Political Transition in Cambodia 1991-99: Power, Elitism and Democracy

Roberts, David W. Political Transition in Cambodia 1991-99: Power, Elitism and Democracy. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2001. 259pp.

The main argument of this book is that attempts to democratize Cambodia by external forces without taking into account the prevailing social tradition and political culture of the country failed to achieve a smooth transition to democracy and consequently created further political instability in the country. Cambodia has been one of those conflict areas where the United Nations played a dominant role in efforts to end civil war and facilitate democratic processes. Such UN interventions at the end of the Cold War were viewed by many as an application of the U.S. inspired 'Liberal Project,' which ostensibly sought to spread liberal democracy as the dominant political ideology globally. The author maintains that the failure of a peaceful transition to democracy in Cambodia illustrates the flawed assumptions of western liberalism, since externally imposed democratization and its consequences are the fundamental causes of much of Cambodia's political instability and violence since 1991.

After a prolonged period of civil war and political instability following the invasion of Cambodia by Vietnam, the Paris Peace Agreement (PPA), signed in 1991, was heralded as a comprehensive peace plan for Cambodia. In accordance with the agreement, the UN Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) was mandated to supervise a cease-fire, disarm and demobilize the combatant armies, and prepare the country for multi-party free and fair elections. The author maintains that these objectives were not achieved as expected, since elections did not bring democracy, and political instability continued. At the core of the PPA were assumptions that all parties would accept the election results and would agree to share power after multi-party elections. But, sharing power, as the author maintains, caused more problems than it resolved, because the notion of power-sharing is antithetical to Cambodia's absolutist tradition. The country has had no democratic tradition throughout its history. After centuries of monarchical rule, it has been under totalitarian regimes since independence in 1953. Therefore, elections under the auspices of UNTAC did not bring peace, stability, and democracy as envisioned by the PPA.

Prior to the UNTAC-managed elections (1993), UNTAC was unable to achieve disarmament by several groups including the Khmer Rouge, a major faction of the Cambodian conflict. After the elections, the Cambodian People's Party (CPP), the party in power, refused to accept the poll results when it lost majority status. A post-election crisis developed, but with Prince Sihanouk's intervention, a national coalition government was constituted. However, transition to a stable government was marred because of power struggles between the two main rival parties - CPP and FUNCINPEC. The coalition government essentially came to an end in 1997 when fighting broke out between the supporters of the two parties. The expectation of the Paris Accords for a peaceful settlement of the conflict through multi-party elections and sharing power thus has not materialized.

Since the UNTAC administered elections in 1993, Cambodia has held multi-party National Assembly elections of its own in 1998 and again in 2003. These elections may not have been completely free and fair by international standards, but they, at least, indicate the continuation of a democratic process. Therefore, it could be argued that the UN operation, although not totally successful in achieving its goals, was the beginning of the establishment of democratic institutions which never existed in the country before. In his concluding chapter, the author, however, maintains that, "No democracy is perfect.... In a sense, all democracies are in transition. Cambodia is perhaps at the beginning of the continuum from non-democracy to constitutional pluralism" (p.202).

The sound analysis of this book highlights not only the difficulties in UN peacekeeping interventions, but also the problems of any externally imposed democratization in developing countries. Since the primary focus of this study is the Paris Peace Agreement, it would have been useful if the author had incorporated the full text of the agreement, which is also available through the Internet, as an addendum. At least three of the five annexes of the Agreement - UNTAC Mandate; Withdrawal, Cease-fire and Related Measures; and Elections - could have been reproduced. It also would have been a valuable addition to the book if the author had added the chronological development of events during the study period as an appendix.

M. Bazlul Karim Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP

Copyright Association of Third World Studies, Inc. Fall 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved