Monday, 2 July 2012, 1:22 pm
Press Release: Asian Human Rights Commission
FOR
PUBLICATIONAHRC-ETC-018-2012
July 1,
2012
An article by Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth
published by the Asian Human Rights
CommissionCAMBODIA: Respect ideals and
concepts, not arbitrary leaders
The West and the
East historically have differed in their traditional
perspectives on how best to order society. The fundamental
Western philosophy prioritizes the inviolability of
individual freedom and rights; essential Eastern values
favor societal stability and security above all. Over time,
there has evolved a degree of rapprochement: Westerners
acknowledge Easterners' philosophy that freedom and human
rights can't exist in a chaotic and turbulent world;
Easterners see freedom and human rights as inherent in human
nature.
A popular quote by Harvard University professor of
government James Q. Wilson reads, "Without Liberty, Law
loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression.
Without Law, Liberty also loses its nature and its name, and
becomes licentiousness."
Tibet's spiritual leader, the
14th Dalai Lama, said, "We must, therefore, insist on a
global consensus, not only on the need to respect human
rights worldwide, but also on the definition of these rights
. . . for it is the inherent nature of all human beings to
yearn for freedom, equality and dignity, and they have an
equal right to achieve that."
These contemporary remarks
reflect the ancient Buddha's teaching of the Middle
Path.
Cambodians in
conflict
The
basic East-West philosophical difference is mirrored in the
conflicts between the stability-security proponents who
largely support the Hun Sen regime and the freedom-human
rights advocates who generally oppose the regime.
By their
culture, Cambodians are generally passive, conforming, and
accommodating. Those who are proactive swim against the
social norm.
Thveu doch ke doch aeng, the Khmers say,
meaning, do like others do, a conformist ethos that
discourages those who step outside the lines.
In the
centuries-old Khmer subservient culture of
korup
(respect) and
kaowd klach (admire and fear), one who
is, in the literal sense, extraordinary may be seen as
rebellious or even treacherous. In contrast, Socrates, whose
philosophy serves as the basis of Western civilization,
taught that the truth is determined only through a process
of questioning the status quo ante.
Bottom
line
The
contrast between the Cambodia that deteriorated under Pol
Pot's regime of killing and destruction, and contemporary
Cambodia where new roads and bridges proliferate and tall
buildings dot the skyline, is undeniable.
But this
development has been achieved at too high a cost. Nearly
half of the country's land area has been given away to
foreign entities in the form of decades-long land
concessions, to be developed by companies that will provide
some low-skilled jobs in Cambodia but will take their
profits out of the country. This practice has enriched a few
but has deprived hundreds of thousands of Cambodians of
their homes and land with little or no compensation. This is
not a democratic government, but an oppressive one. In the
words of World Policy Journal's "Target Cambodia: Games
People Play": "Cambodia today is quite literally giving
itself away, especially to China and Vietnam – two rivals
vying for regional influence." "Over the last 30 years, the
Sino-Vietnamese rivalry has shaped Cambodia militarily,
politically, and economically, and there are no signs that
this will change," writes WJP this summer.
As such,
Cambodia is a pawn used by China (which has spent $9 billion
in aid and investments in Cambodia) and Vietnam (more than a
quarter of a billion by the end of 2010). The Cambodian
government "is sacrificing the rights of its own people and
the future of the country in favor of competing regional
powers" as it courts foreign investment, says WPJ.
Foreign
Policy magazine's 2012 Index lists Cambodia 37th on a list
of the world's 60 most fragile states – a ranking higher
than the year before. The increased fragility assessed by
international observers anticipates growing discontent with
the Hun Sen regime, which eventually will run out of land to
grab, will be unable to balance a budget reliant on donor
aid, will fail at balancing the competing interests of its
benefactors. A regime that rules by the application of
direct power will eventually lose its leverage and will
topple or be toppled.
Dictatorial and
tyrannical
The
current Hun Sen regime is dictatorial and tyrannical.
A
person, or a group of persons, who comes to power, even
through election, but accumulates and exercises all
executive, legislative, and judicial powers to the exclusion
of others, is a dictator. When the person acts at the same
time as policeman, lawmaker, and judge, that person dictates
and tyrannizes through abuses of power.
Hun Sen is such a
person; his ruling Cambodian People's Party is such a group.
Both have assigned all three powers to themselves: They take
land from the marginalized, kick them from their homes,
arrest those resistant, pronounce judgment through arbitrary
laws they make. An opposition and an election are ornaments
to justify their rule and satisfy the appetite of those
thirsty for evidence of an electoral process and human
rights. In reality, all branches of government are their
tools. The branches do not act to check and balance each
other; therefore, abuses of power are endemic. The police
and the military, too, are but tools of the regime.
Hun
Sen rode to power under the guns of the Vietnamese invading
forces that knocked out Pol Pot from power in 1979 and
installed Hun Sen as premier in 1985. He lost the
UN-organized general election in 1993 but bullied his way
with threats of war to become number two in the government.
