition to any proposed political party or a registered political party or candidate in an election.

Felix Chaudhary is a Fiji Times reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The highly anticipated 2022 election last month was a very close, emotionally charged and highly controversial affair.

All that is behind us now and it is time to reflect on it critically and learn some important lessons as we welcome the dawn of 2023.

Despite the Supervisor of Elections’ prediction of a low percentage turnout of around the 50s, the actual turnout of 68.29 percent was surprisingly reasonable given the inconvenient December 14 date and other restrictions such as married women being required to change their names to the birth certificate ones, voting restrictions to one polling station and other legislative and logistical issues.

The postal ballot votes had the highest turnout rate of 75.92 per cent and the others in descending order were: Northern Division (73.88 per cent); Eastern Division (69.98 per cent); Western Division (68.82 per cent); and Central Division (65.6 per cent).

Victim of own PR system
This may sound ridiculous but it all came down to 658 voters, the equivalent of 0.14 percent of the votes, which enabled Sodelpa to stay above the 5 percent threshold.

It was this small number of voters who made the difference by giving Sodelpa the ultimate power broker position which enabled the People’s Alliance Party (PA)-National Federation Party (NFP) coalition to edge out the FijiFirst party (FFP) by a very slim margin after hours of horse trading followed by two rounds of voting.

However, this is what the voting calculus is all about — every vote counts and even one vote can make a substantial difference.

This is even more so in our Proportional Representation (PR) system, which was originally meant to encourage small parties to gain votes and be competitive against the dominant ones when it was first conceived in Europe in the early 1900s.

Theoretically, the idea is to shift the centre of power gravity from dominant parties to diverse groups to ensure that representation was more dispersed and democratic.

Thus, most countries with PR systems (there are different variants) have coalition governments.

New Zealand, which has two electoral systems merged into one (Mixed Member Proportional or MMP), consisting of the PR and First-Past-the-Post (FPP), has a history of coalitions since the PR component was introduced.

Other countries with coalition governments
Other countries which use the PR system are Israel, Columbia, Finland, Latvia, Sweden, Nepal and Netherlands, to name a few, and they all have coalition governments.

But why didn’t this coalition electoral outcome happen in Fiji during the first two elections in 2014 and 2018 although these were held under the PR system?

The reason is because the FFP was able to effectively deploy what political scientists refer to as the “coattail effect” — the tactic of using a popular political leader to attract votes.

So in this case, statistics show that there has been a direct correlation between coattail votes for Voreqe Bainimarama, the FFP leader, and the electoral fortunes of the FFP.

For instance, Bainimarama was able to attract 40.79 percent of the total votes during the 2014 election and this enabled FFP to secure around 59.17 percent of the total national votes. Bainimarama’s votes went down to 36.92 percent during the 2018 election and this reduced the FFP voting proportion by 9.12 percent to 50.02 percent.

The decline in Bainimarama’s votes to 29.08 percent during the 2022 election also reduced the FFP’s votes to 42.55 percent, well below the 50 plus 1 mark needed by the party to remain in power.

The total decline of 11.71 percent of Bainimarama’s votes and 16.62 percent of the FFP votes between 2014 and 2022 is a worrying sign and if the trend continues, they may be hitting the 30 percent mark at the time of the 2026 election.

By and large, the swing of votes away from FFP was around 10 percent or so, with a shifting margin of around 3 to 4 percent.

The long Bainimarama coattail has slowly withered away over time.

Before the election I warned in a Fiji Times interview early in 2022 that given the diminishing trend of the FFP electoral support, together with other data, the party would be lucky to survive the 2022 election and thus would need a coalition partner.

I also said that the PA, NFP, Sodelpa and other parties would need to form a national coalition to be able to rule.

The writing was on the wall and it appeared that the FFP was going to be victim of the PR electoral system they introduced in an ironically Frankensteinian way.

“Wasted votes” and weakness of the PR system
The results of the 2022 election shows that the power gravity has shifted significantly and in future we are going to see governments in Fiji formed on the basis of coalitions and thus elections will need to be fought on the basis of party partnership.

This means that smaller parties, which have no hope of getting over the 5 percent threshold will need to make critical assessments and the only survival option is to join bigger parties which have more chances of winning.

Herein lies one of the weaknesses of our version of the PR system where the votes by the smaller parties, which cannot get over the 5 percent threshold, are considered “wasted”.

