Cambodia still remains an authoritarian state ... The constitution is only a decorative façade.

Cambodia’s legal system

Excerpt from "The state of human rights in eleven Asian nations - 2010" by AHRC

Cambodia still remains an authoritarian state despite of it having a constitution based on liberal democracy and holding periodic elections. Liberal democracy was never a reality due to the nature of the Cambodian judicial system. The Cambodian “judicial system”, which was created with the advise of Vietnamese experts during 1980-90 period remain intact, despite numerous trainings of judges on liberal democratic principles. The over 84 The state of human rights in eleven Asian nations - 2010 all system does not allow practice of such principles, the judiciary is expected to be under the complete control of the executive.

The actual model of administration of the country is not based on the constitution introduced in 1993, but it based on a model of administration created during the earlier administration 1980-1993, in which the executive had the complete control over the system. The executive exercised his control through the party. The system of administration controlled by the executive and assisted by the ruling party is what still exists today, as the real political stem of Cambodia. The constitution is only a decorative façade.

The thought control of the “judicial system” is essential to the very survival of the actual political system in operation. All political activity is controlled through “the judicial system.” All opposition party members who deviate from the unwritten rules of the system are punished through the court system. The development of opposition parties is thus controlled by the sanctions that are being imposed through the courts.

Therefore possibility of a fair trial does not exist within the system. Outcomes of trials are predetermined. Any judge that may try to deviate from this limitation on the power of courts will suffer the consequences. The “Judiciary” quite well understands this situation and therefore deviations have been few and far between them. Besides, deviators have paid for their transgressions.

Limitations imposed on the Supreme Council of Magistracy and Constitutional Council are not accidents but are of a political nature. These institutions are expected to be of subservient nature of the executive. The reforms of such institutions are not possible as long as the existing model of political administration remains in operation.

Most Western “reformers” have refused to acknowledge the actual nature of the political administration and often try to make the constitution work. Naturally, nothing comes out of such efforts except frustration.

Enactment of new laws do not make much of a difference to this system neither. Law is not an important ingredient of administration. The administration has its own operational rules. Misuse of the New Criminal Code for the purpose of imprisonment of the opponents of the government is warning for wanted attempts to reforms of the system by such means.

What is required for any reform is the understanding of the actual system, as it exists today and the weakness of that system. An international debate on the system based on an actual understanding of it, is more likely to produce results facing real challenges to the rule of law and democracy, than ad hoc activities introducing new laws and different kind of training.

The Cambodian people, who suffer under the system of tyranny, do understand its nature and the limitations. One can hope that they will become capable of articulating their tribulations and finding ways to overcome them.