Showing posts with label Bernard Narakobi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bernard Narakobi. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Arti dan Makna "The Melanesian Way"


Oleh Yikwanak Kole,

"The Melanesian Way" mengacu pada praktik budaya, tradisi dan nilai-nilai yang telah diturunkan melalui generasi di pulau Pasifik Melanesia. Cara hidup ini sangat berakar dalam adat dan kepercayaan dari berbagai budaya Melanesia, termasuk orang Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, Kepulauan Solomon, dan Caledonia Baru.

Salah satu aspek utama dari "The Melanesian Way" adalah pentingnya masyarakat dan interkoneksi. Dalam masyarakat Melanesia, individu diharapkan mengutamakan kelompok atas keinginan atau kebutuhan mereka sendiri. Rasa mengumakan kebersamaan ini tercermin dalam keputusan cara dibuat dalam komunitas, dengan konsensus dan harmoni diprioritaskan atas pendapat individu.

Sebagai contoh, dalam banyak budaya Melanesia, keputusan dilakukan melalui proses konsultasi dan diskusi yang melibatkan semua anggota masyarakat. Hal ini memastikan bahwa semua orang memiliki suara dalam proses pengambilan keputusan dan keputusan itu tercapai secara kolektif, daripada tersirat oleh sosok otoritas tunggal.

Aspek penting lain dari "The Melanesian Way" adalah nilai yang ditempatkan sehubungan dengan orang tua dan pengetahuan tradisional. Orang tua di masyarakat Melanesia sangat dihormati untuk kebijaksanaan dan pengalaman mereka, dan bimbingan mereka sering dicari dalam hal penting. Praktik tradisional, ritual, dan adat juga meningkat dan diwariskan  ke  generasi sebagai cara menjaga warisan budaya dan identitas.

Globalisasi memiliki dampak signifikan pada praktik tradisional Melanesia dan cara hidup. Sebagai pengaruh Barat dan modernisasi telah menyebar di seluruh wilayah, ada tantangan untuk pelestarian adat dan nilai tradisional. Beberapa komunitas Melanesia telah menghadapi tekanan untuk beradaptasi dengan cara hidup Barat, menyebabkan hilangnya identitas budaya dan tradisi.

Meskipun tantangan ini, ada juga kesempatan untuk budaya Melanesia  beradaptasi dan berkembang dalam menanggapi globalisasi. Banyak komunitas menemukan cara untuk mengintegrasikan praktik tradisional dengan teknologi modern dan ide-ide, menciptakan campuran unik antara lama dan baru. Dengan memerangi keanekaragaman dan kekayaan budaya Melanesia, kita dapat belajar menghargai dan menghormati cara hidup yang unik yang Cara Melanesia yang kita warisi saat ini.

Thursday, June 2, 2022

Only Fooled Humans think that being rich means having a lot of money!


We Melanesians should feel and be proud that we are rich in all aspects and every area of life. This is why our the only great Melanesian Philosopher so far, Bernard Narokobi says, the Melanesian Way is: 

Welcome Birth, Live Well, Love Well, Have Something Good for Every Person and Die a Happy Death. 

(I added :Welcome Birth" to Norokobi's statement.)

That is wealth! That is prosperity! That is rich!

What comes when we are born and what goes when we pass on are the ones to determine our being into this world.

Being rich means having a lot of money is a concept just started a few hundred years ago, let's say 300 years ago. Thousands, and even hundreds of thousands or million years before, "being rich" never meant to having a lot of money. Or event he word "rich" never existed in the minds and hearts of the peoples.

According to scientists, "Gap between rich and poor began 7,000 years ago, say scientists" It became a reality in life when people started "harvest crops instead of their hands and the class system was born." It triggered humans producing more than they can afford to consume.

Landowners started having more power over ordinary citizens. Class system in communities began to emerge. Those with land became the rulers and those without it became laborers.  

Human relations changed, from reciprocal and egalitarian, into structural (top-down) and peripheral (inner-outer).

"Them" and "Us" based on ownership of land, and later own labour, division of labour, and so on, came into play. "Them" rich and "us" poor, or them poor and us rich came into human awareness and thinking.

We are now thinking this is God-created natural instinct to feel being rich and poor just based on how much money I earn or own or get access to. This is artificial reality, as artificial as the one we see on the Internet. However, we feel that this is real. Only, yes Only the time we die, we do realize that all the rich and material wealth have no meaning at all. Again, we only realize when we are ready to pass on in a few seconds.