This is in contrast to the Alternative Voting (AV) system under the 1997 Fiji Constitution, which provided for losing votes to be recycled and used by other parties based on preferential listing. In the 2022 election, 35,755 votes were “wasted”, which equated to 4.81 percent of the total votes.

By Fiji standard, this was a relatively large number indeed.

However, the idea of “wasted votes” is a contentious one because, while from an electoral calculus point of view, these votes may serve no purpose and are deemed useless, from a political rights perspective, the votes represent people’s inalienable moral and democratic rights to make political choices, whatever the outcome, and thus must be respected and not condemned as wasted.

The new era of transformation
The small margin of 29 to 26 seats and indeed the intriguing 28-27 voting in Parliament should be reason for the Coalition government to be on its toes and not be complacent about the sustainability of the three-party partnership.

They must try as much as possible to maintain a united synergy through a win-win power sharing arrangement.

They have started this so far with the co-deputy prime ministership and portfolio sharing and this needs to deepen to other areas so that it is not seen as a marriage of convenience but a genuine attempt at nation building and transformation.

To keep their momentum going and mobilise more support and legitimacy, they need to use the diverse expertise and wide range of professional skills at their disposal to bring about meaningful, consultative, transparent and transformative policy changes for the country.

Part of the process will be to reverse some of the FFP’s fear-mongering, vindictive, controlling and authoritarian style of policymaking and leadership, which have left many victims strewn across our national landscape and which weakened support for the FFP.

While there are still flames of anger and vengeance burning in some people’s hearts as a result of victimisation by the previous regime, it is imperative now to listen to Nelson Mandela’s advice after he was released from jail — allow the mind to rule over emotions and move on with dignity.

We must break the cycle of political vengeance and vindictiveness, which became part of our political culture since 2006 and as prominent lawyers Imrana Jalal and Graham Leung have advised, it is important to ensure that changes are within the law and not driven by destructive emotions, or else we will be following the same path as the previous regime.

These will take a high degree of levelheadedness and moral restraint, qualities already displayed by the coalition leadership so far.

For the FFP, it is time to go back to the drawing board, rethink about their overreliance on coattail approach, re-strategise and reflect on why voters are deserting them.

They will no doubt be sharpening their daggers to get inside the coalition armour and target the weak links and vulnerable spots.

They will try all the tricks in the book to make the coalition partnership as shortlived as possible through destabilisation strategies and vote poaching by winning over an extra Sodelpa vote to add to the single mysterious vote, which went FFP way during the parliamentary vote for the Speaker and PM.

Sodelpa may need to warn the person concerned and if the betrayal does not stop after the next round of parliamentary vote then they may need to invoke Section 63(h) of the Constitution, which specifies that a parliamentarian can lose his or her seat if the person’s vote is “contrary to any direction issued by the political party…”

This will then open the door for Ro Temumu Kepa, who is next on the SODELPA party list, to take the vacant seat and help stabilise the coalition’s parliamentary position a bit more.

Some electoral lessons for the future
The intense political horse-trading, high pressure power manoeuvring and stressful competition for coalition partnership in the hours after the election has taught us a few lessons.

Firstly, political parties should now start thinking about forging partnerships because future elections can only be won through coalition.

PAP and NFP made a great move by getting into a coalition early and this worked out well for them.

The coalition government now has a head start.

Secondly, political parties should learn to be humble, not burn their bridges when they part with their old comrades nor should they feel super and invincible by trying to do things on their own. Old grievances can come back to haunt you if they are not addressed early

Thirdly, small parties need to pay attention to the electoral calculus and engage with parties, which have potential to propel them above the 5 percent threshold or join together as small parties to form larger political groupings before the election.

Fourth, voters will need to be smart and strategic about their votes to ensure that they are not wasted.

These “wasted” votes do make a difference in the end when the results are tallied.

Fifthly, given the need for partnerships, especially when margins are narrow, forging positive relationship and goodwill with other political parties early before elections can be rewarding political capital while vindictiveness and ill will can be destructive and regrettable political liabilities.

There is still time — about 48 months away before the next election.

Steven Ratuva is distinguished professor and pro-vice chancellor Pacific at the University of Canterbury and chair of the International Political Science Association Research Committee on climate security and planetary politics. This article was first published in The Fiji Times and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua New Guinea politics — or for that matter, Parliament — will no longer be the same any more in this country.

The defeats of experienced and long serving MPs Patrick Pruaitch, Davis Steven, John Simon and Dr Allan Marat has completely changed the landscape of politics in PNG.

And similar upsets are expected in coming days as counting proceeds in more than 70 electorates around the country.

