12th October, 2011
I have tried to refrain from commentating and making damaging comments about the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), which I once admired and still now admire for its principled stance, but as I continued to observe its cacoethes carpendi and the abandonment of its original ideals and democratic principles, I cannot remain silent but to jump into the fray.
The SRP’s autocratic style and its dictatorial penchants of expelling members for disagreeing with the top party leadership is reminiscent of the Stalinist-style purges in the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s and the Khmer Rouge purges in the 1970s, but the only difference is the absence of the extirpation and extermination of those purged. The expulsion of disenfranchised members is worrisome and has now become the norm for this once principled party and has now become its modus operandi in silencing and dealing with independent-minded members. It is regrettable that the party has now turned away from its original raison d’etre, which is to sow the seed of democracy in Cambodia and to democratize Cambodia.
The sorry state of this once hopeful and strong party has saddened everyone who once deeply believed in its ideals and principles. While it is the only party that poses a serious threat and challenge to the power of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), it has been rocked with many defections and riddled with internal wrangling, which lead to its being weakened significantly. But what worries observers is its heavy-handed approach in disowning and expelling its members for their outspokenness and for voicing opinions contrary to the views of the party top echelon.
While the SRP has styled itself as a democratic party, its iron-fisted rule and heavy-handed disciplinary actions in dealing with members for minor misdemeanor, such as disagreeing with the party leadership, does not bode well with would-be members, potential financial backers and potential new recruits. It is ironic and hypocritical that the SRP has constantly and vehemently attacking the CPP for its dictatorship and undemocratic practices, but at the same time practicing the very same political modus operandi it has always criticized and opposed. The party is, without a doubt, increasingly becoming dictatorial in style by the day and is, therefore, a cause for concern and a recipe for a total disintegration.
While I am of the opinion that the SRP is the best party of all of the political parties in Cambodia, and sympathise with its predicament in keeping the party united as it has been riddled and plagued with infiltrations and interferences from other parties, particularly, the ruling CPP, I do not subscribe to and condone its dictatorial penchants that has been applied since its inception in dealing with its members suspected of being in “active and disloyal”.
The case in point is the latest expulsions of three senior officials, including MP Tok Vanchan, Senator Van Sivoeun and commune councillor Hok Ly Hak on charges of “inactivity and disloyalty”.
The reasons of “inactivity and disloyalty” given by the party for their expulsions are incredible and absurd concoctions, since their “inactivity and disloyalty” have never been defined or fully explained to the public or to them. While the other two, Van Sivoeun and Hok Ly Hak, might fit the criteria for “disloyalty” because they have so far defected to the Human Rights Party, I do not believe it is the case with Tok Vanchan, who seems to be a staunch SRP member because he still pledges his loyalty to the party, even though he has been expelled from the party. He has repeatedly said that he will stay with the SRP until the end and will not defect to the other parties and has appealed to the party to reconsider its decision to expel him. His plea to be allowed to remain with the party is proof of his loyalty to the SRP and is, therefore, contrary to the accusation of his “disloyalty” to the party.
The reason of “inactivity” that the party has used for the expulsions of these party members is the worst excuse the party has come up with. If “inactivity” is perceived as a valid reason for expulsions, then the more than 2 million SRP members, who apparently are not active, but just normal party members, are deemed to be the right candidates for expulsions. Many members of political parties in the West are sleepy members and have never been active, but have paid their party membership dues, and therefore are still the members of the party. I do believe that the three expelled members of the SRP still pay their party membership dues, and if so, as far as they are concerned, they are still party members. The SRP can sack them from their jobs, but it cannot expel them from the party for just simply being “inactive” members.
The practice of expulsions, as I said, which has now been used as the SRP’s modus operandi, is contrary to the party’s original ideology and could scare off potential financial backers and new recruits and could potentially frustrate and disenfranchise current members into becoming disillusioned with the party and leave the party in drove. This is a danger that the SRP must seriously ponder.
I have tried to refrain from commentating and making damaging comments about the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), which I once admired and still now admire for its principled stance, but as I continued to observe its cacoethes carpendi and the abandonment of its original ideals and democratic principles, I cannot remain silent but to jump into the fray.