Therefore, it is wise men and women only who realize this matter of fact far before their seconds towards death. It is only the wise peoples who will understand the meaning of life as being truthful, realistic, present, simply and accepting whatever comes and goes.

Our Melanesian humans, our forefathers and our own fathers were the human beings on this planet Earth until this century, who have actually lived in what is called "Paradise", that is, living in "this present time only", no past, no future, but just now, just here, and just right.

Friday, December 28, 2018

There is No "Me" in Melanesian Culture, There is Always "Us": This is Melanesian Socialism

So many times, in so many occasions, so many people asked me this very question, "What do YOU think about....?" I put the word "YOU" in capital in order to emphasize the tone the person asking the question use. The tone goes up then pronouncing "YOU", which means they want "me" to know that they are particularly focusing on the Individual "me", not the "plural" me, that is us.

Well, I never tempted by them. I in fact I never changed my choice of word from "We" to "I". They tried many times, and I normally keep answering with the word "We".

For example. Question: "What do YOU think about the Freeport Mining McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. operations in West Papua since April 1967?" 
Answer: "As I said before, Freeport came to our place as a party that is uninvited and unwanted. Our lives destroyed. Our livelihood turned upside down. We have been suffering since their arrival. No single party in West Papua will declare they are happy with the presence and operations of the giant mining company.

Question: "Do YOU personally as a person agree with the Freeport Mining Operations?"

Answer: We are all unhappy and we all refuse Freeport Operations. No one is happy about it. It brings nightmare to us, not blessing. No one is enjoying anything that Freeport brings.

Question: I repeat again, please I am asking your personal experience, not for the whole group, but you as an educated man, you understand some benefits of the Freeport Mining operations, for example, you have been full sponsored by Freeport Indonesia during your study at the university until your graduation. So you should give your personal opinion on this.

Answer: The word "I" is absent in this life and in this mindset. Therefore, there is no reply for the word "I". The person answering your questions now is not a singular individual, it is a plural one. This person represents the "whole", not the One
This person that you are asking to is not an individual. This is a plural individual talking to you, so there is no choice to reply with “I” and “me”, but the answer will always use “We” and “us”.

Question: You have talked about “democracy” or a system of governance that is appropriate for Melanesian tribes. You call it “Melanesian Socialism”. Democracy advocates the votes of majority individual “I” that determines who rules. What about Democracy in Melanesian Socialism?

Answer: This is a very good question. Do you know in Christianity, as it is in Democracy, you emphasize “individuals” to repent, confess, and be baptized. Every single person should repent and make confessions before being baptized. I am talking about evangelical and Pentecostal concept  of “born again” doctrine. Do you know this? This never happened in the whole New Guinea Highlands. This is recorded in a book called “Torches of Joy” by John Dekker, an American Missionary to West Papua many years ago.
Now, we talk about democracy. Today in West Papua, there is a term in Malay called “Noken System” democracy. Noken is the traditional hand-made “string bag” of New Guinea. What happens is Only the Tribal Elders gather together, in front of their people, bringing the votes of their men, women and children, and put those votes into the “noken”, thus there is no need for individuals to go in and out into the ballot boxes.
This Noken System of democracy is more accepted than the “modern” ballot box system where people go in and out individually.
What is happening here?
Well, this is Melanesia in display. Bernard Narakobi, the only Melanesian philosophy we got so far calls this display as “The Melanesian Way”.

Question: I am taken away by your answer now. What is the connection between what Father Walter Lini, the founder of the Republic of Vanuatu said about “Melansian Socialism” and what you just mentioned about Narakobi’s “The Melanesian Way”.

Answer: The Late Father Walkter Lini is talking about the democracy system that is appropriate for Melanesians, which is one of the topics that Narakobi addresses in his “The Melanesian Way” papers. So, the “The Melanesian Way” contains more than just system of governance. What Narakobi is saying includes what is being said right now, “The concept of individual I is inclusive in the word WE, and therefore, when I use ‘WE’, I am actually talking about all of us, including myself.

Question: Do you understand what we in the West mean by “I” ?

