Leadership in Solomon Islands by Samson Viulu, Japan

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the leadership problems we are facing in Solomon Islands today. Members of Parliament have their own style, class, and influence in our society, and the best critics of their performances are the voters who live mainly in rural areas. They have the right to throw out a MP whose political leadership doesn't help them, and this takes place at the poll on national election day. What Mr. Samson Viunu outlined in his 'Letter to the Editor' of the Solomontimes.com, maybe true to a certain degree but may also practically irrelevant.

Mr. Viulu wrote:

I do not believe in ushering in new MPs as a positive strategy in solving the leader dependency syndrome as alluded to earlier on by Mr. Giano. The fact remains that voting in of new MPs will not address the matter of leader dependency. Even a clean leader on the outset will certainly become one of them (corrupt/crafty) once he/she is in parliament. For instance, some of these leaders have been very vocal on some issues but when it comes to their own benefits and privileges, not a single word is being uttered against at the expense of ordinary citizens. (Solomontimes)

These are the words of ordinary Solomon Islanders who felt betrayed in many ways by our political leaders, and the precedents our MPs had set in the past impede, quite often, on the efforts of future prospective politicians. Before they enter Parliament, they are already been branded "clean leader on the outset", which in many ways a symptom of distrust, disbelief, and disgust on our politicians no matter who that Parliamentarian is. The Parliamentarians complete silence on the Parliamentarian Entitlement Commission's proposal to award themselves and their spouses in the long run, bears testament to this "distrust attitude" of our citizens, so how can they be blamed if they say such things about our leaders? I don't blame them.

However, what interesting, I should say, is Mr. Viulu's remedy to the situation which is something more theoretical than practical in every sense of that statement. He continued:

Of course we have to think outside of our normal basket/comfort zone to advance our own economic progress but we still need our leaders. A leader and his/her followers should always walk hand in hand on all issues of positive development (exclude bread & rice but real development). It is their mandate to lead and serve the people. Probably we also need to change our country's motto too. Unfortunately, scrapping the RCDF will certainly do so to some extent in my view.

As I've said earlier on, the voters are the biggest critics of our leaders and they have four years to accomplish something to prove them worthy of their votes come national election day. Keeping them in there knowing that he/she didn't perform well in Parliament doesn't make a different in my view. The longer they serve in Parliament, their level of confidence rise. Over time, they learned everything about the art of manipulation and abusing of the system for their own benefits. I know what Mr. Viulu meant in this statement, but it is impossible, in my view, to have a direct voter-MP dialogue on development issues if these leaders plant their asses in Honiara and not where the majority voters dwell. Let me use two prominent figures to show why it is dangerous to keep MPs in Parliament with a hope that they would eventually realize their role in rural development. The Honorable Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir. Micheal Somare and the former Prime Minister of SI, later Solomon Sunaone Mamaloni. What both men have in common is their decade long Political careers, both as MPs and Prime Ministers (PM). Of all the money that Sir. Somare earned in Parliament; of all the times he had as the Prime Minister of PNG, little development can be seen in his provincial town, Sepik. Likewise, of all the time Mr. Mamaloni had in Parliament, Kirakira, the provincial Head-Quarter of his Makira province, remains a shanty town.
These are men who led these two countries after the so-called Colonial Masters left our shores, and they so far created nothing for their provinces and for these two downtroade nations. After four decades in Parliament, PNG remained a poor country despite of its rich resources, and after decades in Parliament as an MP and a three treem PM of SI, SI remains poor and before his death, SI's rain forest depleted by 1/3 of which he was a benefactor as an owner of a Logging company. Back to my point-there is no proof that keeping MPs in Parliament may change something, unless it leads to some development miracles.

Finally, Mr. Viulu made a strange suggestion:

Furthermore, the position of being an MP should be made unattractive as much as possible but with their duties/functions made mandatory and liable to prosecution if and when an MP fails to show leadership and service to its people.
Who knows the devil inside those new leaders we may wish to vote for.

Making "the position of an MP unattractive as much as possible?" Like how? How can you expect better legislation, personal accountability, and quality leadership when the MPs are sent to Parliament with both hands tie behind their backs? How can they perform well if their job is miserable, and by the way-who in his right mind as a law maker to pass a law that punishes his own ass? It is simply impossible to tell lawmakers what law they should pass in Parliament. Besides, no one has the right to take an MP to court simply based on feelings that the MP shows poor leadership. This is pure Communism, and not a healthy way of governing. There are offices created as watchdogs of our Parliamentarians, and if these offices refused to do their job our MPs will always get away with corruption. This is the case in our country today! We lack the Checks-and-balance system designed in the beginning to minimize overgoverned and corruption.
In fact, this is Democracy and it is important to note that the freedom to do anything we want in this Democracy, that same Freedom may return to haunt your ass. For instance, an MP is elected and if he failed to live up to his promises or to what is(are) expected of him, the voters exercise their rights to boot him/her out! This is why bad leaders are reshuffled every year in SI-the worst being 2006 election when Parliament lost 50% of its incumbents.
One thing that I think contributed to the culture of corruption in our Parliament that Mr. Viulu didn't allude to in his attempt to remedy our voter-MP relationship, is our voting culture. I have always argued that the manner in which our votes are cast on election day, has a lot to do with helping corrupt leaders remain in power and at times booting off the good ones. Unlike other countries, the single determining fact in our election is "family/extended unit". In other words, corruption , or the good qualities of our leaders are often overlook when voters go to the poll. As long as that MP relates to the voters, and his relatives bring in their other relatives, nothing else matters!