"UNITY behind CNRP" or "UNITY behind Kem Sokha"? - Exchanges on Facebook, 26-27 Sept. 2017

I'm sure that was the calculation that Sam Rainsy made in the merger, not wanting to waste time or energy in convincing the opinion makers of what were the suspicions of the democrats (that Kem Sokha's Human Rights Party a Hun Sen creation) but to gather any and all strength for the 2013 elections. SR, however, underestimated the ambition and treachery of KS, particularly his Lady Macbeths, and at times gave in and gave away too much that snowballed to the present situation.

Easily, in all forms of advocacy be it verbal or signage. It's a matter of emphasis. Of course, it's difficult only if you make CNRP synonymous with Kem Sokha (CNRP=KS) which to me is not the case and is extremely limiting/restrictive and dangerous. Given how flawed/treacherous and unfit Sokha is, why would you base your political messaging on him and marginalize and alienate a great number of CNRP officials who are disgusted by KS and exclude supporters like me? Why not formulate a more INCLUSIVE political message around CNRP and democracy? For example, rather than a single image of KS "Free Kem Sokha", why not "Free Democracy" or "Free all political prisoners" or "CNRP=Democracy". One major distinction between a presidential system (US) and parliamentary system (Cambodia) is that the voters vote directly (via a body) for a president/person, whereas we Cambodians vote for parliamentarians who determine the prime minister. This should make it even easier to make a distinction between Party and Person (especially a person as flawed and unfit as KS).

My proposal: UNITE behind CNRP. To do otherwise (Unite behind Kem Sokha) is extremely exclusive and unpalatable for those of us who are convinced of his betrayal of democracy. It is "bashing" of betrayal, of treachery. Here, St. Augustine helps: "But living a just and holy life requires one to be capable of an objective and impartial evaluation of things: to love things, that is to say, in the right order, so that you do not love what is not to be loved, or fail to love what is to be loved, or have a greater love for what should be loved less, or an equal love for things that should be loved less or more, or a lesser or greater love for things that should be loved equally."

- Theary C. Seng, 26 Sept. 2017

 

This person is taking my words beyond what I had written and mean in the 2nd para. My "Unite behind CNRP and not Kem Sokha" is context-specific.

Given the circumstances and in light of the facts, why unite behind a betrayer of democracy? And alienate party officials and supporters? As a strategy, why not unite behind the party CNRP which is more inclusive? As political messaging, why exclude and alienate?

We rally behind individuals all the time. In a presidential system, you must rally behind the person. Less necessary in a parliamentary system because you are not directly voting for a prime minister. Everywhere, we rally behind individuals who represent the good, the honorable, the courageous.

I do not like "the idea of uniting behind Kem Sokha, the individual," because Kem Sokha is a liar, betrays democracy, is a hypocrite, is an intellectual lightweight, is ignorant -- why would I rally behind someone like this? Especially in a leader?

I rally behind Sam Rainsy because he is the best person to lead the country.

- Theary C. Seng, 27 Sept. 2017