Re: Re: Chief system?November 25 2003 at 10:24 AM
No score for this post
Response to Re: Chief system?
Ok brats. I'm not so good at articulating my ideas, but may be I'll stumble through this and I hope you can make sense out of it all. What I was trying to ask here is simply this:
The form/structure we were forced to adopt a la colonization by the British/German empires was based on their model of hierarchical monarchy or autocracy.
The managers under their kings/queens and emperors studied abstract management theory in an educational establishment and which was usually out of synch with the common people's lot and their realities of life. Their form thrived on subjugating the peasant populace and taxing them heavily. Most land, the fundamental necessity for survival, was usually usurped either by force or deceit and allocated to those closer up the rung in the hierarchy. This adopted form encouraged looking out for self rather than as a member of a community.
History/experience has taught us, that this form has dire consequences in term of distribution of, not only wealth, but the very important basic necessities of life (food and medicine, education, clothing, shelter).
This form we adopted is a fertile ground for vices (misappropriation, accumulation, corruption and mis-governance etc) to germinate and obfuscate virtues (fair distribution of resources necessary for basic sustainance of life, good governance etc).
Our chief system, is also a form of monarchy/ autocracy, but in my opinion, differs greatly.
Each tribe has a chief. The chief is usually highly educated, by very good tutors, about all aspects of communal life, the environment and social interaction with other tribes. Above all, they are taught responsibility; the chief is taught that his well being is the well being of the tribe he lives with and leads. He listens to everyone, including the tribe idiot, (the Melanesian consensus?) and then he makes and passes a decree. This was usually acceptable to all in the tribe. Everyone had land/sea to fish, hunt, get raw materials for house, canoe, grow something to eat, a place to sleep and clothes.
So in a way, most of our chiefs were exceptionally good responsible stewards (with wealth and basic necessities) and shepherds (in leading the tribe).
Perhaps today, most of the systems do not retain as much power/influence as they used to but we still have enough left to revisit, revive and adapt them to the current times as an alternative form for responsible governance.
Maybe some existing models to study:
Trobriand Island Group System
The Sana (Chief MTSomare)
The New Ireland Malangan System
And many others all over the Melanesian Nations.
Maybe we could even look to Fiji's Council of Chiefs System.
One wild idea, but maybe you guys can research and discuss the intricacies and finer details:
Each tribal chief may (usually be from a language group) forms the local level Council in the existing Provincial Demarcation. This local level council may then be represented in the Parliament by if possible, a council of Chiefs or Paramount Chiefs.
The National Council of Chiefs should then be the government and they in turn could appoint public servants ( rightly qualified of course) to head the various departments and these public servant are accountable to the chiefs. Nogat Prime Minister or President or Minsters.
Please know that it is not my intention to advocate autocracy or monarchy. A mechanism for Good governance is. Maybe anarchy is the only other attractive alternative,.. but human-kind collectively is not mature and responsible enough as yet…
Sincerely hope you make sense out of all this.