A Marxist Analysis of Dr. Lino Tom's Statement on Inequality and PNG's Future

In the wake of Hon. Dr. Lino Tom's recent remarks about the looming disintegration of Papua New Guinea (PNG) as a united nation, it is crucial to delve deeper into the structural issues that underlie the challenges he highlights. Dr. Tom’s call to reflect on PNG’s future, particularly as we approach our 50th anniversary of independence, draws attention to the growing cries for dismemberment and the widespread disillusionment with how the nation’s wealth is distributed. While Dr. Tom’s analysis is heartfelt, it offers a limited view of the complex socio-economic forces that drive the inequality he so rightly condemns.

In his commentary, Dr. Tom focuses on the unequal distribution of resources and wealth, especially the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few elites. He criticizes the failure of the nation to live up to the National Goals and Directive Principles (NGDP), which advocate for inclusive development, equality, and participation. These principles were enshrined in our Constitution to bind the nation together and ensure that all Papua New Guineans benefit equitably from the country’s resources. Yet, as Dr. Tom points out, the reality is starkly different: the gap between the rich and poor has grown, and the elite continue to benefit from a corrupt system that keeps the majority of people disenfranchised.

While Dr. Tom is right to express concern over these disparities, his diagnosis overlooks a key element: inequality is not an anomaly in a democratic system, but rather an inherent feature of it, especially when shaped by capitalist economic structures. As Karl Marx aptly pointed out, societies are often divided into two major classes—the bourgeoisie (the capitalist class that controls the means of production) and the proletariat (the working class, which depends on selling their labor for survival). The bourgeoisie, by virtue of their control over resources, accumulate wealth and power, while the proletariat remains subordinated, struggling to access the same opportunities.

In the case of PNG, the failure to address inequality is not merely a governance issue, but a reflection of the capitalist economic system in which the nation operates. The NGDP may articulate ideals of fairness and equity, but they remain powerless against the entrenched economic and political systems that perpetuate wealth concentration among the elite. These systems are shaped by global forces, internal power dynamics, and the capitalist structures that dictate how resources are allocated and who gets to benefit from them.

This is where PNG’s democratic aspirations collide with its economic reality. The NGDPs, despite being enshrined in our Constitution, cannot undo the deeper structural inequalities that define the capitalist system. They cannot change the fact that the wealth of a nation tends to be concentrated in the hands of a few, with the majority left to fight for scraps. We see this in the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots, from the luxurious shopping experiences of the elite to the struggling communities left behind.

Dr. Tom’s call to return to the Constitution and learn the lessons of equity and equality is an important one, but it must be grounded in a realistic understanding of the economic system that underpins the nation’s challenges. The roots of inequality in PNG are not merely a matter of governance failure or corruption—they are deeply embedded in the way wealth is produced, distributed, and consumed. PNG is not a communist country, and thus, wealth will never be equally distributed. The forces that shape the nation's economic landscape are far more complex than simply restoring the constitutional values of equality and participation.

In conclusion, as we reflect on Dr. Tom's remarks, we must acknowledge that inequality is an inherent feature of a capitalist democracy, even one that strives to uphold the principles of fairness and equity. PNG, like many nations, faces a dilemma: how to reconcile its democratic ideals with an economic system that perpetuates wealth concentration and social division. The future of the nation, as Dr. Tom rightly points out, is at a crossroads. But if we are to avoid the dissolution he foresees, we must critically examine the underlying economic forces at play and recognize that true change requires more than just a return to constitutional principles—it requires a fundamental rethinking of how wealth, power, and resources are distributed in our society.