Cambodia held its fourth parliamentary election on July 27th, 2008. As predicted Hun Sen's ruling Cambodia People's Party (CPP) came out on top with approximately 60% of the votes in their favor. International observers were out in force to monitor the election and the general consensus was that while the election fell short of international standards there was considerable improvement from the 2003 elections. So the elections were "free, if not entirely fair."
The CPP has held power since the first parliamentary election and the departure of UNTAC in 1993. Some of the tactics used by the CPP
to consolidate and expand their political dominance include using state machinery and resources to disenfranchise voters, gift giving to rural voters in order to create an obligation of loyalty to the party, luring opposition leaders to defect by awarding them positions in government, and preventing opposition parties from accessing the media.
In particular, the luring of opposition party elite into ruling party government positions, made public and broadcast widely, saw many leading opposition party members jump to the ruling party for well paid undersecretary of state or advisor positions in the last two months prior to the elections. One of the people who made the jump also went on to head a supposed military police judicial investigation into Sam Rainsy (leader of the main opposition party) for initiation of the coup d'etat in 1997 and other violence in 2003. It was reported in the Phnom Penh Post that the popular strategy of trumping up serious criminal allegations against the opposition within two months of the election day also happened in the lead up to the 2003 elections and was also initiated by enticing opposition members to the ruling party with money or position. The charges just blatantly disappear following the election, but the damage is done and the legal system has been successfully misused for political gain.
Opposition parties also reported widespread intimidation throughout the country, a claim which was discounted by the National Election Committee (NEC). The ruling CPP has a convenient majority in the NEC and controlled all discussions related to complaints, threats, intimidation or the striking of a large number of names from voter registration lists. I guess all this is where "fair" elections became "relatively fair" elections.
All of these tactics represent a refinement of the initial tendency towards violence and intimidation to maintain power, although the violence is still present, as the murder of an opposition journalist in broad daylight confirms. The result is the same - one party holds on to control, leaders use their power for personal financial gain, corruption continues, and there is no real development, 15 years on, of democratic essentials like respect for the rule of law, an independent judiciary or a separation of powers. The reality is that "democracy is not synonymous with holding elections" but when an election that is categorized as "free, if not entirely fair" is considered acceptable the message seems to be that a dysfunctional power-grab for personal gain is ok, as long as it takes place within the legitimizing structure of democracy.
Of course, others feel differently. An opinion article written by the UN secretary general's representative in Cambodia from 1993-1997 for the Phnom Penh Post refers to Hun Sen as a "fulcrum of economic stability" and enthusiastically declares that "Everywhere one can see a rapidly emerging middle class living in ever better accommodations, reflecting the construction boom and rapidly escalating land prices, while more and more families are sending their children to public and an increasing plethora of private schools and universities." The author attributes the CPP's election victory to rapid economic progress driven by the "four Fs: foreign aid, foreign investment, foreign trade and foreign tourists."
I don't question the statistics, but would comment on the complete lack of mention of social justice issues, or even social issues in general. Indications of growth aside from numbers that mean little for the quality of life of the average Cambodian are noticeably absent from the article and overall it seems aimed at foreign investors, painting a picture of wonderfully lucrative investment opportunities - which is great, provided you have no qualms about things like forced evictions, violence and mass displacement of communities, not to mention severe poverty and gross social inequality.
Prime Minister Hun Sen himself spoke publicly this week, after a traditional month of silence prior to election day (he has no need to speak, his confidence is overwhelming). One of his statements was in response to opposition claims of rigged elections. Hun Sen said it was perfectly acceptable for the opposition to boycott the opening ceremony of the National Assembly. In that case, the CPP would just divide those National Assembly seats among themselves and the FUNCINPEC party. These comments, in combination with blatant abuses of power on many levels are clear indication that Cambodia's political elite just don't understand how democracy works. Or alternatively, they understand completely and have rejected all democratic principles but retain the façade because it is politically convenient to do so. Nothing like a stable democracy to attract foreign investment.
In Cambodia the international community would like to see democracy flourish in a political and cultural environment that has no foundation for it. In the meantime the essential failure of democracy - which could be attributed to any number of factors - is being largely accepted due to the fact that every four years or so the country holds a relatively free election. The larger question might come down to: what is the point of voting if your vote means nothing? If a country is being skillfully manipulated by those who have the time and resources to do so than why should we allow democracy to be co-opted to that end?
In the end, a dysfunctional democracy in Cambodia seems to be fairly low on the priority list of political problems in the world today. I understand that, but would argue that ignorance is just plain unacceptable. Looking at an election and claiming that democracy is alive and well is delusional and ill-informed. There may be no will or ability to do anything to improve the situation at this point, and it may also be that there is nothing to be done from the outside. The emergence of democracy from the bottom up within the country may be the only realistic path, and that might take a long time.