Continuity in leadership at the national level in any country is important, and in PNG, it is no different.

This country still requires the presence of a good number of capable individuals in Parliament at any given term of the House who have the necessary skills, knowledge, and abilities to lead Parliament, or better still, provide that guidance needed by those who govern to ensure proper checks and balance are maintained.

The defeats of the four long-serving MPs reflects the wishes of their people and must be respected. No one will unwind the clock of events that have taken place in this election.

However, the losses suffered so far and the likelihood of other leaders bowing out leaves huge holes in Parliament and in their political parties which will take time to fill.

20 years in Parliament
National Alliance Party leader and a former Treasurer Pruaitch, an economist by profession, lost the Aitape Lumi seat he has held since 2002 — the year another stable and highly respected politician and lawyer, Dr Allan Marat, entered Parliament.

Joining them a decade later were John Simon who took the Maprik Open seat in East Sepik province and Davis Steven who took the Esa-ala seat in Milne Bay province.

Deputy National Alliance party leader Walter Schnaubelt and East Sepik Governor-elect Allan Bird thanked the people of Aitape-Lumi for their support for Pruaitch over the last 20 years.

They advised over the weekend that the party would convene their meeting to address this issue among others and make an announcement later.

The casualty list so far includes Rabaul MP Dr Allan Marat, Maprik MP John Simon, Huon-Gulf MP Ross Seymour, ENB Governor Nakikus Konga, Koroba-Kopiago MP Petrus Thomas, Nawaeb MP Kennedy Wenge, and Menyama MP Benjamin Philip.

All lost their seats to first time MPs.

Gorethy Kenneth is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Central to the selection of the prime minister in Papua New Guinea following a general election is Section 63 of PNG’s Organic Law on Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC), which was passed in 2001 (and then amended in 2003).

Section 63 requires that the Governor-General invites the party with the highest number of MPs following a general election to form the government.

The main aim of the section is to ensure that the appointment of a prime minister after a general election is done in an “orderly way with direct relationship to the way voters expressed their wishes”.

Analysis shows that the passage of OLIPPAC has influenced government formation. First, it has increased the probability that, as is now a legislative requirement, the PM comes from the largest party.

This has happened in all elections since OLIPPAC was legislated (2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017), but only happened in two out of the five pre-OLIPPAC elections (1977 and 1982).

For example, as Table 1 shows, in 1997 the People’s National Congress Party (PNC) had the sixth highest number of MPs but still was able to put forward the successful candidate for PM.

Second, Section 63 also seems to have increased the odds of an incumbent PM being returned. Since the first post-independence election in 1977, five incumbent prime ministers have been re-appointed as PM following one of the country’s nine national elections (see Table 2).

Two developments closely related
The other four times a new prime minister was appointed post-elections. The five times the incumbent was returned are 1977 (Somare), 1987 (Wingti), 2007 (Somare), 2012 (O’Neill) and 2017 (O’Neill). Only two of the five incumbent returns are before the first enactment of OLIPPAC in 2001, and the other three are all post-OLIPPAC.

These two developments are closely related. Over the life of the Parliament, MPs tend to join the party of the PM, meaning that that party goes into the election with by far the largest number of MPs. For instance, PNC won 27 seats in 2012, led by the incumbent PM Peter O’Neill, and formed the government.

More MPs joined PNC, and by the time the 2017 elections came around, PNC had 55 MPs. Even though PNC lost 34 sitting MPs, with only 21 getting re-elected, it added seven new MPs in the 2017 elections.

This took PNC’s numbers to 28 MPs, and, after the 2017 elections, it wound up forming the government.

About half the incumbent MPs don’t get re-elected every election, but in general voters do not vote along party lines. Even if they do, and even if there is a swing against the PM’s party, because it has such an advantage going in, it is likely to emerge as the largest party as well.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled the restrictions imposed by OLIPPAC on the movement of MPs between parties unconstitutional. This means that MPs can move parties in the period between when they are declared winners following the national election and the appointment of the PM.

What happened in 1987, 1992 and 1997 — when parties with fewer MPs formed the government — could be repeated, Section 63 notwithstanding. All MPs would need to do is submit their letter of resignation to the party that endorsed them for the election, together with a letter of acceptance from the new party they intend to join, to the Registry of Political Parties and Candidates before the election of the PM, and their movement to the new party would become official.

Little incentive to leave
However, we have not seen that happening. This is because there is little incentive for MPs in the largest party to leave if it is likely to become the party of government. Rather, other MPs will join, by joining either the largest party or the governing coalition.

