The Cambodian People’s Party led by Prime Minister Hun Sen is currently the longest ruling government via popular elections in the country’s contemporary political history.
Active efforts to impose complete democracy by force are unlikely to succeed unless they take place in the context of domestic conditions that facilitate such a radical change.
Researchers have defined regime change as the forcible or coerced removal of the effective leader of one state – which remains formally sovereign afterward – by the government of another state or in other words, ruled by proxy.
In Cambodia, the opposition Cambodia National Rescue Party staged, unleashed and partook in mass demonstrations that saw deaths and violence, all in the vicious call for regime change of a legally elected government in a hotly contested election in 2013 which saw the ruling party suffer an unprecedented loss of 22 seats when compared to 2008.
Similar, often pro-Western stooge regimes replace sitting governments in other cases around the world where regime change was forced onto the silent majority by the noisy minority who had covert and overt support from hidden hands.
Many states which have seen regime change being forced down the people’s throat have been left as failed states, examples of which include Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Haiti, Honduras, Somalia, Yemen and Ukraine. Syria’s government maintains power despite having lost control of much of its territory.
Immense suffering is prevalent in Syria, triggering a human exodus to Europe and a human catastrophe, all unleashed and propagated by those with vested interests on a sitting government.
Another lesson to be learned from enforcing regime change is the rise of terrorism and terror outfits such as ISIS, the Taliban and other outfits who thrive on a prevailing chaos triggered in the country as a result of regime change.
As harsh as Prime Minister Hun Sen’s warning of civil unrest and even civil war if the opposition comes to power and implements its populist policies may be, one must take it with a large dose of salt as this writer believes that rhetoric made by the CNRP and its leadership echelon precipitates such harsh comments and reactions.
In effect, the CNRP’s repeated call for regime change at each general election is a mantra demanded by its covert supporters who are just waiting to pick up the pieces and share the spoils arising out of regime change.
Similar “Neocon’ motivated regime change strategies have backfired and seen continued turmoil and eventual economic collapse in many parts of the world where such an act took place and was allowed to succeed by the silent majority.
As one journalist put it, in this era of rampant political spin and platitudes, where George Orwell’s claim that political language is used and abused to ‘make lies sound truthful and murder respectable’ has never been truer, the comments made by CNRP’s Sam Rainsy and Kem Sokha on various highly sensitive issues shows political immaturity and nonchalant attitude towards Cambodians general well-being.
Too Much
There is simply too much political writing and propaganda which sensationalized issues but offers little in clarifying real-world events than it is a collection of pre-existing phrases coined together by activist’s and agent provocateurs to confuse voters, the general public and those who care to listen in the external world with one objective in mind – REGIME CHANGE.
Both Sam Rainsy and Kem Sokha and their henchmen in elected representatives who do their masters bidding when their masters want to remain silent, have created a massive political fog over the political reality and its contingent environment in Cambodia.
In almost every state which has gone through regime change outside of the ballot box, ‘the “failed state” tag follows, except in very rarecases.
Chaos, power struggle and a power and security vacuum and the infiltration of radicalization and terrorism will certainly follow suit.
History has shown time and again that regime change, masked in the mirage of a self-proclaimed people’s revolution, is doomed to create more undemocratic leaders than sitting leaders.
The Western-assisted anti-democratic removal of an elected leader seem like an act of people’s democracy in those countries where regime change succeeded and that is probably what Sam Rainsy and Kem Sokha are hoping for.
The time worn narrative of regime change because the CPP and Mr. Hun Sen have been in power too long holds no water and rationale.
As long as the change, if it comes, is through the ballot box, the results of which are sanctioned by the election commission which has been revamped and reformed as per the demand of the CNRP, there is little doubt that people will accept it.
However in the event this change does not come through the ballot box but by sinister extraneous reasons propagated by hidden hands, then it is the right of the sitting government of the day to resist such attempts with all its might and with all the laws at its disposal.
