Basil Fernando

The July 1997 coup helped the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP) to gather around it a group of people who were willing to genuinely cooperate with them. These partners were a group of deserters from the Royalist FUNCINPEC. The July 1998 elections have reversed the process and brought the CPP’s most bitter opponents as its only possible partners. Thus the Cambodian electorate has created the deepest crisis of authority and legitimisation within the Cambodian political system since the collapse of the Pol Pot regime. Now, months have passed since the elections, attempts at the formation of a coalition have failed. Even if the immediate constitutional crisis relating to the formation of a government may be resolved by some form of a coalition between these bitter opponents, the political crisis will continue. No political observer is sure of what type of a regime will emerge in Phnom Penh.

Just at this moment, the debate is about the authenticity of the election results. The FUNCINPEC and the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) have demanded a fresh recount of votes in 800 communes. The Cambodian election law provides for investigations into alleged irregularities by any party. However, the National Election Committee (NEC) has failed to carry out this function. One of the NEC members, Mr. Kassie Neou, has made the following admission of this failure in an article to the Cambodia Daily:

"The real end is the successful transfer of power to the new government, at which time all the key players must be satisfied. This means that there is still work to be done for the 1998 elections, among other things - recounts based on specific complaints, random recounts and a full reconciliation of used and unused ballot papers. Reasonable measures such as these will do much to reassure the population and the parties that they have been fairly treated. This will result in a smooth transition to the new government."

The decisive factor during the month after the elections has been the intervention of the people themselves. It began first as an overnight sleeping before the NEC to protect the ballot boxes awaiting the recount. Nearly two weeks of such protest were not deterred by a throw of a grenade near the onlookers who gathered to watch the protest. The throw of the grenade killed a Japanese who was at the scene to do an interview. Instead of being intimidated, the Cambodian people began to take to the street. An Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) observer described an early gathering thus:

"When the demonstration started at seven o’clock, there were only about 1,000 people participating. But within the next hour more people kept joining. After about two hours the number of participants rose to more than 10,000 for the meeting at the stadium. Sam Rainsy came at eight, and more vehicles (trucks) came along with full of people. The military checkpoints once stopped the vehicles coming from Kompong Speu, Kandal and Kompong Cham, and military personnel asked the people to go back. But later they allowed the people to enter the city.

"There were representatives from the United Nations, human rights workers, embassy people, the Red Cross and about 100 monks. Finally, Sam Rainsy and FUNCINPEC leaders gave their speeches (Prince Norodom Ranariddh did not participate). The rally was due to head to the Interior Ministry where the NEC is located and to the SRP headquarters. But they could not go beyond the stadium because the police were alert at the Independence Monument to stop the rally. Sam Rainsy said that since we don’t want to have more troubles, we would only run the rally through the roads around the stadium. On the way more people joined the demonstration, and finally there were more than 15,000 people. The rally finished at 10 a.m."

While the formation of a government is a way to legitimise authority and a particular type of social control, an election can either become a means to legitimise authority or an occasion to destabilise such authority. The net result of the Cambodian elections is the latter.

The Week that Shook Cambodia

23-29 August was the most important week since the fall of Pol Pot from the point of view of mass intervention in the politics of the country. A vast crowd of people began a sit-in near the National Assembly, which is situated at the heart of the city. This place has acquired the name "Democracy Square." By 26 August (Wednesday) the government tried to push the protesters out of this central place by promising a different location, the Olympic Station, for them to continue their sit-in. The crowd, however, refused to move. By 30 August (Sunday), the crowd had increased, and there were mass demonstrations that attracted the attention of the world media.

Now, the protest demands have crystallised into two points.

As spelled out by opposition leaders including Prince Ranariddh and Sam Rainsy, these two points are "the demand for changing the formula used to allocating seats, so Mr. Hun Sen, whose party won 41 per cent of the popular vote, would not get the parliamentary majority he claims; and the call for all unused ballots to be accounted for to ensure none were used for fraud, random recounts of opposition-specified districts and re-voting in some areas."

There were fears that grenades might be thrown at the protesters or an incident like the Tiananman Square massacre might take place. There were also fears that the CPP might organise counter-demonstration, which in turn might lead to a conflict. However, so far, the CPP dared not to take such actions. Perhaps a faction within the CPP opposed to such actions.

The attempts by Hun Sen’s faction to re-convene the old National Assembly to get the constitutional amendment have not succeeded so far. Observers feel that there may be not enough number of former members of the National Assembly required to supporting the move. It is said that such an amendment will not be valid as it may have retrospective effect. The July 1998 elections are thus still under the condition that only a two-thirds majority is needed to form the government.

As the mass protests were proving successful, the opinion of the international community has responded favourably to the protesters. Several poll watch groups have called on the international community to withhold their approval of the election results until the demands made by protesters are complied with.

AHRC views the protest movement that has surfaced in August as the most important base for pinning hopes on Cambodian democracy. During the May 1993 elections, the people were still scared and did not come forward to defend the election results when the will of the people expressed through the elections was not respected. Within five years people have gained greater confidence and come to the street to defend themselves. The international community needs to respect the courage of the Cambodian people who have very good reasons to fear frightening reprisals against their free expression of political opinion. It may now be said with confidence that the people of Cambodia themselves have come forward to defend their rights, despite of unimaginable sufferings that they have suffered in the past.

Meanwhile, attempts have been made to discredit these mass protests. Opposition leaders themselves have contributed to this process by making racist remarks to gain cheap popularity. For example, some non-governmental organisations (NGOs) condemned the remarks by Sam Rainsy for calling on the United States to send missiles to Hun Sen’s house and his anti-Vietnamese rhetoric.

At the same time, non-violent action on the part of people requires discipline. Deliberate attempts need to be taken to avoid being provoked. This implies that the protesters themselves must avoid any form of violent actions by deed or words. Their aim is to provoke a response to their objectives and demands, and nothing else.

A Constitutional Crisis - No Credible Mechanism to Resolve

The Cambodian crisis once again demonstrates the central deficiency of the Cambodian political and legal system - the absence of a higher judiciary capable of intervening decisively at the moment of a constitutional crisis. (An AHRC publication - Problems Facing the Cambodian Legal System - deals with this issue in detail.) The opposition leaders, NGO leaders and agencies representing the international community need to bring the issue of legal and judicial reform to the forefront. Mass protest is, in fact, an occasion to educate the people in large scale the pre-requisites necessary for Cambodia’s transition to democracy.

Cambodia’s people are proving themselves worthy of democracy and a better form of government than what they have now. Will the Cambodian leaders prove themselves worthy of their people’s tru