By Chivoin Peou
Cambodia and its people seem to constantly find themselves on the verge of tragedy after brief periods of hope.
We, the “righteous people”—as we like to believe based on our
idealized past—are often ready to point an accusing figure at the
“others” (foreign governments and races) for our situations. There is no
denial that the “others” have played a part, yet such acknowledgement
should not excuse us from examining our own share of guilt and
responsibility.
Perhaps it is agreeable to most that greed and grievance are part and
parcel of the destruction and violence Cambodia has experienced in the
past century. Grievance (i.e., rage at unfairness; bitter resentment
toward actual/perceived mistreatment) has in particular formed the
backbone of our tragic history. Yet, the current political development
shows that some of us are creating conditions for our people to nurse a
strong grievance, which could be self-destructive.
Cambodia is a post-war economic success story, but current redistribution of wealth is objectionable. Extraction of resources
benefits the economy, but the poor peasants find their livelihood
threatened. Industrialization relies on cheap labor, but workers live in
abject conditions. Public infrastructure has improved, but public
services are corrupt. Accountability and transparency are appealing
buzzwords, but abuse of power is rampant.
The privileged can of course purchase security, but the majority of
the population, who live on less than $2 a day, are exposed to the risks
and threats resulting from the current situation. There is every reason
for many people to harbor a grievance against the conditions of life
made beyond their own making.
The rather unexpected election results last week, in which the
incumbent government saw its popular support greatly reduced, might have
indicated the extent of their grievance. There surely are people who
readily dispute this account,
pointing insistently to the “development” seen in Cambodia over the
past three decades. Disagreement over what is “real”—development versus
deterioration—then arises.
Determining what is objectively “real” in such political climate is
hardly possible. Instead, we can learn from the Thomas theorem: “If men
define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”
Our interpretation, rather than what is objectively “real,” causes
action. Even if we want to cling on to the insistence of the “real”
development in Cambodia, we need to accept the interpretation of many
people, through their votes, that the current conditions of life warrant
a grievance for change.
While such grievance needs urgent redress and political commitment in
good faith, we seem to be doing the opposite. First, instead of
recognizing and urgently fixing the current conditions of life, some
find a comfortable way of dealing with this grievance through denying
and suppressing the people’s indignation and resentment, thus
perpetuating abuse and social injustice.
Second, some play upon popular grievance dangerously through ethnic demonization.
Third, due to our traumatic experience of war and violence, some want
to avoid contestation and struggle (a price for building an inclusive
and transparent society) at all costs, and hence being content with
“stability” with rooted grievances.
Here again, the weight of the past forbids us from foresight. Should a
tragic history repeats itself, we shall have to share the collective
guilt.
Chivoin Peou is a doctoral candidate in sociology, studying
social transformation and young people, at the University of Melbourne.
No comments:
Post a Comment