3rd January, 2009
Opinion by Khmerization
The debates about the roles of the monarchy and the royals in politics have heated up again following the appeals by Prince Sisowath Thomico for all members of the royal family to stay out of politics.
It is no surprise for a member of the royal family like Prince Thomico to appeal to his peers to stay out of politics. For the monarchy, and the royals in particular, the last few years have been a turbulent time and the annus horribilis for them. The monarchy was on constant attacks from Prime Minister Hun Sen for meddling in politics and the royalist parties have faced their electoral defeats ignominiously. A call for a voluntary dignified exit from politics is the only option.
Cambodia has had a monarchical system of government for more than 2000 years. Since then, Cambodia has seen the ups and downs, the bad and the good of this feudal system. Some kings ruled well and had turned Cambodia into a superpower at their times, while others were clumsy kings who have relentlessly engaged in family feuds which have made Cambodia shrunk and reduced to its present size.
The Cambodian royals have engaged in politics, in one way or another, since the birth of Cambodia as a nation. But royal politics as we know it today has only begun to take shape in the 1950s when the then king Sihanouk abdicated in 1955 to enter politics and installed his father, Prince Suramarit, as king. Sihanouk’s actions have put the monarchy in the political firing lines ever since.
Sihanouk ruled Cambodia with an iron fist. Political activities or expressions contravening to his views were not tolerated. Political opponents were hunted down, jailed and, to some extent, executed.
Sihanouk’s repressive actions and his anti-American stance as well as his communist-leaning politics have led to discontents and angers within his inner circles that culminated into a coup against him in 19970 which has seen the abolition of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic. Since then, Cambodia has plunged into a civil strife that has caused irreparable political and national divisions until today.
On the other hand, with fairness, the monarchy, to a large degree, must be credited with the restoration of peace to Cambodia, the source of political stability and a focal point for all the political spectra to be united all around the monarchy, especially the person of a king.
Sihanouk, who angered many intellectuals with his repressive pre-1970 rule and who was accused to have been credited with helping the Khmer Rouge to come to power in 1975 and have been associated, to some degree, with the Khmer Rouge rule, has somewhat redeemed himself, when he spearheaded the Paris Peace Negotiations with the Vietnamese-backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen that led to a comprehensive Paris Peace Accords in 1991. He was credited, rightly or wrongly, with a smooth transition of powers after the Untac-organised election in 1993, mediated the reconciliations between Prince Ranariddh and Prime Minister Hun Sen, post-1997 coup. He was also credited, again, rightly or wrongly, for averting political and military crisis after the elections of 1998 and 2003.
But, politics aside, is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant to the Cambodian society in the present political context? The answer is yes and no, depending on ones own monarchical or republican views.
To the republicans, the Cambodian monarchy is a tax-burdened irrelevant institution. To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is a constant source of political stability that can unite the divided Cambodian nation and holds the warring political parties together.
Some views perceive the Cambodian monarchy as irrelevant in the present Cambodian political context that has outlived it’s purpose. To the proponents of the monarchy, the Cambodian monarchy is as relevant to the Cambodian society as 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
The following exchanges between the two heavyweight proponent and opponent of the monarchy are interesting. Some people, like Dr. Lao Mong Hay, believe that the monarchy is very relevant to the Cambodian society. He made an analogy between the past regimes with the following rationales: “As to the political regime, according to its recent history, constitutional monarchy (with the monarch as head of state) is best for Cambodia. Was the Lon Nol (1970-75), the Maoist (1975-78) or the Marxist-Leninist (1979-91) republics better than the constitutional monarchy which ruled Cambodia between 1953 and 1960?”
Dr. Lao Mong Hay’s comments have infuriated KJE (Klaus J. Engelhardt), which the latter retorted with these comments: “Dr. Lao is a monarchist, and many of those have lived in the past and don't realize that the world and paradigms have changed. The monarchy helped bring and maintain peace in 1993, no doubt, but in general, monarchies have outlived their purpose and will eventually fade away. What will happen when a single and childless Sihamoni leaves the throne? Although it will be a while, my guess is this is when the Cambodian monarchy will end.”
