Democracy and Elections in Cambodia
By Stephen Bridges
I must confess that my knowledge of the subject matter is limited. I was not here in 1993 or 1998. My practical experience of Cambodian elections consists of what I have read coupled with visits to about ten polling stations in Prey Veng and Kampong Cham during the recent Commune Council Election. I will therefore stick to the overarching theme of democratic reform in Cambodia over the past ten years.
I would like to start at the beginning. The genesis of the subject matter for the next couple of days: The Paris Peace Accords of 1991. Some of the stated objectives from Paris were: an end to civil war, return of refugees, respect for human rights and free elections leading to the formation of a legitimate, democratically accountable government and the establishment of parliamentary democracy including regular, free elections. Or as Abraham Lincoln put it one hundred and thirty years before, “ballots as the rightful and peaceful successors to bullets.”
Paris set an ambitious schedule. But ten years on, and two general and inaugural multi-party commune elections on, with a third general election round the corner, makes it difficult to argue against those who claim success in meeting at least some of the stated goals. Abraham Lincoln, for one, would be delighted that the ballot has, in modern Cambodia, succeeded the bullet.
Clearly the reform road has not always been a smooth one. There have been potholes on the way. But this was perhaps inevitable. With hindsight the expectations were unrealistic. It was never going to be easy to transplant a perfectly functioning Western-style parliamentary democracy to Cambodia in a short period of time.
In 1991, we would have had to be seriously optimistic to believe that it was possible to bring peace to Cambodia through negotiations, let alone suggest that one side or another, particularly the Khmer Rouge, would not seek to wreck the whole process if it proved detrimental to their own specific narrow interests. We would have probably been deemed certifiable if we had suggested that ten years on we would have multi-party local elections and would be discussing the possibilities for further democratic decentralization and political reform in a conference such as this.
This is the scale of the political developments in Cambodia. And we should not underestimate the progress that has been achieved. This progress has necessarily taken the form of the tangible – construction of the infrastructure, and so forth, as well as the intangible – the construction of new social perspectives and the promotion of political rights, even if such development have not been matched in other democratic fields, such as legal and judicial reform.
In the wake of regular elections, expectations among the electorate have clearly been raised to a new level. And rightly so. It would be arrogant to suggest that Cambodians should make do with a more diluted form of democracy than my own countrymen and women, and those elsewhere in the world.
A survey completed in 2000 by Center for Advanced Study (CAS), recorded that most Cambodians were politically aware that expressing a strong desire to choose their own leaders and to ensure that the outcome of their elections reflected the popular will. The CAS reported that Cambodians could speak freely about politics and saw local government as perhaps more important in their lies than national government.
On the other hand, they expressed concerns about the management of elections and the opportunities for abuse in the system. Very few knew the name of their MP.
Further democratic progress is still needed. The instances of political violence and intimidation, as witnessed in the run-up to the Commune Council Elections earlier this year, was a cause of concern and continues to be a concern today. Female politicians are still is the minority and women are generally seen as second-class citizens in the political arena.
The NEC needs to be reformed, helped and supported to help it make the transition to become a truly independent commission. And clear decisions need to be taken understood on the issue of equal access to media for all parties in election periods.
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly for the longest-term democratic development of Cambodia, there is still a need for widespread electoral/ democratic education. Wanting to vote and knowing who or what to vote for are who two different things.
Many Cambodians will associate democracy with freedom. And none of us wish to down play the importance of one’s freedom.
But there are other concepts of democracy that need to be further explained and understood. Few Cambodians have participated in the electoral process beyond voting, and while political tolerance is the norm in the community, there is still political intolerance at a personal level, which fuels tension and violence.
Clearly a lot has happened since the Paris Peace Accords in 1991 and there is much for Cambodians to be proud of. And there is still more to be done. The Commune Council Elections were the latest step and an important one. Provided they are given the necessary tools and resources, the newly elected Commune Councils should be able to meet the needs of their communities more rapidly and more effectively.
Democratic decentralization can contribute to reducing poverty and will allow communities to address their most pressing needs. Buttressed by the SEILA program, this could bring about real socio-political and socio-economic change, especially to the rural areas.
This is a mammoth task. Democratic and political reform can be a long process; not least at the local level. The United Kingdom, despite its claim to be the “mother of all democracies,” knows this only too well. Charters for self-government in major towns date back to 12th Century in the UK; but continual changes were made to the local government system until major reforms were instituted in the 1830s. Further changes are still being made and only now has developed government come to Scotland.
As I have said before at other conferences on this subject, it has taken us nearly 800 years and we still have not get it right. So we should applaud the initiative and ambition of the Royal Government of Cambodia to attempt a decentralization program after only ten years of real democracy.
And we should not become blinded by elections. Ten years ago they were considered to be the end game. But that was then and this is now. It is a testament to how far the Cambodian polity has developed that they are now seen as the start of the process, not as a result in themselves. The elections and the creation of democratic and decentralized government are, I believe no longer seen in Cambodia as separate developments. There is a growing recognition that the quality of one determines the potential for the other.
But, although I suggest that elections are not the end game in themselves, I do not underestimate their significance, especially in a relatively young democracy such as Cambodia. Elections can form the pivotal of the process to promote and develop democracy in Cambodia. So I hope the general elections next year will be conducted on a peaceful and stable footing in order to allow the fundamental principles of democracy to continue to prevail.
In conclusion, I wish to quote the words of a famous British Democrat, Winston Churchill who perhaps said it best in a speech to the British Parliament in 1944. World War II was coming to an end and the British Government was beginning to consider how best to rebuild from the horror and devastation of war, in much the same way as Cambodia was in 1991. Mr. Churchill said, “at the bottom of all the tributes to democracy is the little man (and woman), walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little piece of paper – no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of this point.”
This is as true for Cambodia today and tomorrow as it was then and still is for my own country.
(Source: Elections in Cambodia: Lessons Learned and Future Direction, page17-22, Phnom Penh, 2002)