Leadership is, to a large extent, defined by the number of followers that follow you!
You look back, look over your shoulder and see followers, then, march on.
If however, you don't see many followers, then, forever bury the 'leadership' tag.
B. Namah may "have the heart for country, PNG, and its people."
But that's a time-tested and oft–abused maxim, which leaders from all cultures, civilizations, nationalities and creed do say or proclaim.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, CEOs, MDs, etc. all over the world mouth it off as it were candy.
What is apparently not clear; what has and isn't being debated extensively in the print media or the social networks is the $64 million question: Why have MPs deserted the Opposition camp?
Right now, the Opposition benches are near-empty, safe, for 4 souls: 1 Leader, 1 Deputy, and 2 backbencher MPs!
Why have other MPs deserted the Opposition camp? Why?
Is the Opposition cursed, or are there lepers––God forbid––in the champers?
Now, the main argument peddled by Namah supporters and worshipers, is this: "Government had bribed MPs with the DISP funding (K10 million per year)."
If we, for arguments sake, take that DSIP argument out of the picture, you'll find there's really nothing or no basis for the MP's to desert the Opposition camp in their droves.
At least that's what I deduct.
Then second question is: Is there a leadership problem(s) in the Opposition trenches? Is Namah the problem? Or is Basil the problem?
I'd say there's something seriously NOT right or well in the Opposition camp. And are truths being hidden from the public?
So, I return to my starting statement: "Leadership, in a democracy, is largely defined by the followers who follow or walk besides the leader."
At this moment, this important criterion does not hold for the Office of the PNG Opposition. In fact, there are NO FOLLOWERS––besides 3 MPs––of Hon. Belden Namah on the floor of parliament.
And numbers does matter, in fact a lot, in a democracy.
Political legitimacy cannot be legitimized, if not hijacked, through the social media, however powerful it is.
At this juncture of our development, it is near-impossible to amass the population into a cognitive unit to direct change.
Our rich, diverse cultures and ethnically complex associations, which make us uniquely Papua New Guinean, may also serve as deterrents––at least for now––to social media driven changes in society.
Another overtly surprising thing is the inability of the multimillionaire Opposition Leader, Belden Namah, to amass the numbers (MPs) or lure MPs across the floor of parliament, during this term.
Besides the millions of kina stashed away by Namah, and the focus on 'fighting corruption', is there any substance and depth within the Opposition ranks to deliver in terms of other poignant issues.
Long term visionary thinking and planning for PNG, socio-economic policies, trade and development, ODA, foreign direct investment, etc.
Which begs the final question: Can or should Namah lead Papua New Guinea without followers?
If we remove the veil of DISP funds and fighting corruption, two topical and noble issues pushed by the Opposition, what more can the 'alternate government' offer PNG, when it's led by a leader who has no followers in the Haus Tambaran.