By M.H. Lao
Phnom Penh Post, Issue 1/10, November 20-December 3, 1992
Lately there have been moves to hold a presidential election in Cambodia prior the election of a constituent assembly.
Proponents of this idea see it as a way out of the present impasse over the implementation of the Paris peace accords, an impasse which has resulted from the Khmer Rouge's refusal to abide by Phase II of that peace plan on the grounds that the Supreme National Council (SNC) has not been performing the role provided for in the accords.
However, a body of opinion does not see a presidential election as a solution. Such people view it as unacceptable since it was not provided for in the Paris agreements.
Suppose that the Paris accords could legally be amended to accommodate the presidential election. Would it provide a solution to the present impasse? Or might it not complicate the implementation of the Paris peace accords and destroy them in the end? Could the cure not kill the patient? Who would pay for such a miscalculation? This article attempts to explain some possible scenarios and answer these questions.
Would a presidential election be a democratic election?
All parties have agreed to a multi-party democracy for Cambodia. Elections through which the Cambodian people could exercise their right to self determination-in particular, to choose their leader-should be warmly welcomed and supported as they are part and parcel of that democracy.
In the present Cambodian context, however, proponents of the presidential election may have in mind only one candidate; that is, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, currently Head of State and President of the Supreme National Council (SNC) of Cambodia.
Would this election be simply a plebiscite for one candidate, denying other Cambodians their right to present themselves as presidential candidates? If so, would that famous multi-party democracy be simply a farce to fool the Cambodian people who are currently being taught democratic principles and human rights?
A presidential election, in conformity with multi-party democracy, must be a democratic, free and fair election, in which all eligible Cambodians could stand as candidates and vote. There must also be a neutral political environment conducive to such an election. In such an environment it might be too early to assume that Prince Sihanouk would be the only unchallengeable candidate.
Would the incumbent head of state win with enhanced credibility and authority?
Up to now many have believed that Prince Sihanouk is Cambodia's most popular leader. According to this point of view, the Prince enjoys the trust of all Cambodians and is the worthy, unchallengeable Head of State and SNC President. He would win a cut-and-dried victory in any election. This belief is not unfounded, judging by the size of the crowds Prince Sihanouk has been addressing around the country and from "opinion polls." Such a development would then provide both him and the Cambodian democratic process with added legitimacy.
However, thus far Prince Sihanouk has enjoyed all the spotlight and has been praised by all, even hypocritically. No one has dared to come out yet and put forward his or her ideas on the governance of the country and challenge Prince Sihanouk.
When and if there is a neutral environment, adequate security for freedom
of expression, and the opportune moment, there could well be other Cambodians who might stand for election as president-for reasons of self publicity, for the sake of multi-party democracy, or genuinely with a vision and a political program for their nation.
Unexpected circumstances such as these should be allowed for and the participation of more candidates should be encouraged and supported by all believers in multi-party democracy and human rights.
During election campaigns, all candidates invariably try to unearth and publicly expose the weaknesses of their opponents. Many potential candidates cannot be sure that they would gain credibility, respect, and authority in that election, since they do have their respective weaknesses-particularly those who have been at the helm of the state in the past.
In a competitive race for president, one scenario might be that the incumbent Head of State-for whom many Cambodians and foreign dignitaries have great respect and on whom many have pinned their hopes-emerges the winner with enhanced stature and authority.
But if the unexpected is allowed for, worse scenarios are possible: the election could open a Pandora's box of grievances and get out of hand; the incumbent Head of State might lose the election; he might quit; etc.
In all these scenarios it is not certain that the cure (the presidential election) will in any way be better than the disease (the impasse over the implementation of the peace plan). But what is patently certain, as has been the case thus far, is that it is the Cambodian people themselves who will pay with their lives and limbs for any miscalculation.
The proponents of the presidential election as the solution to the present impasse may be reminded of the following words of Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you under the bowls of Christ, think you might be mistaken."
- M.H. Lao is a member of the London-based Center for Research into Communist Economies.
Proponents of this idea see it as a way out of the present impasse over the implementation of the Paris peace accords, an impasse which has resulted from the Khmer Rouge's refusal to abide by Phase II of that peace plan on the grounds that the Supreme National Council (SNC) has not been performing the role provided for in the accords.
However, a body of opinion does not see a presidential election as a solution. Such people view it as unacceptable since it was not provided for in the Paris agreements.
Suppose that the Paris accords could legally be amended to accommodate the presidential election. Would it provide a solution to the present impasse? Or might it not complicate the implementation of the Paris peace accords and destroy them in the end? Could the cure not kill the patient? Who would pay for such a miscalculation? This article attempts to explain some possible scenarios and answer these questions.
