Papua New Guinea (PNG) has more than 40 registered political parties, yet few voters could explain what most of them stand for. In a democracy approaching its 50th anniversary, political parties are expected to serve as vehicles for ideas, policy agendas, and public accountability. In PNG, however, they more often operate as temporary alliances and personal branding tools for ambitious politicians.
The country’s political landscape is characterised by extreme fragmentation, weak ideological cohesion, and shifting allegiances. Instead of platforms shaping candidates, personalities define parties—and parties themselves rarely survive beyond the careers of their founders. The result is a system that prizes loyalty to individuals over institutions, and expediency over vision.
A Party System in Name Only
PNG’s Organic Law on the Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates (OLIPPAC), introduced in 2001, was meant to stabilise the political system by curbing "party hopping" and fostering loyalty to party platforms. In practice, it has had limited success. Party-switching remains common, especially in the aftermath of elections or during attempts to form government. Coalitions are hastily assembled with little ideological alignment—more a numbers game than a negotiation of values.
The rapid rise and fall of parties illustrates the system’s volatility. Consider the meteoric ascent of the People’s National Congress (PNC) under Peter O’Neill, or the now-diminished National Alliance, once dominant under Sir Michael Somare. Today’s leading parties—Pangu Pati, United Labour Party, and People First Party—are still heavily centred on the charisma and patronage power of their leaders rather than broad-based ideological support.
Politics of Personality, Not Policy
The dominant mode of political competition in PNG is not policy-based debate, but personal mobilisation. Candidates typically campaign on their track record of delivering services, infrastructure, or cash to local constituents. The Member of Parliament is seen less as a legislator and more as a distributor of resources—what some term “the MP-as-ATM” model.
In such a system, political parties become secondary. They offer branding and access to electoral funding, but rarely constrain member behaviour or impose consistent policy agendas. Party manifestos—where they exist—are often vague, poorly communicated, and quickly forgotten after elections.
This dynamic limits long-term policy development. Ministries change hands with political reshuffles, projects are abandoned or duplicated, and reforms often fail to gain traction beyond individual ministerial tenures.
Weak Internal Democracy and Leadership Dominance
Most PNG political parties lack internal democracy. Party leadership positions are often decided by elite consensus or personal influence, not by open elections or grassroots participation. As a result, rank-and-file members have little say in party direction or decision-making.
This centralisation of power makes parties vulnerable to internal collapse when key figures leave, lose elections, or shift alliances. It also weakens party discipline in parliament, as MPs see little incentive to remain loyal to leaders who offer no organisational support or shared ideological vision.
Implications for Governance
A party system built around personalities rather than platforms has serious governance implications. It undermines coherent policymaking, weakens collective responsibility in parliament, and distorts the budget process. Ministers may pursue pet projects or parochial interests rather than national priorities. Coalition governments—frequently unstable—become bargaining tables for political survival rather than forums for policy negotiation.
Furthermore, it blurs the line of accountability for voters. When parties are hollow and policies are interchangeable, citizens are left voting based on name recognition, tribal affiliation, or short-term inducements. This erodes democratic engagement and leaves little room for issue-based politics.
Toward Institutionalised Party Politics
The challenge is not to eliminate political personalities—charismatic leadership is a feature of every democracy—but to embed those personalities within stronger party institutions. That means revisiting laws like OLIPPAC to genuinely promote internal party democracy, policy clarity, and post-election stability.
Political parties must also invest in cultivating young leaders, developing local branches, and articulating clear national visions. Donors and civil society can support these efforts through party-building programs, training in policy development, and public debates that shift focus from personalities to platforms.
PNG’s democracy is not short of talent or ambition—but without stronger party institutions, that energy risks being channelled into perpetual political manoeuvring rather than nation-building.