Answer: Yes, we know it very well, indeed. But I hope you also understand what we mean by “us”, not “me”. This is because we are human beings, but at the same time, we are in two different worlds in the way we understand, accept and explain the world we have come to know so far.

Question: Yes, thank you very much. It is my privilege to realize that we are speaking across the world in our mind while we are physically in one this place.

Answer: We are starting this interchange. You will know better when we put this idea into papers or books.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

In Memory of Bernard Narakobi

 eJournal of the Australian Association for the Advancement of Pacific Studies

Issues 1.2 and 2.1, April 2010


JEAN ZORN,

PROFESSOR EMERITA, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW

CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK SCHOOL OF LAW

UNIVERSITY OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA FACULTY OF LAW

THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY


Bernard Narokobi, who died in March at the age of 72, after a short illness, was a political and jurisprudential philosopher of great seriousness and stature. That makes my memories of his irrepressible irreverence especially sweet. One such memory: Bernard taking his afternoon nap on the wall to wall carpeting of the Law Reform Commission’s way too elegant offices. The Commission was Bernard’s brainchild, established at independence by Papua New Guinea’s Constitution – a document full of Bernard’s views and ideas – to try to infuse the legal system of the new nation with Melanesian custom. Bernard, fittingly, was the Commission’s first Secretary, and he hired me, amongst more experienced others, like Nick O’Neill and Yash Ghai, to help him do it. The new government was scrambling for offices; Waigani was still less than half built, so we found ourselves in a spanking new building that had been intended to house a bank (of all the non-Melanesian institutions!) with floor-to-ceiling tinted windows, air conditioning that bordered on the frigid, and pile carpet so deep you could, as Bernard contentedly demonstrated every afternoon, sleep on it.



‘The late Bernard Narokobi’s body carried to the Wirui Cathedral in Wewak for the funeral service.’ Source: Liu Zhaoxiang, ‘Bernard Narokobi: A great supporter of the development of renewable energy,’ in Sunday Chronicle, Sunday, April 4, 2010. Photograph by Cyril Gare.

Bernard was born in 1937 in Wautogik Village in the East Sepik. Naming his village – making sure this memorial to him includes the name – would have been important to him. Because Bernard never forgot, never abandoned, never strayed far, from the values and culture and world view of his village. And, yet, he was also among Papua New Guinea’s most modern of men. He was educated – in Catholic mission schools – long before most Papua New Guinean children got any schooling at all, well before, I believe, the Australian colonial power had constructed a single school in the territory. In the 1960s, when few Papua New Guineans had been outside their home villages, let alone outside Papua New Guinea, he was in Australia, doing a law degree at the University of Sydney. Within four or five years after Bernard got his degree, the University of Papua New Guinea would be built, opening higher education to hundreds every year. But, at the moment Bernard did it, there can’t have been more than half a dozen Papua New Guineans who had graduated from university. Mekere Morauta, Charles Lepani, Bernard, a handful of others. They had such different personalities, temperaments, interests, but they shared a vision of an independent Papua New Guinea, and the leadership that each took in that struggle suggested that, in denying education to so many for so long, the colonizers had made a wisely self-interested choice.


I first met Bernard in the early 1970s, just before independence. It was a heady time. Papua New Guinea was charging towards nationhood, and every great future seemed possible. We’d come from all over – from Tanzania, Northern Ireland, England, the U.S., even a few from Oz, and, of course, from PNG itself. Most of us were working at UPNG, but there were also advisors and worker bees from all across the government, not to mention from the various research units and NGOs. There were meetings every moment – it felt as if there was so much work to do – especially, so many conversations to have – about principles and policies and philosophy and goals and history. And then there were those grand day-long parties every Sunday at the Zaharas.


In all the conversations, all the explorations, Bernard’s voice was sure and direct. He knew, from the start, the path that Papua New Guinea should follow. The polity, the economy, the culture, and especially the laws of the new nation should be based, he told us, on custom – but on a peaceful, communitarian, Gandhi-Nyerere-King brand of custom that, he insisted, was the true Sepik Melanesian Way. It made of his life a paradox. He believed that each person should live a simple village life, but, to make that possible for others, for his new nation, he had to spend most of his time living in the city, dealing in complexity. Even in the city, though, he could make the village paramount. Padding happily around his carpeted office in laplap and bare feet was only one of the ways.