The SRP’s autocratic style and its dictatorial penchants of expelling members for disagreeing with the top party leadership is reminiscent of the Stalinist-style purges in the Soviet Union in the 1940s and 1950s and the Khmer Rouge purges in the 1970s, but the only difference is the absence of the extirpation and extermination of those purged. The expulsion of disenfranchised members is worrisome and has now become the norm for this once principled party and has now become its modus operandi in silencing and dealing with independent-minded members. It is regrettable that the party has now turned away from its original raison d’etre, which is to sow the seed of democracy in Cambodia and to democratize Cambodia.
The sorry state of this once hopeful and strong party has saddened everyone who once deeply believed in its ideals and principles. While it is the only party that poses a serious threat and challenge to the power of the ruling Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), it has been rocked with many defections and riddled with internal wrangling, which lead to its being weakened significantly. But what worries observers is its heavy-handed approach in disowning and expelling its members for their outspokenness and for voicing opinions contrary to the views of the party top echelon.
While the SRP has styled itself as a democratic party, its iron-fisted rule and heavy-handed disciplinary actions in dealing with members for minor misdemeanor, such as disagreeing with the party leadership, does not bode well with would-be members, potential financial backers and potential new recruits. It is ironic and hypocritical that the SRP has constantly and vehemently attacking the CPP for its dictatorship and undemocratic practices, but at the same time practicing the very same political modus operandi it has always criticized and opposed. The party is, without a doubt, increasingly becoming dictatorial in style by the day and is, therefore, a cause for concern and a recipe for a total disintegration.
While I am of the opinion that the SRP is the best party of all of the political parties in Cambodia, and sympathise with its predicament in keeping the party united as it has been riddled and plagued with infiltrations and interferences from other parties, particularly, the ruling CPP, I do not subscribe to and condone its dictatorial penchants that has been applied since its inception in dealing with its members suspected of being in “active and disloyal”.
The case in point is the latest expulsions of three senior officials, including MP Tok Vanchan, Senator Van Sivoeun and commune councillor Hok Ly Hak on charges of “inactivity and disloyalty”.
The reasons of “inactivity and disloyalty” given by the party for their expulsions are incredible and absurd concoctions, since their “inactivity and disloyalty” have never been defined or fully explained to the public or to them. While the other two, Van Sivoeun and Hok Ly Hak, might fit the criteria for “disloyalty” because they have so far defected to the Human Rights Party, I do not believe it is the case with Tok Vanchan, who seems to be a staunch SRP member because he still pledges his loyalty to the party, even though he has been expelled from the party. He has repeatedly said that he will stay with the SRP until the end and will not defect to the other parties and has appealed to the party to reconsider its decision to expel him. His plea to be allowed to remain with the party is proof of his loyalty to the SRP and is, therefore, contrary to the accusation of his “disloyalty” to the party.
The reason of “inactivity” that the party has used for the expulsions of these party members is the worst excuse the party has come up with. If “inactivity” is perceived as a valid reason for expulsions, then the more than 2 million SRP members, who apparently are not active, but just normal party members, are deemed to be the right candidates for expulsions. Many members of political parties in the West are sleepy members and have never been active, but have paid their party membership dues, and therefore are still the members of the party. I do believe that the three expelled members of the SRP still pay their party membership dues, and if so, as far as they are concerned, they are still party members. The SRP can sack them from their jobs, but it cannot expel them from the party for just simply being “inactive” members.
The practice of expulsions, as I said, which has now been used as the SRP’s modus operandi, is contrary to the party’s original ideology and could scare off potential financial backers and new recruits and could potentially frustrate and disenfranchise current members into becoming disillusioned with the party and leave the party in drove. This is a danger that the SRP must seriously ponder.
3 comments:
When a man is using his own name to represent his own party, that man loves the Power not the power of Love.
What prompted Khmerization to make a rave review of the SRP? This is not the end of the world for the SRP. I think the SRP will come out of this issue unscathed. However, I agree with Khmerization that, sometimes, the SRP had been too harsh and quick to expel its members. I too would advise it to be more understanding with members who might have overstepped the party line. Some members have dedicated their life, money and all their energy to the party, so it is unfair to expel them for being too independently-minded or just disagree with the party leadership.
Thank.mike
Post a Comment