Introduction

When people talk about youth leadership in Papua New Guinea (PNG), the focus is often on energy, innovation, or representation. Less attention is given to how young leaders actually navigate the messy, interconnected systems of power that shape their lives and their communities.

In 2020, as part of my postgraduate master’s dissertation, I conducted an action research project with six young changemakers in rural PNG, using a Melanesian Tok Stori method. The project revealed that young people are not just “filling gaps” where services are weak. They are developing sophisticated strategies that draw on a power and systems lens to drive change in deeply complex environments.

Why Power and Systems Matter in PNG

• PNG is a country where kastom, church, and state institutions overlap, sometimes complementing and sometimes clashing.
• Change is rarely linear, it flows through relationships, obligations, and power struggles across these institutions.
• Understanding power, visible, hidden, and invisible, is critical. Who sets the agenda? Whose voice is heard? Whose norms define what’s acceptable?

For young leaders, ignoring these dynamics is risky. As one participant told me:

“Don’t think you have all the ideas from outside… Sometimes uni students assume they have the answers, but most times, they get a technical knockout because of arrogance.”

What Young Leaders Are Doing Differently

From our dialogues, five practices stood out that show how young people are instinctively applying a power and systems approach:

1. They observe before acting. Young leaders emphasised humility: listening, learning, and seeking legitimacy before launching initiatives.
2. They navigate multiple institutions. Success often required engaging both formal leaders (ward councillors, government officers) and informal leaders (elders, church networks).
3. They leverage symbolic capital. Higher education, professional experience, and cultural practices (like hosting a mumu or responding to family cultural obligations) became ways to earn trust and credibility.
4. They mobilise Wantok networks. Kinship ties provide legitimacy and mobilisation power, but also demand reciprocity and respect.
5. They adapt iteratively. Change efforts were rarely planned in straight lines. Reflection, pausing, and adjusting strategies were integral.

Implications for Development Practice

This perspective has important implications for those supporting youth and community development in PNG:

• Start with power analysis. Don’t just look at institutions in isolation; map relationships, norms, and hidden dynamics.
• Value relational legitimacy. Funders and NGOs often prize formal structures, but legitimacy in PNG is relational, not bureaucratic.
• Support adaptive practice. Youth leaders are already working iteratively. Programs should allow for reflection, experimentation, and adjustment.
• Recognise youth as system navigators. They’re not waiting for government solutions; they are crafting pathways within and across complex systems.

Conclusion

The young people I worked with would never describe themselves as systems thinkers or political analysts. Yet, in practice, they embody both. They are acutely aware that every action has ripple effects across their communities.

By applying a power and systems lens, they show us that youth leadership in PNG is not about standing outside the system, but moving within it, humbly, strategically, and relationally. For practitioners and policymakers, the lesson is clear: if we want to support youth leadership, we must also support the systems-thinking practices they already use to survive, adapt, and lead.