No. 1: Fidel Castro (L) and No. 6: Hun Sen (R)The List: Presidents for Life
November 2007
Foreign Policy (USA)
Pervez Musharraf, Vladimir Putin, and Hugo Chávez are merely the latest in a long line of strongmen who have used the trappings of democracy to stay in power. In this week’s List, FP takes a look at the world’s longest-serving “elected” leaders.
---------
No. 1: Fidel Castro
Who: President of Cuba
Years in power: 48
Last elected: 2003, with 100 percent of the vote by the Cuban National Assembly, an elected body that selects the president
Freedom House rating for Cuba: Not free
Democratic credentials: Castro may claim that Cuban democracy is “a thousand times more serious and more honest” than its U.S. counterpart, but the Cuban electoral process is hardly a stellar example of freedom in action. No candidate in municipal or national elections is allowed to campaign for office, and nearly all forms of political dissent are banned. In the 2003 election, Cuban voters were asked to lend a shred of legitimacy to Castro’s dictatorship by electing members to the 609-seat National Assembly. To make things less confusing, only 609 candidates were allowed to run, and they swiftly rubber-stamped another term for el Comandante, who despite his recent bout of ill health, has vowed to outlast U.S. President George W. Bush in office.
---------
...
---------
No. 6: Hun Sen
Who: Prime minister of Cambodia
Years in power: 22
Last elected: 2003, when his party won 47 percent of the Cambodian National Assembly
Freedom House rating for Cambodia: Not free
Democratic credentials: In sole control since overthrowing his co-prime minister in a 1997 military coup, Hun Sen has the dubious distinction of actually losing an election rigged in his favor. But that didn’t stop him from clinging to power. Hun Sen’s party notoriously bought votes and intimidated the opposition in the run-up to the 2003 presidential election, but the tactics failed to win Hun Sen the necessary majority to keep him in office. Only his close ties to the security forces kept Cambodia’s leader from retirement. Then again, one must expect such cunning from a former member of the Khmer Rouge.
---------
No. 1: Fidel Castro
Who: President of Cuba
Years in power: 48
Last elected: 2003, with 100 percent of the vote by the Cuban National Assembly, an elected body that selects the president
Freedom House rating for Cuba: Not free
Democratic credentials: Castro may claim that Cuban democracy is “a thousand times more serious and more honest” than its U.S. counterpart, but the Cuban electoral process is hardly a stellar example of freedom in action. No candidate in municipal or national elections is allowed to campaign for office, and nearly all forms of political dissent are banned. In the 2003 election, Cuban voters were asked to lend a shred of legitimacy to Castro’s dictatorship by electing members to the 609-seat National Assembly. To make things less confusing, only 609 candidates were allowed to run, and they swiftly rubber-stamped another term for el Comandante, who despite his recent bout of ill health, has vowed to outlast U.S. President George W. Bush in office.
---------
...
---------
No. 6: Hun Sen
Who: Prime minister of Cambodia
Years in power: 22
Last elected: 2003, when his party won 47 percent of the Cambodian National Assembly
Freedom House rating for Cambodia: Not free
Democratic credentials: In sole control since overthrowing his co-prime minister in a 1997 military coup, Hun Sen has the dubious distinction of actually losing an election rigged in his favor. But that didn’t stop him from clinging to power. Hun Sen’s party notoriously bought votes and intimidated the opposition in the run-up to the 2003 presidential election, but the tactics failed to win Hun Sen the necessary majority to keep him in office. Only his close ties to the security forces kept Cambodia’s leader from retirement. Then again, one must expect such cunning from a former member of the Khmer Rouge.
32 comments:
The trouble with westerner trained people is that they are badly retarded. I mean unless a country is nearly the same as westerner, it is not democracy.
The truth is Democracy is about bringing the wills of the people to life, and that need not be like westerner at all. It needs not to involved voting, if the wills of people is not to vote. It needs not to have any campaigning if people can't stand people coming to their town and causing trouble.... . Thus, democracy can very greatly from east to west. The bottom line is so long the wills of the people is served, that is Democracy. Hey, if you served you own wills or westerners wills and not the wills of khmer people in Cambodia or cuban wills in Cuba; that can't be democracy.
