Cambodia needs to change, adapt

As her neighbors embrace the dynamism of this new century, Cambodia must adapt or she may be left far behind.

June 15, 2011
A. Gaffar Peang-Meth
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS

I know some Cambodian democrats are provoked that I continually emphasize that Cambodian democrats are on their own to face Premier Hun Sen's autocracy; that there's no international guardian of rights, freedom and the rule of law coming to their rescue and the sooner democrats accept that a nation-state's national interests generally trump its concern with human rights violations, the better.

But I keep on writing -- I am grateful to the Pacific Daily News for providing its pages as an outlet. Together, I believe we are making a difference. The great Chinese teacher, Confucius, said, "It is better to light one small candle than to curse the darkness."

A sine qua non condition for the Cambodian democratic opposition to move forward in its fight for rights, freedom and the rule of law is for the diverse opposition groups to stop tearing each other apart. This internal dissension is precisely what Hun Sen and his ruling Cambodian People's Party would like to see continue.

It weakens and diminishes the opposition in the eyes of Cambodian citizens in general, and it presents those in the international community with an excuse to continue dealing with the autocrats in power.

I know that frustrated Cambodians who want to see things happen have less appetite for careful thought before action. A Khmer saying advises, "Koet heuy soem kou," ("First think, then draw"); American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote: "The ancestor of every action is a thought."

Gene Sharp of the Albert Einstein Institution -- whose "lifelong commitment to the defense of freedom and democracy" and whose book "From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation" has been used in many countries to fight dictatorship -- said: "Unfortunately, often most people in democratic opposition groups do not understand the need for strategic planning or are not accustomed or trained to think strategically. This is a difficult task."

Sharp advises "action based on careful calculation of the 'next steps' required to topple the dictatorship," and that, "Creativity and bright ideas are very important, (and) need to be utilized in order to advance the strategic situation of the democratic forces."

While Cambodians in general know the "first think, then draw" concept, in practice many Cambodians draw first and think later. It was courageous and heroic for opposition leader Sam Rainsy to pull the border markers at the Cambodia-Vietnam border, but it certainly didn't look good to hop on a plane for Paris for safety and then appeal to foreign lawmakers to help bring him back to Phnom Penh.

It is understandable that Cambodians want to see things happen. Some are awaiting the mystical Preah Bat Thoarmmoek to emerge to save Cambodia. Others wish for a Cambodian Aung San Suu Kyi or a Cambodian Nelson Mandela and describe near-perfect human qualities needed among imperfect humans.

Sharp, who mentioned "examples of nonviolent action being used effectively without strong centralized leadership in the resistance" (in Serbia, against Milosevic), cautioned, "Exclusive dependence on a charismatic leader can even be detrimental to success, while wide diffusion of the skills to wage noncooperation and defiance can produce more reliable power."

Precisely.

I wrote to several former activists of the Khmer People's National Liberation Front who fought against Vietnamese military occupation of Cambodia that though I regret I don't see any Cambodian Suu Kyi or Mandela, I learned from specialists that leaders are not born, that leaders are made and they are made of regular people.

And, as I wrote last week, "If each Khmer does something, things will happen." Do what? Let Mother Theresa answer the question: "Just do what's in front of you." She advised: "There should be less talk. What do you do then? Take a broom and clean someone's house. That says enough."

In an earlier column, I mentioned receiving an email from a friend in Phnom Penh who urged continued "fighting" on two main fronts: Education and economy.

Last week, a reader wrote: "Feed the people (economically) and teach them to be smarter (educationally)," and everything else (the social, the political, and the environmental) will follow suit. I agree.

Those who scavenge the city dumps for food or are forced to leave their lands so the property can be "developed" would have plenty to say; children who learn to bribe their teachers through childhood and adulthood will carry the culture of bribery through life.

I have suggested that,as an impetus to change, Cambodians must experience changes in their attitudes and values as catalysts to further, more pervasive societal change. I am not advocating that Khmers stop being Khmer. I cherish the English philosopher Edmund Burke's "tradition" as a link between the dead, the living and those yet to be born. Yet Burke recognized the inevitability of change as he propounded the philosophy that change be slow, natural and gradual.

In today's world of fierce competitiveness, Cambodians must adapt to the contemporary demand for creativity and innovation. This means a major change in traditional behavior which supports stratified classes, status, rank and role relationships that breed a master-servant, leader-followers, superior-inferior system.

Such a cultural adaptation may provide the resilience and flexibility that would allow Khmer traditions to withstand the integration of Vietnamese citizens that seems inevitable in the current political climate.

As her neighbors embrace the dynamism of this new century, Cambodia must adapt or she may be left far behind.

A. Gaffar Peang-Meth, Ph.D., is retired from the University of Guam. Write him at

peangmeth@yahoo.com.