Would a presidential election be a democratic election?
All parties have agreed to a multi-party democracy for Cambodia. Elections through which the Cambodian people could exercise their right to self determination-in particular, to choose their leader-should be warmly welcomed and supported as they are part and parcel of that democracy.
In the present Cambodian context, however, proponents of the presidential election may have in mind only one candidate; that is, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, currently Head of State and President of the Supreme National Council (SNC) of Cambodia.
Would this election be simply a plebiscite for one candidate, denying other Cambodians their right to present themselves as presidential candidates? If so, would that famous multi-party democracy be simply a farce to fool the Cambodian people who are currently being taught democratic principles and human rights?
A presidential election, in conformity with multi-party democracy, must be a democratic, free and fair election, in which all eligible Cambodians could stand as candidates and vote. There must also be a neutral political environment conducive to such an election. In such an environment it might be too early to assume that Prince Sihanouk would be the only unchallengeable candidate.
Would the incumbent head of state win with enhanced credibility and authority?
Up to now many have believed that Prince Sihanouk is Cambodia's most popular leader. According to this point of view, the Prince enjoys the trust of all Cambodians and is the worthy, unchallengeable Head of State and SNC President. He would win a cut-and-dried victory in any election. This belief is not unfounded, judging by the size of the crowds Prince Sihanouk has been addressing around the country and from "opinion polls." Such a development would then provide both him and the Cambodian democratic process with added legitimacy.
However, thus far Prince Sihanouk has enjoyed all the spotlight and has been praised by all, even hypocritically. No one has dared to come out yet and put forward his or her ideas on the governance of the country and challenge Prince Sihanouk.
When and if there is a neutral environment, adequate security for freedom
of expression, and the opportune moment, there could well be other Cambodians who might stand for election as president-for reasons of self publicity, for the sake of multi-party democracy, or genuinely with a vision and a political program for their nation.
Unexpected circumstances such as these should be allowed for and the participation of more candidates should be encouraged and supported by all believers in multi-party democracy and human rights.
During election campaigns, all candidates invariably try to unearth and publicly expose the weaknesses of their opponents. Many potential candidates cannot be sure that they would gain credibility, respect, and authority in that election, since they do have their respective weaknesses-particularly those who have been at the helm of the state in the past.
In a competitive race for president, one scenario might be that the incumbent Head of State-for whom many Cambodians and foreign dignitaries have great respect and on whom many have pinned their hopes-emerges the winner with enhanced stature and authority.
But if the unexpected is allowed for, worse scenarios are possible: the election could open a Pandora's box of grievances and get out of hand; the incumbent Head of State might lose the election; he might quit; etc.
In all these scenarios it is not certain that the cure (the presidential election) will in any way be better than the disease (the impasse over the implementation of the peace plan). But what is patently certain, as has been the case thus far, is that it is the Cambodian people themselves who will pay with their lives and limbs for any miscalculation.
The proponents of the presidential election as the solution to the present impasse may be reminded of the following words of Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you under the bowls of Christ, think you might be mistaken."
- M.H. Lao is a member of the London-based Center for Research into Communist Economies.
4 comments:
Dr Lao
Thank you for your articulated article in regard of proposed presidential election.If that political environment is ready , for the progress of Paris Agreements with a good platform to work on, why not?.
President's roles to lead has to be clearly stipulated to ensure the implementation becomes successful.Duty of care has to be fullfiled, if that commitment is genuine.
For democratic process endeavored and encouraged, any qualified candidate with merit and clear planning strategies for the implementation of Paris Agreement should be entitled to, as he or she is citizen of cambodia.
Cambodia has adopted democratic monarchy, that is not to say she is belonged to royalist or any politcal party outrght.If the king farther is prefered and elected, thus duty of care is to comlpy,certainly is not going to be a parking spot and sit as an observer for any benefit of any political party.
Running for typical president is not about demoralised, unearth all weakness of other side.This is a very damaging games, it has proven in our history and poor cambodians would wish not see that happens .Election if that amended and agreed to,should focus predominently on how best candidate can achieve his tasks.
Rubbing salt in to the wound is not the best practice.
Neang SA
Here, all I wanted to say that the main purpose of the Paris Peace Accord is to maintain peace in Cambodia, just as its name clearly imply.
Accordingly, we should stop screwing with it because it is doing what it is supposed to do.
Oversimplifying it to say just for Peace without knowing what entails and how the Viet violates the accord is either irresponsible or speaking out for the Viet just to say the least...
Well, if the Peace accord is intended to cause war in the region, then we don't want it. We signed the damn agreement in good faith that the accord will bring peace in the region, not war.
Post a Comment