The future of democracy
July 9, 2009
Writing at UPI Asia, Gaffar Peang-Meth, never one afraid of obscuring the point, wonders if Cambodian leaders have failed to appropriately embrace the principles of democracy.
Today’s Cambodia under Hun Sen and the CPP has more roads, bridges, modern buildings, and fancy villas. It is more appealing than the Cambodia of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge whose regime of murder and mayhem devastated the country from 1975-79. But under Hun Sen, the rich get richer, nearly half of the population lives below poverty level, many live off the city’s refuse, and high officials are accused of siphoning several hundred million dollars each year for personal enrichment.
Generous monetary aid to Hun Sen and the CPP helps strengthen authoritarian rule, which is legitimized by elections in an environment of intimidation and fear. The level of deadly attacks may have declined, but how many fewer threats, how much less intimidation, and how many fewer deaths make elections “more free and fair”? Are Cambodians “more free” because they are given ballots to put in election boxes under the watchful eyes of party cadres and agents?
Does a government that sells natural resources for private gain, evicts the weak and the underprivileged from their land in order to permit development by the wealthy and the powerful, sues its citizens and lifts the immunity of lawmakers whose words and opinions aren’t in agreement with those of the party in power, represent progress toward a more democratic future?
Of course not. Duh.
July 10, 2009 at 9:26 am
I’m no fan of the ruling party, but sourceless tripe like this is the worst type of journalism. The use of “many people,” is a good clue to how many facts (aside from what’s on Wikipedia) have been uncovered. Questions to the reader are the laziest way to imply statements without actually making them. And this gem: “Are Cambodians “more free” because they are given ballots to put in election boxes under the watchful eyes of party cadres and agents?”
If he’d bothered to actually investigate, it would have been clear that “most” Cambodians actually want the big man in charge, whether they like him or not. It’s all about stability. Or rather, ‘Is it better to have corruption with stability or chaos and democracy?’
July 10, 2009 at 2:13 pm
MukLoi
Don’t indulge in useless “mental masturbation”. If you have read the countless editorials and reports concerning cambodia, you have to agree that 99 percent of what is alleged here is true.
July 10, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I think the tipping point will be when the population stops holding the strongman in such awe, which will probably occur about the same time as they stop holding Western expats in such awe. When that time comes, and Cambodia becomes a modern Southeast Asian democracy, our fascination will end and we will depart.
This article is as pointless as we will find Cambodia when it becomes exactly like Thailand and Malaysia, as is it and its peoples’ right.
July 13, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Democracy in Cambodia is truly half baked, and obviously most of us know that. However, I still disagree with those who claim that democracy in Cambodia is only on paper. I see Cambodia as a nation which tries to maintain stability by moving slowly (baby steps at the time) toward democracy. Some critics expect Cambodia to move fester without looking back for the last 30 or even 40 years and without acknowledging how far Cambodia has come, despite some set backs by current government.
I don’t see that Sam Rainsy, Mu Sochua, or other members of the political parties are any different from Hun Sen. They think they are, but they are not, except for the fact that they are more pro-American than Hun Sen is. We must understand that being pro-American does not mean that they are embracing the idea of true democracy. Many of us are so ignorant because we have a tendency to believe they are pro democracy. All political parties in Cambodia are struggling for power. Power is the key word for the above parties concerned, not democracy. In other words, they care more about what kind of powers they want to have in order to protect their personal access and privilege more so than believing in the meaning and terms of democracy as are exhibited in the United States. Almost all of these politicians don’t have a clue, what-so-ever, as to how to implement the rule of law and democracy without losing their own privileges and powers and in turn sharing the power with others. That is what democracy is all about, society at large sharing the power and privilege of government so that all may be free. Therefore, democracy is not merely being ruled by the majority, but to provide and to have the equal rights for the minority as well.
For the last decade or so, I see a lot of attacks from the opposition parties against Hun Sen personally, including using all kinds of fanatical slogans. At the same time Hun Sen has reacted by using all kinds of intimidation. Most Cambodians do not care who is in charge as long the country does not return to civil war again. They had fought and killed each other for many years under the name of democracy and they decided they had experienced that enough. Stability and unity are what Cambodians want right now and they believe democracy can be implemented and performed by baby steps at a time. Hun Sen himself knows it well, and he has said many times in the words of his speeches if we listen to him carefully.
Many of us often compare Cambodia to a wealthy country such as the United States, Japan, Singapore, and so on. However, most Cambodians do not make these types of comparisons. They obviously know that Cambodia would come last or next to last. They usually compare Cambodia to Cambodia in the past decade or so. The question is this: is Cambodia better off today than decades ago? I think the answer is yes. This is the most important perspective by which Cambodians often view themselves and their progress and where just as many of us misjudge by looking at incompatible perspectives.