Cambodia’s leader just cracked down on the opposition, and the consequences will be dramatic
Washington Post | 24 February 2017
On Monday, Cambodia’s National Assembly passed 22
amendments to the country’s Law on Political Parties. The law was pushed
by Prime Minister Hun Sen, who has been in power since 1985, and his
Cambodian People’s Party. Although the revised law still requires a
rubber stamp endorsement from the Senate, Constitution Council and King
Norodom Sihamoni, its consequences are likely to be dramatic.
The
revised law would allow the Supreme Court and the Interior Ministry to
suspend and dissolve political parties for the ambiguous offenses of
causing “incitement that would lead to national disintegration” and
“subverting liberal multi-party democracy.” The target is the main
opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party.
One
amendment bars individuals with convictions and non-suspended prison
sentences from serving as party leaders. This is especially problematic
for Sam Rainsy, who lives in exile in Paris and resigned as president of
the Cambodia National Rescue Party last week in anticipation of the
revised law, and Kem Sokha, now the acting party president. Together
they have been subject to a raft of politically motivated criminal
convictions, including defamation, incitement, and the procurement of
prostitution. Rainsy took
to Twitter to decry how “The [international] community must address the
fact that they paid for a democratic system which is now lurching
towards a one-party state.”
An uncomfortable truth, however, is that Cambodia has never been a democracy in any meaningful sense of the term. In his book Democracy and the Market,
the political scientist Adam Przeworski famously defined democracy as a
“system in which parties lose elections.” After nearly four decades in
power, the very continuity of the Cambodian People’s Party violates this
basic minimal standard.
So if Cambodia is not a democracy, what is it?
The
amendments to the Law on Political Parties make this a particularly
salient question. Once implemented, they would affirm Cambodia’s status
as an authoritarian regime and could lead Cambodia to a more troubling
form of authoritarianism.
Cambodia has long been a typical example of “competitive authoritarianism.” According to political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way,
this is a political regime where the incumbent deliberately dilutes the
capacity of opposition parties to win office, intentionally infringes
upon civil liberties, and regularly abuses state resources to create an
uneven playing field.
The dissolution of the Cambodia National Rescue Party, however, would
shift Cambodia from “competitive” to “hegemonic authoritarianism.” This
is a regime where the incumbent legally bars opposition parties from
existing, violates basic civil liberties through the use of overt
repression and monopolizes access to resources, media, and the law. By
sidelining the Cambodia National Rescue Party, along with dozens of
other peripheral parties, elections will become known for nothing more
than manipulation, misconduct and a lack of competition.
What would this say about the role of Hun Sen and the Cambodian People’s Party? Authoritarian regimes are often distinguished by
whether an individual, dominant party, military junta or royal family
dominates. Until now, Cambodia has been a party-based regime, with the
Cambodian People’s Party being preeminent.
In a recently published article,
however, I provide new evidence that Hun Sen has usurped additional
power at the expense of his own party. He has acted as a gatekeeper for
political positions, appointed his relatives, created a paramilitary
group, controlled the security apparatus, managed membership of the
party executive, and exercised a monopoly on decision-making.
Hun
Sen’s increasing power is crucial for understanding the sudden move to
eliminate the Cambodia National Rescue Party. Hun Sen requested the
changes to the Law on Political Parties and took aim at Rainsy during a
recent parliamentary speech,
saying: “I request to make a change on this [law] to make him lose all
rights.” This strongly suggests that Cambodia’s Supreme Court and
Interior Ministry will not read or enforce this law impartially.
Instead, Cambodia’s slide deeper into authoritarianism will continue.
Lee Morgenbesser is a research fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University.
No comments:
Post a Comment