There is a lot of controversy, not on the leadership but on the management of the Papua Presidium Council (PDP). Most of the people in West Papua are standing behind the PDP. They are ready to sacrifice what they have, including their lives for the sake of the independence of West Papua. However, there also people here who are suspicious of what is actually done by the PDP. The people here really want to achieve their independence by any means, and the PDP is openly declaring its mission to do so. But why do others suspect the PDP?

I am going to answer this question in two perspectives: the perspective of the Koteka People and the management perspective in relation to the management of the PDP. This second article, let us look at some reasons why Papuans are suspicious on the PDP's work. In managing an organisation, particularly organisations that work directly for the lives of the people, have to work in such ways to avoid misunderstanding, miscommunication. In most cases, miscommunication is the main "disease" in managing organisations like the PDP. There should be the same understanding between the people for whom the organisation works and the managers who are running it. Let us look at some models of modern management and see some aspects that need fixing.

Five Models of Modern Management

In the management world, we know five major models of managing organisations: formal models, subjective models, cultural models, collegial models and political models.
The application of formal models can be an open or closed system, structured or bureaucratic model. 

Main samples of formal models can be seen in managing government organisations and projects. What is important in governmental organisations or projects is the achievement of goals or targets of the project/ organisation/ department. Most often the needs and wishes of the people involved in the organisation are totally ignored. Take an example of a training for government officials in Indonesia called Diklat (Education and Training) at different levels of qualifications. The people who attend Diklat are most often selected or promoted not based on their choice or interest but only for the purpose of promoting the organisations or departments where they work. I can say that this model is inhuman, it violates the human rights as far as human rights and democracy is concerned.

In Indonesia, we have seen how Suharto treat Indonesians for 32 years. He is a bureaucrat who does not care about you and me. His humanity does not exist. What he cares is what he calls the Five Year Plan and the Development Trilogy. In many occasions he used to emphasise: "Security is first. If there is no security, we cannot plan and do the development activities. Let us promote security for the sake of development!" Of course, not for the sake of humanity and democracy. He works for gaining profits. He pretends to be a good man with good manner, but his organisation management is full of lies. His dictatorship has been tidily covered up . No one was able to say against what he has been doing. This kind of person applies the formal models of management.

There is another model that contradict with formal models, i.e. subjective models. The voice of each individual in an organisation is listened to and accommodated very well. The organisation acts and works to promote each individual's wants and needs. This model does practice the democracy and human rights. However, you can imagine how difficult it is for Suharto to listen to everyone of us, promote the needs and wants of everybody. Naturally, everything goes to disorder, and if an organisation listens to everybody all the time, then it can end up in disorder. Subjective models only applicable in small organisations, of course not in managing countries. 

The third one is called cultural models. Cultural models accommodate the culture of each parties involved in the organisation, particularly the culture of the organisation or department. Let us see some examples. In Indonesia, the civil servants and the army are called lazy labourers. You may find it funny or surprising when an army and a policeman walking in the market with full battle uniform. Even they go to the church or walk around public places in the midnight with office uniform. This may be funny for the Westerners , but the uniform is a pride for people in the East , to show others that they have special status in the community. They come to the office in the morning, sign the attendance list, sit around and talk with friends, pick up children from school, then back home. Nothing is done the whole day. What do the bosses do? They also lazy, sometimes they come to the office, sometimes not. Who cares? This is the culture of government officials in Indonesia. If this is the case, managers of the organisation must identify the effects and causes. From the analyses the managers can offer solutions that suit the culture. One interesting example is in TEFL. The Communicative Approach is now implemented all over the world. This approach expects the students to be active in classrooms during the lesson. If the students are passive, it can be interpreted as not communicative and unsuccessful. Funnily, teachers in the East do understand that students rarely active in classrooms in any lesson, including in their mother tongues. When they learn English, they then need to learn the language and learn to be active in classrooms. To avoid this double process of learning, TEFL teachers should understand the culture of the students in the East and manage the classrooms based on a better understanding of the culture. For the PDP, the members of the Council need to identify and understand the culture of the Indonesian government and the Melanesians and Austronesians in West Papua. Then they need to plan actions to address those cultures. Most of the problems in organisations arise as results of contradictions between contradictions of cultures within organisations.

Fourth, collegial models, mostly implemented in colleges and universities. There are faculties, groups of professors, groups of experts, departments and fields of studies who work in their areas with certain authority and responsibilities. It is not like in formal models where top management controls almost everything. On the contrary, each department or faculty controls its own department or faculty with full authority within their areas. Even the lecturers have their authority that cannot be changed by top management. The PDP can apply this model by giving each pillar in the Council, i.e., Youth, Woman, OPM Prisoners, TPN/OPM, etc. to work independently with certain responsibilities and PDP only receives reports from each of the pillars. This will give chances to pillars to play their roles more effectively, more efficiently and freely. This will help accelerate the efforts to free West Papua from colonial powers.

The last model of modern management is called political models. Political models address the interests of interest or pressure groups within organisations. The interests exist in each pressure group. There is politics within the pressure groups called micro-politics (politics in the small groups or scale). There is bargaining between the interest groups, between the interests of one group or party with the others. Party that has strong bargaining power, mostly the winning party wins in the bargain. In Indonesia we know pressure groups that were under direct control from Suharto. They are like Golkar, ICMI, Pancasila Youths, KNPI, and AMPI. They have different names, but they have the same father and they work for the same interests. Of course, Suharto's pressure groups were the winners during the New Order Regime. 

Within the PDP, we have pressure groups already, such as TAPOL/NAPOL (former OPM Prisoners), TPN/OPM, FORERI, Indonesia and multinational companies. Bargaining is going on at the moment. The strongest in pressures and power will win, of course. If the people of West Papua are strong in their fight, they  will win. If Indonesia has strong reasons, legally and morally, then they will win. If the multinationals are strong, they will win. All have interests, and all want to win. The PDP ahould manage the organisation to channel the interests to the right directions in order to free people in West Papua from intimidation, rape, disappearance, torture, arbitrary arrest, imprisonment without trial and murder. The Indonesians have interests. That is why they will not leave West Papua so easily. The PDP should address their interests and sit down on the bargaining table to negotiate. The PDP also should take into account pressure groups within people in West Papua. This is not an easy task. Only when PDP stands for the people, not for persons within the Council or groups that back up the PDP that the PDP will gain strong support and power. Such a position will help the PDP to achieve what it wants to achieve.

If the people in West Papua put little trust on the PDP, it does not mean that they did not give mandate to the PDP to work for them. It does not mean the PDP members are working for other purposes. It does not necessarily mean that the PDP is asking for autonomy in West Papua. It means that the PDP needs to address the interests of each party in West Papua. It means that the PDP needs to give certain responsibilities to each pressure group to work independently to achieve the goal: INDEPENDENCE, i.e., PDP should apply the collegial models of management combined with the political models.