Friday, 01 June 2012
David Boyle and Bridget Di Certo
Phnom Penh Post
There are 10 parties fielding candidates in this Sunday’s commune
elections, but if the tone of their platforms and policies is anything
to go by, that doesn’t necessarily leave voters with a wealth of choice.
It is just the third time that commune elections have been
held, in which voters are asked to choose based on parties and their
national platforms, not the performance of individual candidates.
And
though individual commune council candidates might identify specific
localised issues to woo their electorates, the campaign platforms their
parties have armed them with are almost indistinguishable.
For
Hem Nareth, a 29-year-old second-time voter and activist from the
organisation Empowering Youths in Cambodia, the messages and
alternatives on offer in this election are disenfranchising.
“No
leader inspires us enough to support them, or offers a model [that is]
good enough to see that they would do a good job for us to support
them,” she said.
“That’s why we would rather keep quiet and vote for [an] opposition party, just to promote democracy to protect us more.”
The
Cambodian People’s Party is considered a certainty to win a majority of
seats, having picked up 70 per cent of the 11,353 contested in the 2007
ballot and increased its percentage of the vote at every type of
election since 1993.
The Sam Rainsy Party almost doubled its
commune electorate win from 12 per cent in 2002 to 23 per cent in 2007.
The 2007 election was a watershed for the SRP, which swept aside the
Funcinpec and the Norodom Ranraddih Party – both of which attained less
than 4 per cent of the vote – to become Cambodia’s main opposition
party.
This year, another key opposition party will race in the
commune vote. The Human Rights Party, officially formed shortly after
the 2007 commune elections, will compete in 1,070 of the 1,633 communes.
While the number of parties has increased, this has not necessarily equated to an increase in choice.
The
Post contacted key officials from each of the 10 parties recently and
asked them about their key political platforms and policies.
Across
the board, parties tended to respond in almost exactly the same way,
committing to democracy, rule of law and development, with poverty a key
issue to tackle.
Half said their party stood for anti-corruption
and cracking down on illegal immigrants along with border issues with
the Vietnamese.
Only one party said public health was part of
their political platform and only one other said addressing land issues
was a key policy.
Laura Thornton, resident director of the US
Democratic Party-affiliated National Democratic Institute, said that
during a program to train commune council candidates in electoral
debate, getting parties to distinguish their policies had been the most
significant challenge.
“We worked really hard on that. We did
months of this campaign training, and the biggest focus was on message
development, and a big component of that was contrast,” she said.
“Basically it answers the question ‘why should I vote for you?’”
One
problem for parties trying to answer this question is that it is very
hard to gauge what issues the electorate are broadly concerned about in a
campaign where only two polls have been conducted, neither of which
asked voters about specific current issues.
But beneath the vague
overarching manifestos of the individual parties, at the local level,
candidates are beginning to find their own voice with specific, relevant
messages that are impacting voters.
NDI’s training program
included organising a series of debates, and yesterday the NGO wrote in a
press release that exit polls showed 88 per cent of people who attended
these had changed their mind about who to vote for.
“The fact
that simply sitting through one debate would change the opinion of
almost 90 per cent of participants is remarkable,” Thornton said.
“It
demonstrates citizens’ hunger for information from the parties and
candidates and their appreciation of constructive, respectful, and fair
exchange of opinions and ideas.”
Koul Panha, executive director
of the election monitoring group Comfrel, said the debates – a novel
concept in Cambodian politics – should be applied at higher levels.
“If
the political parties want people to understand their platform at the
national level, they should have debates, and we don’t have those
debates,” he said.
One big debate on the national level is
whether a recent wave of violence associated with land disputes and
activists has bred resentment in the country’s marginal seats, mostly
located in the relatively well-informed capital city, Phnom Penh.
The
issue has become a key focus of the SRP’s campaign, the question
remains can they get that message out amongst the din of overlapping
voices.
2 comments:
Based on political platform and track records, the choice is easy: SRP
Vote for those whose willing to protect,serve and defense the constitution of Cambodia.Vote for democratic party,vote for your better future,don't vote for the "land grabbers =Cpp" you vote for Cpp, you vote to destroy your country.Cpp will takes all your land and destroy all poor Khmer people houses sold to his cronies.
Vote for democratic party change for the better.
Post a Comment