Pontè Hun Sen neung ngoab dov dai
prochea reast Khmer.
Vea neung ngoab tai-horng!
Pruos vea tveu oy reasts rog tuk vé-tornea.
Historically, the United States has history of supporting dictators.
kounkhmer
True, but it depends alot on which President was serving at the time. Republican Presidents usually support dictators (Shah of Iran, even Sadam Husein (at one point), the ruling family in Saudia Arabia), etc.
6:33, your version of Democracy is retarded.
Ah cheung klang nov Asie min you ponman teh yeung roum khnea komtich vea choale.
6:33AM, you are the first to make comment. If you cannot make a coherent clauses, DON'T embarrass yourself. It just make others to judge of your education level. But, if you are Hanoi ball kisser, we definitely have sympathy for your soul.
May you burn in purgatory!
Democracy is the worst system of government.
Further, it is critically imperative to grasp the fact that Cambodian democracy was established and imposed by the UN,and, therefore, the UN-established/imposed democracy will never be a true democracy. In essence, true democracy has to come within the country itself.
Kounkhmer
6:33: Boy! You're VERY retarded; you're qualified to run for the Special Olympics.
Kounkhmer
Why does the US have a history of supporting the dictatorship regimes around the world? It doesn't matter the president is the Democrat or Republican, but it is the matter of what is the American's political, economic, and security interests in those countries. Thses are the insentives for how much and how long the US can support those regimes regardless of they are democratic or dictaorial regimes. Why dose the US strongly condemned the Gen. Tanshwae of Myanma, who had cracked down the pro-democratic demonstrations, and why recently the US cautiouly spoke against Gen. Mussaraff's imposed marshall law in Pakistand. Why did the US topple the Taliban and Sadam's dictatorship regimes while many dictatorship regimes in the region are still alive? Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, syria, Iran...? Look back to our country, in 1980s, the US secretly supported the Khmer Rouges in the UN and on the battlefield against the Vietnamese invasion, and now it embraces the Hun Sen's regime. During the Cold War ( 1948-1991) the US has the priority to stop the Soviet aggression and influence any where around the world, so whoever fought against the Soviet and its allies would become the US's allies automatically. But after September 11, 2001 the priority of US's foreign policy is to combat terrorism around the world, so whoever coorperates with the US to fight international and domestic terrorism would become the US's allies. The International Relations' theory is called the marriage of convenience when two or more countries have the common interest. When the US's interest is ceased, the marriage of convenience is over, and the US will let them go on their own or watch them die slowly. Macos of Pillippine, Suhato of Indonesia, Mubuto Seko of Zare, Melosevic of Yugoslavia, and even Sadam Hussein who was a close US's allie during the Iraq-Iran War in 1980s. Thus, we should learn more about American politics. Keep in mind that we can not get a free lunch in this world. So American leaders either Democrats or Republicans when they run the the office, they place their their national interest above every thing. This is the good example that Our leaders should learn about them. Don't let any foreigner to be our boss and interfere our own internal affairs.
Stop going so far.
We just have to take Cambodia as an example.
In this 21century, Sihanouk and Hunsen are the main leaders of Cambodia for very long time.
Those 2 leaders are bad and are responsible for falling of the country .
The others leaders were better than them.
To save the country , we must put a term limit for PM.
Hey, if you want to copy westerner foot step you must do it from the beginning, not just the end. Therefore, you must first build the world most powerful millitary; then, you have to colonize those countries that are weak and bring slaves and wealth to make the motherland richer and industrialized, and the whole nine yards.... Do you see what I am talking about?
12:45, "real democracy" is retarded is because you are retarded.
Government that serves the wills of its people is a democratic government. I don't care what anyone say otherwise.
Whatever you do--remember the government is not your friend! Remember that--and remember it well.
Kounkhmer (We only die once)
Well, the democratic government should not served just the interest of an individual, but the interest of the many.
Hun Sen should step down if he really wants to see brighter future of Cambodia.
