There is a report on internet by one Nicholas Gruen on the importance of electoral reform in countries like Papua New Guinea. Please click:
The tyranny of unicameral majoritarianism
This follows on the media report of Geoffrey Barker whose criticisms of PNG have raised the ire of some of the old time rocking chair expatriates who think that only they can make critical comment. Please click:
TIME FOR ACTION WITH DYSFUNCTIONAL PNG
Gruen writes of the Proportional Representation (PR) to be used in unicameral parliaments particularly in the developing world.
How many developing countries were given bicameral parliament by the British on independence?
He means that with one house of parliament, there needs to be more than one member for each electorate.
For Papua New Guinea, three per electorate seems to be a good round figure.
There can be one member per electorate if there is an upper and lower house, one member for each.
He proceeds to explain that over the world, unicameral majoritarian government brings corruption, ethnic cleansing and can change land ownership.
Mr Gruen writes well in the report below but scrupulously ignores the cultural background to the bicameral (two house) system.
The upper house of review began as a strategy in England and France for the nobles to keep the peasant members in line.
The French even had a house for the clergy. But the French Revolution soon put an end to that. Perhaps the American separation of Church and State grew out of these times.
In England and Australia, the carpet of the upper house is royal red. The carpet of the lower house has the green of the grass in remembrance that the Witan was first held on the grass under a tree.
The upper house in Australia was intended for the squatters to keep the workers from taking over.
The squattocracy saw itself as the Australian gentry, one cut above the peasants. They voted Liberal/National Party.
So a two house system is out of the question in Papua New Guinea. Who will be eligible to serve in the upper house?
Gruen paints a gross picture of the future. He says that majoritarian systems have been a failure over the world.
He sees PNG moving into dictatorship with colonels taking over. Corruption will rise to a peak.
PNG has to face the importance of accountability particularly with DSIP funds.
Perhaps three members in each electorate will distribute the development a little more widely. Please click:
WEAKNESS IN THE SYSTEM OF CONTROL
Or will it simply mean that more members will have more snouts in the trough?
The tyranny of unicameral majoritarianism
This follows on the media report of Geoffrey Barker whose criticisms of PNG have raised the ire of some of the old time rocking chair expatriates who think that only they can make critical comment. Please click:
TIME FOR ACTION WITH DYSFUNCTIONAL PNG
Gruen writes of the Proportional Representation (PR) to be used in unicameral parliaments particularly in the developing world.
How many developing countries were given bicameral parliament by the British on independence?
He means that with one house of parliament, there needs to be more than one member for each electorate.
For Papua New Guinea, three per electorate seems to be a good round figure.
There can be one member per electorate if there is an upper and lower house, one member for each.
He proceeds to explain that over the world, unicameral majoritarian government brings corruption, ethnic cleansing and can change land ownership.
Mr Gruen writes well in the report below but scrupulously ignores the cultural background to the bicameral (two house) system.
The upper house of review began as a strategy in England and France for the nobles to keep the peasant members in line.
The French even had a house for the clergy. But the French Revolution soon put an end to that. Perhaps the American separation of Church and State grew out of these times.
In England and Australia, the carpet of the upper house is royal red. The carpet of the lower house has the green of the grass in remembrance that the Witan was first held on the grass under a tree.
The upper house in Australia was intended for the squatters to keep the workers from taking over.
The squattocracy saw itself as the Australian gentry, one cut above the peasants. They voted Liberal/National Party.
So a two house system is out of the question in Papua New Guinea. Who will be eligible to serve in the upper house?
Gruen paints a gross picture of the future. He says that majoritarian systems have been a failure over the world.
He sees PNG moving into dictatorship with colonels taking over. Corruption will rise to a peak.
PNG has to face the importance of accountability particularly with DSIP funds.
Perhaps three members in each electorate will distribute the development a little more widely. Please click:
WEAKNESS IN THE SYSTEM OF CONTROL
Or will it simply mean that more members will have more snouts in the trough?
No comments:
Post a Comment