To the opposition Sam Rainsy Party, the recent passage of sweeping amendments to the electoral law “[constituted] a severe setback for democracy” that will “lead Cambodia down a dangerous path.”
In a statement, the party’s parliamentarians warn, “Conspiracy and complacency will have serious consequences.”
But beyond such heated rhetoric, analysts say it is not at all clear what those consequences will be. The electoral process has just begun, they say, and much remains to be seen before next year’s national elections.
The new legislation leaves many blanks to be filled, said Koul Panha, director of the Committee for Free and Fair Elections. “There is some commitment to change and improve [elections], but it does not address some priorities,” he said.
In terms of the law’s centerpiece—the changes to the National Election Committee—“the law recognizes some of our suggestions about a nonpartisan, competent NEC, but it doesn’t clarify,” Hang Puthea said.
Clarifying the law—largely via internal regulations drafted by the yet-to-be-appointed NEC itself—is what will really shape the coming elections, scheduled for July 27, 2003—less than 11 months away.
The recent legislation reduced the NEC from 11 to just five members, all “dignitaries” chosen by the Ministry of Interior and approved by a majority vote of the National Assembly.
Other significant changes to the 1998 election law include vote-counting, to be conducted at the commune level rather than at individual polls, and voter registration, to be handled by the clerks of the commune councils.
But will this fix the supposedly independent body that, after the 1998 general elections, earned widespread public outcry for failing to pursue opposition and Funcinpec complaints?
Will it improve the secretive committee that, in the run-up to this year’s Feb 3 local elections, was accused of overt political bias—even by some of its own members?
Those are questions the new law does not answer.
“This law…closed a lot of the gaps that existed in the 1998 law,” said one observer of the election process, who asked not to be named. “It’s a sound, workable document that provides the technical foundation for a free and fair election.”
But it doesn’t guarantee anything, the observer said. “As always, the devil lives in the details. If you want an election that’s free, fair and safe, it depends on the processes in place to enforce independence and neutrality.”
The implementing regulations for the new law must clearly define the NEC, several observers said. In the 2002 commune elections, the NEC’s mandate was so murky and amorphous that it declared many matters—ensuring equal media access, preventing vote-buying—simply outside what it considered its role.
“In terms of something like access to the media, they need to clarify that the NEC has a responsibility” to address the issue, Koul Panha said. “In the commune elections, the NEC claimed that under the law they don’t have a role in access to the media.”
That resulted in voter information programs being pulled from TV and media coverage going disproportionately to the CPP.
“Now we have to try to work with the next step, the drafting of regulations for the NEC,” Koul Panha said. “We have to ensure that they have to do something.”
It will all be up to the new, five-member NEC. Keo Remy, the Funcinpec lawmaker who drafted an alternate, rejected legislative proposal for election reform, said he believes the Ministry of Interior has already selected its candidates.
Keo Remy is convinced these “dignitaries” will be CPP-controlled. “The five members are selected by the Interior Ministry, which is controlled by Sar Kheng, a high-ranking official of the CPP,” he said.
The law stipulates only that the NEC members have “political ability, work experience and a good reputation.”
To Keo Remy, the election is already inevitably in the hands of the ruling party. “It’s too late for this election,” he said. “Everything is in the control of the CPP. They will win two-thirds [of the vote].”
But most believe it’s not yet over. “The law is not a fully comprehensive document,” the anonymous observer said. “Starting now, the general public, political parties and civil society must be very active in keeping the entire process under observation and criticism.”
