Discussions regarding decentralization have been a significant aspect of Papua New Guinea (PNG) politics since before its independence. The centralized governance established during Australian colonial rule prompted the creation of provinces in PNG, primarily driven by Bougainville’s leaders who had longstanding concerns about their place within the nation, even prior to the emergence of the Panguna mine.
Since the establishment of provincial governance in 1976, various laws regulating provincial functions have been introduced, amended, or repealed. A notable change occurred in 1995 with the introduction of the Organic Law on Provincial Governments and Local Level Governments (OLPGLLG). The concept of “special autonomy” has gained popularity since then, but its implications and how it could be realized for the citizens in towns, cities, and rural areas of PNG remain largely unexplored. Despite this, leaders from East New Britain (ENB), Enga, and New Ireland continue to seek this special status, while Bougainville received it as part of a peace agreement in 2001.
During recent fieldwork in Bougainville and East New Britain, I examined what special autonomy signifies for both leaders and local residents. The Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA) is founded on three primary pillars: autonomy, weapons disposal, and a referendum. Autonomy facilitated the creation of a Bougainville Constitution and conferred rights and powers on the provincial parliament that are expected to expand over time. These pillars are generally viewed as steps towards independence rather than a permanent situation. This sentiment helps explain the overwhelming support for independence—98.31 percent—expressed in the 2019 referendum, which rejected the option of greater autonomy.
With the first two pillars mostly achieved, the populace is puzzled over the national government’s delays in moving toward a referendum, something they consider essential. While there is widespread support for autonomy and independence throughout Bougainville, many residents are dissatisfied with the current special autonomy status. Particularly in the rural Konnou Constituency in South Bougainville, government policies have yet to make a notable impact, with limited access to services. In discussions with locals in Wisai villages, residents expressed that while they recognize autonomy, they have yet to experience its true benefits.
In neighboring areas, a chief compared autonomy to a newborn whose beauty has not been yet revealed. Local sentiments reveal frustration over bureaucratic hurdles and perceived slowdowns by national leaders in implementing the promised autonomy as stipulated in the BPA. The transition of powers from Port Moresby to Buka has been drawn out, and while the Sharp Agreement has facilitated progress, there are still numerous legislative and institutional challenges to overcome.
East New Britain has a historical legacy of leaders advocating for local resource control and governance. The dissatisfaction with the 1995 restructuring of government that centralized power led to the formation of a group aiming for special autonomy status in 2001. This committee remains active, focusing on achieving administrative, financial, and political autonomy for the province while supporting Local Level Governments in understanding their roles.
Support for special autonomy is notably strong in Rabaul and Kokopo, areas populated predominantly by the Tolai people. However, further regions express skepticism as they feel overlooked and believe local governance primarily favors the Tolai community. Interviews with local elders reveal perceptions of inequality within the province, suggesting the need for more equitable resource distribution and governance.
In summary, the idea of special autonomy represents a popular concept in certain provinces of Papua New Guinea, yet its interpretations vastly differ between Bougainville and East New Britain. For Bougainville, autonomy has been regarded as a pathway toward independence following a tumultuous history, while in East New Britain, the focus is on resource control and governance disputes that challenge the effectiveness of devolving powers to a provincial level.