Today, people probably think that for him, the decision to live the Melanesian Way was an easy choice. Trust me. It wasn’t. There were enormously strong pulls on him to go in other directions – and I’m not talking about the pulls of money or status or stuff like that – totally uninteresting to Bernard – I’m talking about personal pulls and pressures – glimpses of other, possible, wonderful, fulfilling, rich, happy lives, that he chose not to take, but the renunciation was not without sadness and a sense of loss. I will remember his smile, which was as outwardly mild and as inwardly complicated as he was.


When the Constitution was promulgated, we were able, for a few brief shining moments, to believe that we’d made Bernard’s vision a reality, that we’d won, that Papua New Guinea was firmly set on a path that would give its own custom the central place in the polity. After almost 100 years of colonialism, Papua New Guinea would become not only free, but, once again, itself. And that self would be a shining, beneficent, kindly star to the rest of the world. Bernard had been more than just a member of the Constitutional Planning Committee; his influence can be seen throughout, most dramatically in every word of the Preamble to the Constitution:


united in one nation

pay homage to the memory of our ancestors—the source of our strength and origin of our combined heritage

acknowledge the worthy customs and traditional wisdoms of our people—which have come down to us from generation to generation

pledge ourselves to guard and pass on to those who come after us our noble traditions and the Christian principles that are ours now.


By authority of our inherent right as ancient, free and independent peoples …

The courts set about almost immediately to undermine whatever in the Constitution wasn’t exactly like the laws of Australia, demonstrating in the process that they had a far less sanguine view of custom than Bernard did. For example, Bernard often talked about the ‘worthy custom’ of his people; for him, all the traditions, beliefs, values that made up the Melanesian Way were worthy, and he wanted to emphasise that, to make people see and acknowledge that. The members of the Supreme Court, however, chose to read the phrase differently; they read the Preamble to mean that they needed to acknowledge only those customs that happened, in their estimation, to be worthy, and, believing as they did that most of Papua New Guinean custom was savage, undisciplined, unreasonable, lawless and in need of a good old colonial makeover, they were happy to acknowledge very few of them indeed.


Bernard’s response was to redouble his (which also meant our) efforts at the Law Reform Commission. Under his benign tutelage, we worked hard to change every aspect of the imported colonial legal system so that custom would be the heart and soul of Papua New Guinean law. I’ve always thought his real legacy is all those Law Reform Commission Reports and bits of draft legislation – outlining such a better legal future than PNG got to have. So few of those bills were even enacted, and even fewer have actually been enforced. His crowning achievement – the bill that would have made it clear that judges should turn to custom, before using the common law or any other imported bits of foreign legal systems – languished in Parliament until 2000, when Bernard, as Speaker, finally got it through – only to see the judges all but totally ignore it in the following decade.


Bernard ought to have spent his working life as a judge. It would have given him the opportunity he needed to thoroughly blend custom into the legal system. He got his chance in the early 1980s when he was made an Acting Judge, and he went at it with gusto, writing decisions that were glorious. They were stunning in the depth and breadth of their erudition; he probably knew more about, and better understood the Anglo-Australian jurisprudential tradition than anyone else – with the possible exception of Mari Kapi – on the Papua New Guinea bench at the time (and most of them were Australians). At the same time, his decisions were illuminated by his love for the people whose cases he was deciding: witch or warrior, criminal or victim, his compassion for all of them informed every choice he made, resulting not just in decisions that were extraordinary in their fairness and equity, but also in containing lovely patches of utterly beautiful descriptive prose. Most importantly for his larger aims, though, he modelled in his decisions how a judge can understand Melanesian custom as a living part of the legal system, and how the court can weave it into a new, homegrown Papua New Guinean common law.


I believe that Bernard knew that his decisions were likely to be appealed, and so, in each one, he tried to speak to his fellow judges, to educate them about custom from the inside. He wrote about custom as if it were dream and magic which, as he tried to explain to his fellow judges, it was. He aimed to be helpful, but the other judges reacted as if he’d handed them a cupful of scorpions. Just about every decision he wrote was overturned, and never mildly. In their appellate rejoinders, the other judges didn’t just disagree with him, they mocked his reliance on custom, expressed horror at his introduction of customary concepts, such as compensation, into their legal system, and tried in every way they could to ensure that Bernard’s way, the Melanesian Way, would never find a home in Papua New Guinea’s underlying law, that no other young hopeful Acting Judge would have the temerity to try it. Today, Bernard’s brief tenure as a judge is all but forgotten. I expect, though, that future generations will come upon his decisions, and will be charmed, and emboldened, and educated by them; I hope, fervently, that, as with many great works unsung at the time, they will eventually be widely read, lauded, copied, that what he said about the law, and how he said it, will someday become the cornerstone of a new and glorious era in Papua New Guinean jurisprudence.