Yeah, bright just like 1970, right?
As a supporter of CPP Party, I categorically underpin the CPP Pary's policy for the current government, irrespective.
CPP 'til the end!
Victory,
CPP
There is a big difference between Fidel Castro and Hun Sen;
1-Castro initiated political struggle to arm struggle to be independent from US annexation via dictatorship of corruptive Bautista, an equally foreign lackey like Hun Sen,and Spain sphere.
2- US cavalierly Theodore Roosevelt expansionist war against Spain resulted Castro patriotism with no choice but to use USSR for aids.
3-Castro maintains Cuba as a country bot a colony unlike Cambod under KR's PRK then CPP of Hun Sen branch.There are two branches of CPP.Anti Hanoi Pen Sovan branch and Lackey of Hanoi Hun Sen branch.
4-Castro is an educated jurist in Spain and people of his generation respected him unlike Hun Sen.
5- Castro keeps Cuba on the map unlike Hun Sen reduces Cambodia from the map.
6-Castro is self confident unlike Hun Sen a self absorbant.
7-Ideology war between US and Castro personally because of Cuba was granted Independence by UN refuted US claim of war spoil.
8-CoChin Chine could have been like Cuba if Son Ngoc Thanh stuck with his position instead of rallying all supports to the France lackey Sihanouk.It was a miscalculation for our fellow Khmer Krom in trusting Sihanouk.
No doubt,Castro rules Cuba with an inclined communist single party rule no different from China or Singapore except his country has been always a vassal to foreign power for over 400 years like Cambodia,so people were poorly educated and lack of self confidence.
As far as nationalism and independence,without Castro there will not be a Cuba of its own rights.May be a US territory like others in region.
My say here is all about rights as an independent nation unlike Hanoi's Hun Sen of Cambod.
Boy, you're good in regurgitating the history (right out of the textbook).
Here in our country -- so called "Cambodia," we live and face REAL reality (not from the textbook).
CPP
Hun Sen is the number of the longest serving prime minister but number 1 in selling the nation.
I agree with 10:09 and 1:03 AM
Sihanouk and Hunsen are like leaders and fake (father and son), they committed traitorous act but wanting people to praise them for their heroism and nationalist. They are act for Cambodia; Cambodia is in fact the last in the list. Name in history and power is the first and foremost priority.
The demise of democracy is near! Enjoy it while it last.
1142PM,
Exactly book is no good for CPP.CPP faces REAL thing is the corruption and collusion with enemies.Hun Sen is too waek to even raise a finger in Nguyen Van Son face.
So CPP can take that and put in its discrete place.
So what? The US is even weaker than us, and France, forget about it.
When there's a complicity in the Western countries, you people prefer to call it "Scandal," and refer it as "Corruption" in our country (Cambodia)instead.
Clean up your acts before you come to our country (Cambodia).
CPP
741am aka CPP,
Typically of CPP,beg the west then trash them.
Cham Prasith begged fellow Khmers in US to help his Trade quotas and Tarif exempt,
Hun Sen begged former US representative S Solarz to put Hun Manet in West Point,
Hoc Lon Di begged US FBI to help him out in drug and saboter deterrence,
Hun Sen begs US to give him military aids,
Soon another US war ship Essex will dock in Kg.Som,Hun Sen can't stop that,
Hun Sen begs US to help fund his rigged election,
Now Comrade CPP,I suspect you are holding US passport too,right?Hypocrite!
Well, the US beg us to help them also when they got hit by Katrina. Thus, we are even.
Now you are telling,how hypocrite you are.I bet in US you are not fit in,right?
We know who you are already,a rat in hole.Hold on to that passport before US revoke it.
We have an extensive amount of knowledge of US history and international law; further, we have some familiarity of who and what you are when you are online.
CPP
133pm,
Where are you? California may be?
Wow,is that a promise or threat?
But you have no idea where the real borderline between neighbors.
Do you know how many online services available now?
What threat? who got time to waste with a bunch of losers? If they come to Cambodia, we'll just drag their ass to south Vietnam. There is no need for any question or greeting.
Post a Comment