The Poverty of ‘Democracy’

SRP MP Son Chhay

CPP MP Nguon Nhel

Sunday, October 24, 2010
Op-Ed by MP

WHATEVER interpretations one may put on it, this latest spat between opposition MP Son Chhay and National Assembly vice president Nguon Nhel cannot but illustrates, yet and again before all, a most disconcerting, if at the same time, comical detail in the nation’s democratic experiment – it is a political comedy of the highest order in farce and absurdity as well as a fitting parody of parliamentary democracy itself, which furthermore, would have been an unadulterated pleasure for the viewing audience had it not been in the same while indicative of the heart of the country’s most paralysing sickness and seemingly untreatable syndrome: the poverty of democratic dialogue.

However, even to characterise the said political process as an ‘experiment’ is giving off far too generously due credence and or the benefit of doubt to the ruling apparatus that has yet to evolved out of its totalitarian shell sufficiently to warrant its political involvement and participation in the national decision-making process as tentative evidence of its readiness to work with opposition groups or accommodate constitutionally prescribed political differences.

Why is this so? Well, certainly, while we cannot deny the part played by individual actors themselves in this comic-tragedy - and even bearing in mind that personalities and their cults rather than any system of institutional checks and balances that have traditionally fashioned social outcomes and structured the political landscape – here we feel that the actors are mere puppet shadows or peripheral instruments, forced to act out their respective role in strict conformity with the tone and direction of a pre-approved master script.

What we have is ultimately a colliding of two worlds - one stands immovable in polar opposite to the other; one is the antithesis and could well be the nemesis of the other, with the only discernable difference between them being the overwhelmingly mismatched, disproportionate disparity in power distribution as to their respective political clouts and muscles.

Whereas the main role of The Speaker in Britain’s House of Commons, for example, is to preside over Commons debates by way of keeping order and enforcing the rules of the House upon MPs during debating sessions, including asking an MP to withdraw remarks, for instance, if they entail abusive language; suspending MPs who are deliberately disobedient, or suspend the sitting of the House itself owing to serious disorder, it is not, however, customary for she/he to bar an MP from raising questions during parliamentary debates. Also elected through an exhaustive secret ballot system, the Speaker must remain politically impartial, therefore, once elected the new Speaker is obliged to resign from his/her political party and stays separate from political issues even in retirement.

Thus, the rules of parliamentary debate or engagement are quite distinct and necessarily separate from a given political party’s internal rules and codes of conduct – a distinction Mr Nguon Nhel, in this case, and his political party comrade, National Assembly President Mr Heng Samrin, in previous cases, have apparently failed to grasp. Irrespective of the ‘answers’ prepared by the Labour Minister Vong Soth in response to MP Son Chhay’s questions forwarded to the former in advance in writing, and whether the Minister had adequate time to respond to all 18 questions in one sitting, MP Son Chhay’s right to put questions to the Minister on the floor of the Assembly does nothing to harm the quality of democratic debate nor the issue in question and must therefore be upheld. The rest of the MPs in attendance as well as the electorate at large are also in no position to know whether the answers thus delivered relate coherently to the questions posed; whether the Minister himself exercises sound knowledge and judgement within the confines of his remit, carries his own weight in public debate and arbitration over relevant issues of public importance and consequences, or simply parrots the instructions of his political bosses. Ministers or policy-makers could also be summoned to appear before special ad hoc select committees to explain or elaborate upon aspects of their decisions or involvement in the orchestration of specific governmental agendas. These are essentially procedural norms of parliamentary democracy.

Although the National Assembly is not the only forum for democratic debate, it is nevertheless the nation’s foremost venue where people’s elected representatives are expected to act in matters of public policy on their behalf; where constitutional provisions are expected to be invoked in framing or laying down groundwork for the passage of social legislations. The elected majority party has the right to drive public policies, but what it does not have is the right to shield off the law-making process from the scrutiny of the electorate and from their elected representatives whether they belong in the opposition or the Government.

It goes without saying that the right to question is inseparable from the right to answer in any functioning democracy, that this fundamental right is the one thread weaving together otherwise diverse and often opposing interests and opinions precisely by virtue of the very platform it provides, upon which the essential strengths, weaknesses and dangers lurking behind any social agenda are exposed or stripped bare for all surveying eyes. This is why it is often said that for democracy to function effectively it must be constantly probed, appraised and rigorously critiqued (constructively, of course!), and that government and opposition need to feed off each other’s viewpoints/recommendations through a consultative dialogue of accommodation and compromise, if necessary, but that above all, multi-party democracy and governance must of necessity be adversarial in character and in the management over areas of policies and issues of public bearings and repercussions.

Granted, ‘Cambodian democracy’ is still at its nascent stage of development and on a learning curve. This is, perhaps, too generous a comment on my part, but the real challenge will be to view this latest spat and walk out by opposition MPs as a positive and welcoming sign of democracy in progress, heralding and paving the path for further reforms and improvements to come; that democracy and change have their most formidable enemies in ignorance, bigotry and fear which must in turn be overcome for the good of the nation and the long suffering common man. Failing this, the joke will be upon the Khmer people themselves and the nation rather than Messrs Nguon Nhel and Son Chhay.