Viewing Cambodia’s political
development from the inside out
Published on the Khmer Times, 4
March 2019
This is in response to the article written by Kimkong Heng
and Veasna Var entitled “Reversing Cambodia’s democratic drift” which appeared
in East Asia Forum. The article raised three major points namely the alleged
sham election, the decrease of legitimacy and the growing state autocracy.
I wish to reflect upon the nuances of the development of
democracy in Cambodia through historical comparison and debate on the nature of
autocracy.
Cambodia’s democracy should be viewed as still in the
elementary school level if compared to other advanced and established
democracies as discussed by Soun Nimeth , which appeared in Myanmar Times. He
argued that viewing it from the nation-building perspective, Cambodia is among
the top scorers. Its political development comprises three elements in tandem
namely peace, strong economic growth and a certain level of democratisation,
which is currently a rare case in the region.
Calling the 2018 election a “sham election” is rather a
misplaced argument. Out of the 8.3 million registered voters, 83 percent went
to vote, which is relatively high if compared to other countries with a
non-compulsory electoral system. For instance, the Philippines had 60.6 percent
in 2013, India 58.19 percent in 2009, the US 41.59 percent in 2010 and 55.7
percent in 2016, and Japan 53.68 percent in 2017.
Nearly 1.5 million people voted in favour of another party
than the Cambodian Peoples’ Party (CPP). If we consider the exceptionally high
number of invalid votes of over 500,000, we can consider that more than two
million voters (out of some 7 million) expressed a preference different from
that of the CPP. The number of invalid votes is also a good indication of
freewill and secrecy of ballot.
Compared with previous elections, there are two major
historical developments that should deserve attention.
Firstly, it is the first election that was held with zero
incidence of violence. There was less tension as contending political parties
did not instigate class division, racial hatred, xenophobia and ultra-nationalism.
Secondly, there was absence of post-electoral confusion.
Previously, after every general election, Cambodia’s government would be
stalled by prolonged electoral deadlock, if not violence. Allegations on vote
irregularities such as voters’ list, name duplication, voter registration and
management, etc. were common. Such confusion had been neutralised thanks to the
digitalisation of voters’ list, which was technically supported by Japan and
the EU.
Arguing that the government’s legitimacy is under threat and
is drifting towards autocracy does not reflect reality on the ground.
The authors got mixed up between the concept of “approval
rating” and “legitimacy.” It is normal that the approval rating of President
Trump, President Macron and Chancellor Merkel are decreasing but that does not
mean that their legitimacy is under threat. Besides, legitimacy is not for
outsiders to decide but for the Cambodian people.
Touching on arguments of autocracy, the high level of
freedom of expression and freedom of association should be cited.
Media criticism is becoming a part of life for every
Cambodian. Far from being autocratic, the government has been very sensitive
towards public opinion.
The case in point is the violent incident involving land
issues in Preah Sihanouk province. Four military police officers were
disciplined after the probe and Preah Sihanouk provincial governor was publicly
criticised by the Minister of Interior for the violent clashes with people.
Recently, two deputy provincial governors were officially removed following the
Supreme Consultative Council’s meeting last week.
Another incident involved the sacking of Ratanakkiri
Provincial Military Police Chief Kim Raksmey after criticism on his handing out
of $500,000 to his children at a birthday party.
Online media freedom is reaching the level of frenzy. Social
media users in Cambodia are free to say practically almost anything you want
against the government’s underperformance. Any foreigner who can read Khmer on
Facebook would immediately understand that the language used in social media is
clearly not an expression that can be used by people under suppression.
The two foreign affiliated radios, Radio Free Asia (RFA) and
Voice of America (VOA) in Khmer, can be heard uninterrupted daily throughout
the country along with their online webcast. The RFA and VOA are free to
broadcast their daily tirades against the government, in the likes of animosity
between President Trump and CNN. Their popular radio programme can be accessed
anytime over the Net and also on Facebook. It is estimated that of the
country’s 29.2 million mobile phone connections, 52 per cent have 3G or 4G
broadband coverage.
Cambodia continues to be an “NGO paradise” with more than
5,000 operating freely and their voices are impactful. If they are under
pressure, they should have voiced support for the EU as it launched procedural
action to withdraw Cambodia’s trade preferences under the Everything But Arms
scheme – an action the EU claims as necessary to save the opposition and civil
society groups. The reality is that none of the civil society organisations
operating in Cambodia have voiced their support for the EU’s latest action. So
is the EU barking up the wrong tree?
Labeling Cambodia as autocracy stems from the misperception
of Cambodia’s political development and the gross over-expectation of a
performance beyond that of an elementary-level democracy. On top of that,
geopolitical interests are also at play. These factors, indeed, exert pressure
on the political, economic and strategic choices of Cambodia. However, it
should be fair to say that such discussion should be separated from the context
of the state’s legitimacy.