It is possible to see Bernard’s life as a failure, because, in what he most wanted to do, which was to make Papua New Guinea truly itself, truly noble, and truly free of outside influences, he was rebuffed at every turn. He tried doing it as a legal reformer, a lawyer and a judge – and that failed. He turned to politics – where he was granted much personal success – he served as a Minister in three different governments, under three different Prime Ministers (one of whom fired him, because he refused to go along with that government’s self-aggrandising policies); when his party was not in the coalition, he was Leader of the Opposition; when, I believe, it again was, he became Speaker of Parliament; at his death, he was serving as High Commissioner to New Zealand. But, still, he failed in his main endeavour, which was to create a polity marked by integrity, honesty and nobility. He believed this would happen if only Papua New Guinea would be true to itself, to its history, to its customs, both old and new; he could not make this happen.


To Bernard, Melanesian custom spoke to the best in his people. All he wanted was to make this the hallmark of the independent state he’d helped to create – such a simple wish, and everything – or, more precisely, everyone in power – the judges, the members of Parliament, the foreign investors and their Papua New Guinean compradors – conspired to make it impossible. A lesser person would have despaired. Or, at least, been angry. As far as I know, Bernard never lost his sense of humour, his impish wit, his willingness to take his afternoon nap on any available carpet, no matter how plush. He never lost his humility, his kindness, his essential optimism. Nor did he ever stop helping others. Even in his later days, despite his august accomplishments, his by then almost legendary status as one of the greatest, and truest, of the founding fathers, he was always available, especially to the young. In an email to me, responding to an earlier, more informal version of this memorial, a younger anthropologist, Ira Bashkow, described this part of Bernard’s life better than I can:

[My wife] Lise’s fieldwork was in his home village, and he was tremendously kind to us. It is completely true of him that he was immensely generous and himself lived humbly. He had a rare kind of integrity, thoughtfulness, and brilliance. I feel like it was one of the privileges of my life to have known him. … Though we came to know him as an old man, and you since his youth, you describe the man we know exactly — humble, wise, principled. His death marks a significant generational transition in the history of Papua New Guinea. As we say of Moses, another leader like him will not again arise.

I have said that, from some narrow perspectives, Bernard’s life could be viewed as a failure. But it will not be – and ought not to be. Because he was not just a lawyer and judge, not just a politician, he was, most deeply and through all of his life, a writer and philosopher. It is through his writings that he will live. His words will, I believe, do more than endure; they will inspire. So it is fitting we end with them. These are from his seminal work, The Melanesian Way:

Our history did not begin with contact with the Western explorers. Our civilisation did not start with the coming of the Christian missionaries. Because we have an ancient civilisation, it is important for us to give proper dignity and place to our history. We can only be ourselves if we accept who we are rather than denying our autonomy. Our history did not have the binding effect of the written word. It did not have the wheel to travel distances, and it did it did not have the naked power of the barrel of the gun. Accordingly, our influence was limited.

Still, it was a lasting human experience. But today, we have the gift of the written word and the privilege of the wheel. We can reflect on our ancient past and the modern life. We can have a responsibility to ourselves and to the world to bring to the world the treasures of our civilization. ….

Cut off from the rest of the world for many centuries, Melanesians nevertheless survived as a people. Now that we are finally connected with the world, we suddenly see ourselves through the world mirror.

Will we see our own true size images, or will we see ourselves in the images and the shadows of others?

Will we see ourselves in the long shadows of the dwindling light and the advanced darkness of the evening dusk, or will we see ourselves in the long and radiant rays of the rising sun? We can choose, if we will.

I see a new vision and a new hope for Melanesians. I see ourselves holding fast to the worthy customs of our people. I see Melanesians accepting principles of Christianity. I see Melanesians as a people who have patience and time for every person. I see Melanesians giving their highest regard to the spirituality of human dignity and a proper but insignificant role to the building up of status through materialism.