The autonomous region of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea (PNG) is entering a new phase in its quest for peace, almost 20 years after a peace agreement ended a 10-year civil war. Later this year the island will vote in a referendum on greater autonomy or independence from PNG. Unresolved tensions, an unclear referendum timeline, and fears of a return to violence will all impact this tense election process.

Residents of the autonomous region of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea wait in line as part of a community health engagement at the Arawa Medical Clinic, July 3, 2015. (SrA Peter Reft/Wikimedia)
Residents of the autonomous region of Bougainville in Papua New Guinea wait in line as part of a community health engagement at the Arawa Medical Clinic, July 3, 2015. (SrA Peter Reft/Wikimedia)

With its independence referendum scheduled in October, the island home to 230,000 people enters the final stage of the Bougainville Peace Agreement, signed in 2001 after a bloody civil war. Disputes over the adverse environmental impacts of mining and a failure to share the financial rewards with the local population led to the formation of secessionist movements in the late 1980s, most notably the Bougainville Revolutionary Army. Activists proclaimed independence in 1975 and 1990, but were violently suppressed by PNG forces, supported by private contractors. The conflict culminated in a civil war that cost an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 lives.

Risks of Violence and the Perils of Referendums

The referendum could be a trigger for renewed violence since many longstanding tensions have not been addressed. Bougainvilleans remain divided on the issue of independence and the exploitation of its natural resources. In 2015, the Bougainville Government imposed an indefinite moratorium on renewing the license of the Panguna copper mine citing fears of renewed civil violence.

Weapons also continue to circulate widely on the island, leading PNG Prime Minister O’Neil to suggest that the conditions for holding the referendum have not been met. The PNG government has cast doubt on the referendum, arguing that further progress is needed first on consolidating the rule of law, maintaining functional government structures, and disarming the island’s militias.

Originally scheduled for June 15, on March 1 PNG Prime Minister O’Neil and Bougainville President John Momis postponed the referendum to October 17, 2019. In a joint statement, they cited underfunding and delayed voter registration as the reason for postponement. While this delay will not impact the broader peace process schedule, the postponement has the potential to further increase tensions and reduce the legitimacy of the result.

Referendums allow for direct democratic engagement in political decision-making and can establish a broad popular base for controversial decisions. At the same time, referendums are often accompanied with antagonistic campaigning, and may push ill-informed voters to make binary decisions on complex issues. Societal divisions may further deepen and tensions could escalate, particularly in countries at risk of violence. When the result is close, competing camps will face difficulties accepting the results.

It is unlikely that the challenges in remote Bougainville will arrive on the radar of many election watchers or peacebuilders in the United States and Europe. Australia and New Zealand, however, will closely monitor preparations for the poll, the risk of civil unrest, and the response by Papua New Guinea. After the vote, results must be endorsed by the PNG National Parliament.

While the referendum could allow for meaningful self-determination and a new step toward sustainable peace for the people of Bougainville, its impact on the peace process and political stability remains highly uncertain.

Related Publications

Walking a Fine Line: Holding Elections Amid Peace Processes

Walking a Fine Line: Holding Elections Amid Peace Processes

Tuesday, September 3, 2019

Elections that are organized amid a peace process can either destabilize or pacify a conflict. The vote can put significant pressure on a peace accord, as Colombia is experiencing today, or it can integrate formerly warring parties into the political process, as in Nepal’s 2008 Constituent Assembly elections. The timing of elections in relation to peace processes, as well as the inclusivity of the process itself, are critical in determining whether peace or conflict prevails at the polls.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Electoral Violence; Peace Processes

Iraq’s Democratic Imperative: Getting Provincial Elections Right

Iraq’s Democratic Imperative: Getting Provincial Elections Right

Monday, August 5, 2019

By: Sarhang Hamasaeed; Adam Gallagher

Iraq’s landmark 2018 national elections—the first since the military defeat of ISIS—presented an opportunity for a much-needed course correction for the country’s sclerotic political process. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not seized properly. The vote was marred by claims of widespread fraud, low voter turnout, a delayed results announcement and a protracted government formation process.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & Governance; Electoral Violence

Burma’s Big Test: Preventing Election Violence in 2020

Burma’s Big Test: Preventing Election Violence in 2020

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

The people of Burma will head to the polls in late 2020 to elect more than 1,100 representatives to national, state, and regional legislative bodies. During a recent field assessment, the U.S. Institute of Peace confirmed that the risk of election-related violence is surprisingly low considering the ongoing conflicts and multitude of grievances. However, hate speech, disinformation, and intense competition between parties could create violent incidents, particularly during the campaign period. Early efforts to promote peaceful elections need to start now as the window for effective prevention will soon be closed.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Electoral Violence

Exposure to Violence and Voting in Karachi, Pakistan

Exposure to Violence and Voting in Karachi, Pakistan

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

By: Mashail Malik ; Niloufer Siddiqui

Pakistan’s 2018 elections marked just the second time in history that power transferred peacefully from one civilian government to another after a full term in office. Although the initial months of campaigning were relatively free of violence, the two weeks before polling were dangerous for campaigners and voters alike, and the elections provided a platform for some parties to incite violence, particularly against Pakistan’s minority sects. This report provides a deep examination of how exposure to political violence in Pakistan’s largest city affects political behavior, including willingness to vote and faith in the democratic process.

Type: Special Report

Electoral Violence

View All Publications