The only incumbent PM not to benefit from the passage of OLIPPAC was, ironically, its architect, Sir Mekere Morauta. He did not go into the election with the largest party, and he certainly did not emerge from it with the largest either.

This should remind us that there is no guarantee that the incumbent PM will be returned post-election. But it does seem that Section 63 has had the unintended consequence of increasing the probability of this happening.

Most view stability as a good thing, but the problem is that the more likely the incumbent is to be returned at the general election, the more pressure there will be to remove him (or perhaps one day her) by a vote of no confidence – since that becomes the only way to do it.

It may be no coincidence that both PMs who have so far benefited from Section 63 (Somare in 2002 and 2007 and O’Neill in 2012 and 2017) lost power mid-term on the floor of Parliament.

Note that the provisions of Section 63 of OLIPPAC do not apply to a vote of no confidence. In a vote of no confidence, any political party (or MP) is eligible to nominate a candidate to contest for the prime minister’s seat. Even an MP without a political party is eligible to be nominated for the PM’s post.

Section 63 was passed with good intentions, but has led to a situation in which increasing stability either side of elections may be reducing it between elections.

Michael Kabuni is a lecturer in political science at the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea. Dr Stephen Howes is the Director of the Development Policy Centre and a Professor of Economics at the Crawford School. This research was undertaken with the support of the ANU-UPNG Partnership, an initiative of the PNG-Australia Partnership, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views are those of the authors only.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A View from Afar – In this podcast, political scientist Paul Buchanan and Selwyn Manning will deep-dive into how Aotearoa New Zealand is in the cross-hairs of two distinct political powers – one has been around for awhile and applies influence operations aimed at elites; and the other uses cultural and ideological diffusion that is aimed at civil society. One is a state power, and the other is a cultural ideological phenomenon.

The former wants to change the perspectives of elites in favour of the People’s Republic of China; whereas the latter originates from the United States of America and aims to change the character of democracy itself.

The latter is an under-defined, hardly hidden ideology that we will refer to as Bannonism-Trumpism.

So what is taking shape in New Zealand? Why is New Zealand a political lab-rat of sorts?

How is this battle taking place for the minds and political thinking of New Zealand voters?

What should you be aware of?

What political parties are most vulnerable to these two powerful external influences?

What is the end-game?

Is resistance achievable?

Join Paul and Selwyn for this LIVE recording of this podcast while they consider these big issues, and remember any comments you make while live can be included in this programme.

You can comment on this debate by clicking on one of these social media channels and interacting in the social media’s comment area. Here are the links:

• Facebook.com/selwyn.manning
• Youtube
• Twitter.com/Selwyn_Manning

If you miss the LIVE Episode, you can see it as video-on-demand, and earlier episodes too, by checking out EveningReport.nz or, subscribe to the Evening Report podcast here.

The MIL Network’s podcast A View from Afar was Nominated as a Top  Defence Security Podcast by Threat.Technology – a London-based cyber security news publication.

Threat.Technology placed A View from Afar at 9th in its 20 Best Defence Security Podcasts of 2021 category. You can follow A View from Afar via our affiliate syndicators.

Former Fiji opposition leader Sitiveni Rabuka has submitted his application to register his newly proposed political party — the “People’s Aliance”.

A statement released by the Fijian Elections Office stated that the Registrar of Political Parties, Mohammed Saneem, was now processing the application to register the party.

According to the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding & Disclosures) Act, an association of persons or an organisation shall not operate, function, represent or hold itself out to be a political party unless it has been registered.

Under the Act, the application for registration of a new proposed political party should be accompanied by a schedule setting out the names, addresses, signatures and voter identification card numbers of at least 5000 members from all four divisions.

Rabuka said the proposed party would have to wait for the result and at the same time plan on what to do in the near future.

He said he would not be able to comment further as the proposed party awaited its application result.

Meanwhile, speaking to The Fiji Times during an interview last week, Rabuka revealed that some people who contested the 2018 general elections had resigned from political parties they represented to join him in contesting the next election.

He confirmed this during an interview at his home in Namadi Heights.

“Some people have resigned from their political parties in the last general elections to join me,” Rabuka said.

“They have shown their support for the next general elections.”

• As a third-ranked military commander, Sitiveni Rabuka staged the first two of four coups d’etat in Fiji in 1987 and was later elected prime minister, serving the country between 1992 and 1999.

Litia Cava is a Fiji Times reporter. This article is republlshed with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz