Power of ideas can end repressive regime

As Premier Hun Sen and the Cambodian People's Party claimed 91 of the 123 parliamentary seats in the July 27 national elections even before election returns were completed, Sen's Information Minister Khieu Kanharith insisted, as the July 29 Cambodia Daily reports, "The people have decided. Please do not preach to them now." He denounced "the arrogance" of those questioning the election results. And Sen announced, those who would like a taste of power should line up, but the "royals" are not wanted.

How have the Cambodian people decided?

One day before the elections, a Human Rights Watch release titled, "Cambodia: Threats, Intimidation Mar Campaign, Unequal Media Access Hampers Opposition Parties," described "conditions are not in place for free and fair elections."

HRW Asia director Brad Adams said, "Elections in Cambodia under existing conditions devalue the process," and "Election observers from genuine democracies would never accept at home the CPP's grip on the media or the fear and intimidation faced by voters and opposition parties."

"The lack of fair access to the broadcast media alone is enough to delegitimize the election," Adams asserted.

But the 10 political parties went into the ring anyway to compete against the CPP in lopsided elections that were expected to guarantee the CPP's victory.

The 1993 United Nations-supervised elections had reasonable chances of being "more" free and "more" fair thanks to international participation. At that time I wrote in "Bleeding Cambodia" in the Sept. 30, 1993 Far Eastern Economic Review, that the Khmer Rouge should not have boycotted those elections. I admit, however, that I have never seen much to be gained by participating in flawed elections organized by a repressive regime.

Of course ballots are definitely better than bullets, but in flawed elections dictators unleash bullets to secure ballots to legitimize their rule. How was it that the winners of the 1993 elections were forced to cede the control of the country to the defeated, who then shared the prime-ministership, and who in 1997 pulled a coup d'etat that killed many, to seize complete power? As the winners were sent running out of town while the world watched, Sen and the CPP established complete control over governmental and administrative machineries. What chances were there for "free" and "fair" elections, and for free choice by the Cambodian people?

The July 30 Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission's "Urgent Appeals Programme" detailed how a relative of a CPP leader and bodyguards assaulted an SRP member of parliament, and the AHRC charged, "Many sons of powerful people engage in this kind of misconduct, with the same impunity."

When Sen and the CPP proclaimed election victory, leaders of four major opposition parties issued a "call on the Cambodian public opinion and the international community not to recognize" the election results that "were manipulated and rigged" by the ruling CPP.

"We need to revote across Cambodia," the Voice of America quoted opposition leader Sam Rainsy as saying. "We appeal to the (European Union) and the international community to deny the results," the VOA quoted the head of opposition Human Rights Party, who expressed the "hope in the future" of an alliance of people "who love justice" to come work together.

Adams advised, "When making their judgments about this election, observers must take into account the entire context of the elections," and "must not fall into the trap of using lower standards for Cambodia."

Local and international election monitors may agree, as the E.U. chief observer put it, the elections "fell short of a number of key international standards for democratic elections," but as the Inter Press Service reports, the opposition's charge of "foul play" has met with "little support" from the monitors, who see more positive than negative in the elections.

Cambodian-American blogger pretty.ma@sympatico.ca writes, "Democracy in Cambodia is ... Dead." The writer forecasts "plenty of signs of trouble(d) water ahead" for the people and their country and questions why the United States government "overlooked and accepted many flaws, election after election" in Cambodia.

From London, British economist Christopher Windsor's "anger and disappointment" are expressed in an article circulated on the Internet -- it is "a shame ... that the majority of Cambodians (who were able to vote) voted for a dictator once again," Windsor writes, and blasted, "If anything bad happens to Cambodia in the future, we are to blame no one but Cambodians."

Democracy and human rights do not trump the politics of national interests as defined by leaders, and a weak educational system does not produce discerning citizens who are able to assert their rights in a cogent and thoughtful way.

Some Cambodians may see things as bleak. But as quality thinking can be taught, teaching the brain to think better and clearer, and to plan more effectively for the morrows is not beyond the human reach, so a repressive regime can always end by the power of ideas.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam, where he taught political science for 13 years.