And another hurdle remains. In concluding his statement, Makiba noted that regardless of what decision is made, there will be a need to review and amend PNG’s constitution, either to accommodate Bougainville independence or reflect other arrangements that may be put in place. This itself will be a complex process and will involve continued inter-government dialogue.
Missing in all of this is what independence will mean in practice should parliament agree in line with the referendum result that Bougainville should break away. While statehood will grant Bougainville access to the international community, many of the institutions required to sustain a functioning state have yet to be realised on the ground.
As Makiba noted, this is where implementation of the “Sharp Agreement”, signed by the two governments to accelerate the transfer of powers and functions to the ABG, must be given greater priority. To date, the transfer of powers has been slow and inadequate. The autonomy provisions of the 2001 Bougainville Peace Agreement, which have largely remained unrealised in institutional terms, should be the foundation on which any new Bougainville state would be formed.
For now, the political dialogue process must continue. Parliament will soon deliberate, and a decision on Bougainville’s future will be made. But the steps required for a future independent state are varied, and complex in their nature and form, and themselves open to continued debate.
What is clear is that there must be more clarity about the process and practicalities of ratification for the referendum result, along with a concerted effort to transfer powers from the national government to the ABG, so that whatever form a future political settlement may take, PNG and Bougainville can embrace the opportunities ahead.
* This article has been updated to note that the vote would only be taken after at least three meetings of parliament, rather than on three separate sittings as was originally stated.