The Cambodian People’s Party: A Deficit of Leadership
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/the-cambodian-peoples-party-a-deficit-of-leadership/

*The party needs to allow its members to speak freely if it is going to
make the reforms it needs to survive.*

By Phoak Kung
June 22, 2014
[image: The Cambodian People’s Party: A Deficit of Leadership]
Since the disappointing result for the ruling Cambodian People’s Party
(CPP) in last year’s election, when it won only 68 out of 123 seats, there
has been little discussion about how it will be able to win back support in
the next national polls in 2018. Instead, some political observers and
opposition supporters argue that there is nothing the CPP can do to restore
public trust, and that its days in the government are numbered.

As a consequence, the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP)
appears determined to keep the pressure on the ruling elites in the hope
that the CPP will fall apart or at least produce cracks sufficient to lead
to a change in leadership. However, this view seems to ignore the
complexity of Cambodia’s tumultuous politics. Moreover, the ruling elites
fully understand that the stakes are extremely high this time, and are
convinced that they need to stay united.

Although the CPP is not in immediate danger, the party rank and file are
surely pondering the future of their party. Speaking during the first
cabinet meeting on September 26, 2013, Prime Minister Hun Sen outlined a
number of reforms that will be the priority for the government in its fifth
mandate. Whether it will be able to live up to its promises remains to be
seen.

Following his speech, Cambodian government ministries have been busy
rolling out a laundry list of policies to address the problems that cost
the CPP public support. The hope is that positive results can enable the
party to avoid further decline. For its part, the opposition argues that
the attempt is just a façade designed to get public attention, and that the
government will renege on its promises when the threats fade.

The problem with this argument is that if reforms are for public
consumption only, then what can explain Cambodia’s economic success? Since
the early 2000s, the economy has been growing at an unprecedented rate.
Many human indicators such as education, health, life expectancy, and
literacy are improving. In addition, the number of people living below the
poverty line has been significantly reduced since the early 1990s.

Yet this progress has not come without a cost, especially for the poor and
vulnerable. Inequality is staggering, and shows no sign of improving
anytime soon. Moreover, the problems of governance continue to hinder the
country’s economic and political development. Despite tough words and
frequent promises, the government has often been accused of not being
honest or serious about democratic reforms.

According to the opposition, the main culprit is the lack or absence of
political will, so ending the current crisis requires swift and dramatic
changes in both policies and leadership. But this explanation is
incomplete. Given public sentiment, the ruling elites no doubt understand
that they will pay a heavy price if they fail to take action to address
voters’ concerns. So why aren’t reforms moving forward with greater
alacrity?

Despite the fact that the CPP’s top brass have acknowledged some of the
problems that led to the loss of votes, on the rungs below them officials
seem to be in denial about the growing public discontent and skepticism.
And this denial can be largely explained by the structure of incentives
that have been put in place and that have evolved over the years within the
party.

For many CPP party members, loyalty is best expressed through actions that
defend their leaders’ credibility and reputation, even if that requires
denying the obvious. This phenomenon is so entrenched that it has become
one of the most important factors in deciding who will get what and when in
the party. Anyone who seeks to defy the status quo faces isolation or even
punishment.

So even if they know that the government has made mistakes, party officials
are reluctant to acknowledge them, for fear of being accused of lacking
loyalty or being labeled as opposition sympathizers. Instead of speaking
the truth, they attempt to cover up the bad news, and hope that they can
fix the problem before their superiors finds out. The result is that
leaders are not in touch with the situation on the ground, especially if
they rely entirely on subordinates’ feel-good reports.

This problem has deep and serious implications. It seriously undermines the
party’s ability to accurately assess Cambodia’s changing political
landscape. Moreover, if public servants are not happy with their ministers,
and there is no way for them to get their message across within the party,
they are left with no choice but to denounce their own party. It is no
coincidence that anonymous letters accusing some ministers of corruption
and nepotism have circulated in social media. Of course, it is extremely
hard, if not impossible, to verify the authenticity of these letters.
Still, they suggest that discontent toward the government is real.

Pointing out the government’s mistakes or failures should not be equated
with an attack on the government. The CPP must be open to the good faith
expression of genuine concerns. Draconian measures to silence party members
are counterproductive, and could even backfire. It demoralizes those whose
intentions are good and risks creating a party of incompetents whose
purpose is only to enrich themselves.

The CPP needs to address this problem now if it wants to survive future
elections. Its leaders should incentivize government officials to speak out
for the benefit of Cambodia and its people. Information must be allowed to
reach the top.

Breaking this tradition would also allow ruling elites to encourage the
emergence of future leaders within the CPP. For a long time, party members
have depended heavily on their leaders to give them direction. Those
capable of bringing new ideas and solutions to their workplaces have often
been discouraged by the lack of incentives. Many have unsurprisingly opted
for the safest course, which is to always endorse their leaders’ ideas.
They end up becoming yes-men.

The CPP’s leaders should encourage party members to take the initiative and
reward them for results. Public servants in the middle and lower ranks
should be granted some authority to make decisions, so that they need not
always wait for their leaders’ approval. These changes would significantly
accelerate the reform process and reduce unnecessary delays.

The successful adoption of these reforms would benefit everyone. The CPP’s
leadership will have a better chance restoring public trust and winning
back the support. Public servants will have more authority and freedom to
do their work and will be fairly rewarded if they produce results. And the
people of Cambodia will benefit from a more effective public sector.

*Phoak Kung is Vice President for Academic Affairs at Mengly J. Quach
University, Cambodia. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Cambodian
Institute for Cooperation and Peace. He was a Visiting Fellow at the
University of Oxford and Cornell University.*


--

Best Regards,

*Khmer Forum*
*A place for sharing community events and public news.*

-- 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language. 
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.

To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to