The coalition of the unwilling

Op-Ed by Khmerization
21st March, 2011

The unification between the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) and the Human Rights Party (HRP) is long overdue and it is time for both parties to come to their senses and work for the betterment of the future-merged party rather than engage in a political dogfight over factional interests to gain a political domination prior to the merger. Both parties must ponder about the future of the new party and think about the common interests rather than about demanding for an equal share of representation in the new party. It is disturbing news that, more than two years down the track, the negotiations have gone nowhere and the political bickering about the nonsense of who get what is still being argued around the negotiation table.

In any union, whether it is a civil marriage, a creation of a business or a political entity, common interests and fairness is paramount and prevail over all else. You will get the amount of the dividends for the proportion of the interests and the shares you have put into the new entity.

By the same token, the marriage between the SRP and the HRP fits into the same analogy. The bigger party gets the bigger share of the representation and the smaller party gets its fair share of what it brings into the newly-created party. In fairness, and to make the newly-merged party worked, the HRP must not demand for an equal representation in the newly-formed party. It must only demand for its fair share only. In this case, its fair share in the new party is in proportion to its political supports and votes it received in 2008 in each constituency. The HRP’s proposal for an equal representation in the newly-merged party, such as a joint ticket for the senate election, while knowing that it has no councillor to elect the senators, has created hurdles for the unification and posed obstacles for a smooth transition to the operation of a new united party.

If they want the newly-created party to have any chances of survival at all and is strong enough to withstand any continuous external attempts to break it up, both parties have to be sincere and think about the common good, not to try to create factions within the new party that would lead to factional and internal rivalry which is a recipe for the self-destruction of any political parties.

Notwithstanding my harsh assessment of the HRP position vis-a-vis the merger with the SRP, I do recognise that it has put forward some good and not so good proposals for the merger of the two parties. First, the HRP had proposed a brand new name for the new party without using any individual’s name. This is a good and fair proposal that can, and should, be accepted by the SRP, but it is a bit risky due to past experience and the current political environment in Cambodia. The SRP was created on 9th November 1995 as the Khmer Nation Party, but the party was forced to change its name to the Sam Rainsy Party after Mr. Hun Sen had engineered its break up in 1998 by using Kong Mony as a front. The Khmer Nation Party was prevented from participating in the 1998 election until it changed its name to the SRP.

Secondly, the HRP proposed that the new internal party structure would be jointly decided by the SRP and HRP. This is also a good proposal, but the demand for an equal representation by the HRP, such as the joint senate ticket, will surely lead to the creation of the SRP-aligned faction and the HRP-aligned faction. This is a recipe for the speedy self-destruction of the new party. The demand for equal representation is a sign that the two parties are highly polarised and are distrustful of each other. This would lead to internal political alliances that will cause the party to be too factionalised and riddled with internal rivalry and jealousy which is a recipe of a political suicide.

Thirdly, the HRP’s proposal for term limits for the party presidency is an excellent idea. After all, the SRP has in the past demanded for a prime ministerial term limit. A 5-year two terms limit will ensure that new talents have an equal chance to lead the party but it is also good for the health of democracy in Cambodia.

The HRP has presented itself as a leading partner in merger talks for being proactive in its approach to the merger, however, it must not act to be seen as being too eager to demand too much, or more than its fair share, from the bigger SRP by dictating the terms of the negotiations for the creation of the yet-to-be named new party. Having said that, the SRP must earn the trust of the smaller HRP that it will not absorb or swallow the HRP in whole and constrict it to death and toss it into a political oblivion.

Up to now, both parties seemed to be not too interested or unwilling to merge. In more than two years of negotiations, both parties had emerged as the ally or the coalition of the unwilling because as negotiations progressed, both parties seemed more than ever unwilling to come to any political compromise that would ensure a speedy merger. The longer the negotiations are going on, the more bickering will emerge and the more political damage they may have caused in the eyes of the Cambodian voters.