Democracy: A Loser’s Game
Lindsay Gumley explores why some political parties are unwilling to lose an election.
Months before elections in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, the city seemed to be holding its breath. Development paused, investment stalled, construction sites were untouched for weeks and some factories had even been temporarily closed. In a country that has seen violence destabilise its capital after every election since 1993, the people were apprehensive. Not about who would win the coming election, but about who would lose.
It is widely taken for granted that for a democracy to work, someone has to be prepared to lose. However, Cambodia’s Prime Minister, Hun Sen, appears unwilling to do so. After losing the 1993 election, his party, the CPP (Cambodian People’s Party), refused to relinquish power. This culminated in the Hun Sen-led 1997 coup to oust his Co-Prime Minister Norodom Ranariddh. Since then, electoral corruption, political intimidation and coercion towards both the opposition and its supporters have been commonplace. The CPP has made it clear that if the people want peace, a victory for Hun Sen is the only option.
“It is widely taken for granted that for a democracy to work, someone has to be prepared to lose.”
Similarly, recent election debacles in Kenya and Zimbabwe have highlighted the recurring phenomenon that constitutes a major roadblock to the development of effective and representative democracies: some political parties are simply unwilling to loose. This article explores three reasons for this phenomenon.
The Problem of Time
It takes several electoral cycles for a properly functioning democracy to prove that it can work; that being in opposition is periodic, not permanent. In many cases, citizens and politicians cannot remember a time, if there ever was one, when there were several consecutive, successful transfers of power between political parties.
In the almost 20 years since Cambodia became democratic, there have been only two changes of government, the second of which was a coup d’état. If being in opposition seems to be a permanent purgatory, then, once in power, political parties will do anything necessary to remain in government.
The Problem of Dirty Hands
If an incumbent government has participated in human rights abuses, corruption and abuses of power, they may be unwilling to relinquish power for fear of being prosecuted. Since Hun Sen first gained power, history has seen the trials of Charles Taylor, Augusto Pinochet, Hissène Habré, Desi Bouterse, Saddam Hussein and many other former leaders. Most of those tried were far more despotic than he, but were nevertheless tried for similar crimes. While Cambodia has a history of pardons, there is nonetheless a real feeling among its government and people that, were Hun Sen to leave government, he may have to stand trial in some capacity.
“It takes several electoral cycles for a properly functioning democracy to prove that it can work; that being in opposition is periodic, not permanent.”
In many cases, the fear of prosecution extends far beyond the head of state. Corruption is the modus operandi for much of the Cambodian political system and almost everyone’s hands are dirty. Many officials and supporters fear that if there were a change of government, they would not only lose the benefits of power, but they would also be tried for their activities. Furthermore, much of the coercion and political intimidation of opposition supporters in Cambodia’s numerous provinces is carried out without central control. The list of people who could be prosecuted is therefore extensive.
Do Unto Others
Even if amnesty from trial were granted, there is a wider fear that if an incumbent government has engaged in violence against, or political intimidation of, their opposition, the same will happen to them if they are in opposition. With inflation at about 2.2 million per cent in Zimbabwe, few of Mugabe’s followers still directly benefit from his power. However, they continue to support him for fear of retaliation once they are without the protection of his regime.
These three factors illustrate the difficulty surrounding fledgling democracies. Nevertheless, progress is possible. In Cambodia, there are now eleven political parties and the opposition party no longer has its own army. This decreases the perception of threat to an outgoing incumbent that would otherwise take steps towards cooperation. However, organisations and governments aiding nations transitioning to democracy still need to remember that democracy is really a loser’s game.
