By Kouy Bunroeun

Since the Paris Peace Agreement in 1991, Cambodia has held three elections: two national elections in 1993 and 1998, and the communal council election in 2002.

Taking this opportunity, I wish to thank the Cambodian people who had participated in the three previous elections. I also wish to think UNTAC for successfully organizing the democratic election, although the Khmer Rouge refused to participate in it. In addition, I wish to thank the government for organizing the last two elections. I thank the donor community for providing assistance and the spirit for the three elections in Cambodia.

I wish to compare and analyze the three elections, as follow:

I. The 1993 election

1. The election authority. The comprehensive Agreement to the Cambodia Conflict on October 23, 1991 required UNTAC to organize a democratic election in Cambodia.
2. Training and education. Besides the state TV, UNTAC widely disseminated voter education through its own radio, displayed documents and pictures to educate people about democracy and the significance of the election, as well as their rights to elect the leader. The election officials also received training.
3. Voter registration. From October 5, 1992 to January 1993, the registration process lasted for four months. The registration procedure was easy. The people could register and vote whenever they wanted to. UNTAC established election registration mobile teams, which people could easily register.
4. Election campaign. During the election campaign, UNTAC Radio provided equal access to all political parties to voice their party guidelines. The state radio/TV provided very little time for political parties. The atmosphere in the campaign was full of threat, fear and political violence. At the time of the election, there was a request to leave out 200 party activists (from FUNCINPEC and BLDP).
5. Election and Ballot Counting. Despite the threat, fear, and political violence, 99% of the Cambodian population turned out to vote because they believed in UNTAC. People had confidence in the ballot-counting operation as it was done at the center.

II. The 1998 Election

1. The election authority. The 1998 election was held in accordance with another electoral law, which was different for the 1993 election. This law was prepared in the frightening situation after the bloodshed events of July 5-6, 1997. The eleven-member NEC of 11 organized the election in 1998. The eleven members of the NEC were chosen by the CPP (although there were representatives from both FUNCIPEC and BLDP). This made the NEC not neutral and thus unable to fulfill its study.
2. Training and education. In 1998, we found that the NEC provided little education to the voters. The election officials also received very little training.
3. Voter registration. From 25 May to 15 June 1998, registration lasted 20 days. People could register at any place they wished to and where they also could cast their votes. Local authority joined in to provide information to voters.
4. Election campaign. Political parties had little chance to have access to the state radio/TV to disseminate their policies. The parties that did not rule the country were not allowed to own the electronic media. At the time, there was threat and violence against FUNCINPEC and the Sam Rainsy party and the authority was unable to arrest or punish any offender.
5. Election and Ballot Counting. About 95% of the population turned out to vote. The ballot counting took place in the communes and there was irregularity in ballot counting. The counting process was made in many tables where there was only one party observer allowed. The counting process was made quickly. There was threat at the ballot counting places. There was a delay in announcing the election results, which was against the law.
6. Resolving complaints. The political parties submitted many complaints to the NEC but the latter lacked the will to solve those complaints. There was little progress made in vote-recounting process in some communes in the provinces of Takeo and Kampong Cham.

III. The 2002 Commune Council Elections

1. The election authority. The NEC’s eleven-members organized the commune council elections. The composition was better than before as FUNCINPEC itself nominated its members in the composition and the Sam Rainsy party could have one representative.
2. Training and education. The election officials were trained for a short period of time and they were not clear about the election registrations and procedures. The NEC did not provide voter education to the public as widely as possible.
3. Voter registration. The procedure, which was different from UNTAC’s election and the 1998 election, was very much complicated. It required the people to have the letters from the communes where they lived. The NEC did not widely provide information to the voters and the local authorities created a difficult access for the voters who were trying to get the letters. The letter, which was given by local authority, was to prove that a person resided in the commune. There was not enough material for registration and the material supplies did not get to deliver to all the places. This delay of delivery of material supplies obstructed the registration process. As a result. Only 5,190,307 people or about 83.02% of the 6,251,832 eligible people could register and more than 1 million people were unable to make it.
4. Elections campaign. The political parties were not allowed to use the state media to disseminate their policies and the private media did not dare to accept such broadcast. On the contrary, the ruling party was able to use both the state and the private media for propaganda before the election campaign through the government forum as a way of giving donations to the people. One day before the election and on the election day, there was vote buying through the provision of materials, food and money to the voters in almost all places. This drew protests from other political parties. The authority seized a number of documents, materials, and equipment from the political parties. This seizure violated the freedom of expression and the election campaign process to get the people’s support. Approximately ten cases of threat and killing of party activists occurred, which intimidated the voters and the party supports. I noticed that the local authority investigated into those cases and had arrested and punished the offenders related only to some cases.
5. Election and ballot counting. With little education and the absence of political parties’ access to the state radio/TV, and only 87% of the eligible people could turn out to vote in the 2002 commune council elections. The counting process took place at the polling stations and there was allegation of irregularity such as closing windows, counting too quickly and uncertainty of accepting the ticking ballots.
6. Resolving complaints. Many complaints were filed on the irregularities of vote counting, the validity of ballots, and vote buying. The NEC undemocratically solved the least complaints because it did not investigate into the complaints. Instead it refused to accept those complaints. The NEC was accused of being biased and unjust. In addition, the NEC did not create an ad-hoc commission, which should have the duty to assess the election results.

IV. Recommendations

After assessing the three Cambodian elections, I would like to offer the following recommendations for holding free and fair elections. We must:

• Reform the composition of the NEC so that it acts equally, independently and neutrally.
• Establish one institution outside the NEC to solve the election or election-related disputes.
• Provide information and education on election issues to the voters so that more people will turn out to register through the use of all means.
• Prevent any violence and take concrete measures against the offenders and the masterminds during the election.
• Provide political parties with equal access to the media.

(Source: Dr. Kao Kim Hourn: Elections in Cambodia: Lessons Learned and Future Direction, Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace (CICP), page 30-36, 2002, Phnom Penh, Cambodia)

Related posts:

• The Cambodian Elections: Lessons Learned and Future Directions (0)
• Community Advocacy: A Story from Battambang (0)
• Bank Hears Views on Governance & Anti-corruption (0)
• Transparency and Accountability the Key Demands for World Bank-Supported Good Governance Project (1)
• Promoting Citizens as Partners for Better Governance (0)
• Decentralization letting people make their own decisions (0)
• Assessing the Cambodian elections: An overview (0)
• Democracy and Elections in Cambodia (0)
• The Cambodian Election: An American view (0)
• MoNASRI begins Consultative Process for Its Component in the Demand for Good Government Project (0)

This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 at 9:16 am and is filed under Decentralization. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.