In 1997 he launched a military coup against the number one
and summarily executed more than 100 officials and officers
of his royalist coalition.
The
fight
In an
atmosphere in which freedom is lacking and political
retaliation is rampant, the results of an April Gallup poll,
which found that 90 percent of Cambodians approve of the job
Hun Sen is doing, are highly suspect. Anecdotal evidence
suggests rather that Cambodians' dissatisfaction with Hun
Sen and the CPP is increasing. Similarly, the regime's
success in recent local elections demonstrates villagers'
tendency to vote the way the local commune leader directs. A
truly free and fair franchise is quite absent in Cambodia
today.
Consistent with the politically repressed
atmosphere in the country and with the prevalence of a
traditional culture of subservience, the most vocal
opposition to the government led by Hun Sen comes from
abroad. The Khmer People Power Movement and the Lotus
Revolution are two organizations based abroad that have
called for election boycotts and for open rebellion a la
Arab Spring. Self-exiled opposition leader Sam Rainsy, too,
provides a rallying point for such overt opposition as
exists. Can these expatriates foment a successful rebellion
at home?
A battle of
ideas
Action
comes out of thought. Lord Buddha teaches, "An idea that is
developed and put into action is more important than an idea
that exists only as an idea." President John F. Kennedy
reminded, "A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an
idea lives on."
Recently I put forward a thought on a
three-pronged recipe for Cambodians' survival: Change old
habits, practice Buddha's teaching, initiate nonviolent
action – not necessarily in that order. I am a believer in
creative thinking and in not being driven on autopilot by
raw emotion.
A weekend ago, an article, "Gene Sharp: A
dictator's worst nightmare" by Mairi Mackay of CNN, came to
my attention. At a meeting on a dark January evening in an
anonymous townhouse, Sharp talked about how to stage a
revolution: To a young Iranian discouraged by the brutality
by the government against protesters, Sharp commented, "You
don't march down the street towards soldiers with machine
guns." Then came creative thinking: "You could have
everybody stay at home." "Total silence of the city," Sharp
suggested.
I have written about Gene Sharp, his book "From
Dictatorship to Democracy" – a how-to manual for
overthrowing dictatorships – and nonviolent action.
Mackay's article exposes Sharp's simple ideas of revolution:
"No regime, not even the most brutally authoritarian, can
survive without the support of its people. So, Sharp
proposes, take it away." As a dictatorship depends on the
people and the institutions to stay in power, Sharp
advocates to "shrink that support." Like termites in a tree,
nonviolent action eats away at a regime's pillars of power,
"Eventually, the whole thing
collapses."
Credible
alternative
Regime
proponents and opponents spring from the same cultural
foundation, and as people have the capacity to observe and
to analyze, it is important that democrats present
themselves as a credible and reliable alternative to the
incumbents. If the alternative seems stable, reasonable, and
able to follow through on its commitments, people will be
more inclined to risk change. Recall former political
prisoner Boun Chan Mol's book
Charet Khmer of the
general Khmer personal traits. Boun advocated change. And
change begins with oneself.
Democrats could begin by
building on a familiar foundation. Buddhist teachings are
revered by nearly all Cambodians. Do all good; Do no evil;
Purify the mind; and move on. A more contemporary take on
that Buddhist philosophy comes from Teddy Roosevelt, an
activist and U.S. president who advised: "Do what you can,
with what you have, where you are."
By encouraging
sympathizers to become better men and women by following
Buddha's – and Roosevelt's – teaching, democrats can
distinguish themselves from the autocrats who are motivated
by greed and self-interest. The people will see, hear, and
believe in them as they develop "Barmei," or "Parami" in
Pali – an influence through an accumulation of the 10
qualities Buddha outlines for humanity. Buddhism is an
integral part of the fabric of Khmer society. As people
believe in their own capacity for change, the political yoke
that is holding them back will be more readily cast off.
A
creative mind should start immediately to de-personalize the
centuries-old culture of
korup (respect),
kaowd
klach (admire and fear),
smoh trang
(loyalty/fidelity),
bamroeur (serve),
kapier (defend), directed toward individual leaders,
and to reorient them toward ideals and concepts such as
cheat (nation),
pracheathipattei (democracy),
sereipheap (freedom),
sithi (rights).
Developing an understanding that power resides within
ourselves, not in the person of an arbitrary leader, will
help us to move forward.
Lord Buddha taught more than
2,500 years ago, "No one saves us but ourselves. No one can
and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path." "Do not
depend on others," Buddha preaches. "He is able who thinks
he is able."
---------------
The AHRC is not
responsible for the views shared in this article, which do
not necessarily reflect its own.
About the
Author:Dr. Gaffar Peang-Meth is retired from
the University of Guam, where he taught political science
for 13 years. He currently lives in the United States.
# # #
About AHRC:
The Asian Human Rights Commission is a regional
non-governmental organisation that monitors human rights in
Asia, documents violations and advocates for justice and
institutional reform to ensure the protection and promotion
of these rights. The Hong Kong-based group was founded in
1984.