Who is right and who is wrong? Only the readers can judge.
To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is the source of stability. They believe that, with the way Hun Sen ruled the country, the Cambodian political mess is not over yet. They believe that Mr. Hun Sen’s iron-fisted rule will one day cause political instability and some sorts of internal political wrangling will resurface, like the 1997 coup. They rationalised that some sorts of a political dogfight or even a factional street fighting will also resurface when Hun Sen is faced with a strong challenger or rival. This is when the king needs to step in to mediate.
So, the question is: is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant in the present Cambodian political context? Does Cambodia need the monarchy or the republic?
Only time will tell…..
**************************************
1. Mr. Bora Touch: I Am A Monarchist.
2. Dith Nimol: I was once a supporter of the monarchy.
Opinion by Khmerization
“To the republicans, the Cambodian monarchy is a tax-burdened irrelevant institution. To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is a constant source of political stability that can unite the divided Cambodian nation and holds the warring political parties together.”
The debates about the roles of the monarchy and the royals in politics have heated up again following the appeals by Prince Sisowath Thomico for all members of the royal family to stay out of politics.
It is no surprise for a member of the royal family like Prince Thomico to appeal to his peers to stay out of politics. For the monarchy, and the royals in particular, the last few years have been a turbulent time and the annus horribilis for them. The monarchy was on constant attacks from Prime Minister Hun Sen for meddling in politics and the royalist parties have faced their electoral defeats ignominiously. A call for a voluntary dignified exit from politics is the only option.
Cambodia has had a monarchical system of government for more than 2000 years. Since then, Cambodia has seen the ups and downs, the bad and the good of this feudal system. Some kings ruled well and had turned Cambodia into a superpower at their times, while others were clumsy kings who have relentlessly engaged in family feuds which have made Cambodia shrunk and reduced to its present size.
The Cambodian royals have engaged in politics, in one way or another, since the birth of Cambodia as a nation. But royal politics as we know it today has only begun to take shape in the 1950s when the then king Sihanouk abdicated in 1955 to enter politics and installed his father, Prince Suramarit, as king. Sihanouk’s actions have put the monarchy in the political firing lines ever since.
Sihanouk ruled Cambodia with an iron fist. Political activities or expressions contravening to his views were not tolerated. Political opponents were hunted down, jailed and, to some extent, executed.
Sihanouk’s repressive actions and his anti-American stance as well as his communist-leaning politics have led to discontents and angers within his inner circles that culminated into a coup against him in 19970 which has seen the abolition of the monarchy and the declaration of a republic. Since then, Cambodia has plunged into a civil strife that has caused irreparable political and national divisions until today.
On the other hand, with fairness, the monarchy, to a large degree, must be credited with the restoration of peace to Cambodia, the source of political stability and a focal point for all the political spectra to be united all around the monarchy, especially the person of a king.
Sihanouk, who angered many intellectuals with his repressive pre-1970 rule and who was accused to have been credited with helping the Khmer Rouge to come to power in 1975 and have been associated, to some degree, with the Khmer Rouge rule, has somewhat redeemed himself, when he spearheaded the Paris Peace Negotiations with the Vietnamese-backed government of Prime Minister Hun Sen that led to a comprehensive Paris Peace Accords in 1991. He was credited, rightly or wrongly, with a smooth transition of powers after the Untac-organised election in 1993, mediated the reconciliations between Prince Ranariddh and Prime Minister Hun Sen, post-1997 coup. He was also credited, again, rightly or wrongly, for averting political and military crisis after the elections of 1998 and 2003.
But, politics aside, is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant to the Cambodian society in the present political context? The answer is yes and no, depending on ones own monarchical or republican views.
To the republicans, the Cambodian monarchy is a tax-burdened irrelevant institution. To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is a constant source of political stability that can unite the divided Cambodian nation and holds the warring political parties together.
Some views perceive the Cambodian monarchy as irrelevant in the present Cambodian political context that has outlived it’s purpose. To the proponents of the monarchy, the Cambodian monarchy is as relevant to the Cambodian society as 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
The following exchanges between the two heavyweight proponent and opponent of the monarchy are interesting. Some people, like Dr. Lao Mong Hay, believe that the monarchy is very relevant to the Cambodian society. He made an analogy between the past regimes with the following rationales: “As to the political regime, according to its recent history, constitutional monarchy (with the monarch as head of state) is best for Cambodia. Was the Lon Nol (1970-75), the Maoist (1975-78) or the Marxist-Leninist (1979-91) republics better than the constitutional monarchy which ruled Cambodia between 1953 and 1960?”
Dr. Lao Mong Hay’s comments have infuriated KJE (Klaus J. Engelhardt), which the latter retorted with these comments: “Dr. Lao is a monarchist, and many of those have lived in the past and don't realize that the world and paradigms have changed. The monarchy helped bring and maintain peace in 1993, no doubt, but in general, monarchies have outlived their purpose and will eventually fade away. What will happen when a single and childless Sihamoni leaves the throne? Although it will be a while, my guess is this is when the Cambodian monarchy will end.”
Who is right and who is wrong? Only the readers can judge.
To the monarchists, the Cambodian monarchy is the source of stability. They believe that, with the way Hun Sen ruled the country, the Cambodian political mess is not over yet. They believe that Mr. Hun Sen’s iron-fisted rule will one day cause political instability and some sorts of internal political wrangling will resurface, like the 1997 coup. They rationalised that some sorts of a political dogfight or even a factional street fighting will also resurface when Hun Sen is faced with a strong challenger or rival. This is when the king needs to step in to mediate.
So, the question is: is the Cambodian monarchy still relevant in the present Cambodian political context? Does Cambodia need the monarchy or the republic?
Only time will tell…..
**************************************
After I posted this article, I received a few replies through my email. I wish to share them with you here.
1. Mr. Bora Touch: I Am A Monarchist.
2. Dith Nimol: I was once a supporter of the monarchy.
1 comment:
Dear Khmerization,
Thank for your well-organized and written article. Sorry for my poor English. I have short comment in regarding to the need of monarchy in Cambodia.
First of all, Cambodia can't be without monarchy. The current constitutional monarchy system, the king does not rule, is already the answer to some questions in respect to the role of the king in new chapter of Cambodian history. But what we need now is the reform of the monarchy institution.
If we look deep into the recent history of Cambodia, the downfall of monarchy popularity were caused by MEMBER of Royal Family rather than the King himself.
Remember, It was KING Sihanouk who win the independent of Cambodia from France. But it was PRINCE Sihanouk that mislead Cambodia into the Vietnam war.
More recently, it was Prince Ranariddh and other princes and princesses that lead Funcinpec from a great victory to almost zero. Currently, the party that carrying his name, hardly won two seats in the latest election.
However, it was King Sihanouk who always steps in and help to solve the dispute between political parties at the end of the general election and make the people believe that we can't be without the king.
As a matter of fact, the royal family cannot perform well in the politics or shortly to say, they don't know what to do. They always consider themselves as a bloodline of deva-raja of Angkor, so they have the priveledge to win the people heart than other politicians. They always think they are the best, well educated, and their ideas must be respected by people. They forget that their first victory in 1993 is highly contributed by the majority of Khmers hate -communism, foreign invasion and corruption- but not the sacred and divinity of the royal family.
The flip flop behavior and corruption, of the leading royal politicians such as prince Ranariddh has made the people getting boring with the word "ROYAL". Still, they ignored and continue to listen to a bunch of their advisors blindly. When the downfall of the word " royal" becoming certain, all of them decide to quit politics but were appointed to a positions that really disturbed by most of Cambodia. In example, Prince ranariddh was appointed as Supreme chairman of the king's advisor and his rank is equaled to the Prime Minister. For buddha sake, if you already decide to quit politics, why you need this rank?
Now, how to reform the monarchy?..Well, we have many PHDs and other high educated are waiting to answer and point out the plan..The problem is not a good plan but their willingness. Will the royal family listen and follow the reform? If their answer is " no" then all of the recent royal family will be the witness of the last King of Cambodia.
From a supporter of Constiutional Monarchy...
Keng, Kandal Province.
Post a Comment