When
the World Justice Project published its rule of law index last year, Cambodia came
in at 99 out of 102 countries surveyed, ahead of only Afghanistan, Venezuela
and Zimbabwe. This ranks Cambodia lower than any of its ASEAN peers — even
Myanmar achieved better scores.
In 2010, the UN Special
Rapporteur on Cambodia carefully described the situation of
Cambodia’s judiciary: ‘a combination of a lack of adequate resources, organisational
and institutional shortcomings … has resulted in an institution that does not
command the confidence of people from many walks of life’. Confidence is
certainly low, with the judiciary being frequently
perceived among Cambodians as the country’s most distrusted and
corrupt institution, beating even the police force.
Recent developments have not improved the situation. In
June 2014, three laws were passed after little consultation that strengthen the
position of the Ministry of Justice vis-à-vis the judiciary. A UN Special
Rapporteur expressed
‘deep concern’ over the reforms, which ‘could provide an excessive
transfer of power from the judiciary to the executive’. A NGO Law,
passed in July 2015, only added to these concerns.
In 2015, the International Bar Association published a
report that decried the extent of judicial corruption and the
inadequate governmental support given to Cambodia’s legal profession.
Most Cambodians therefore simply avoid the courts. This
is either because of mistrust or because they are inaccessible to those who
need them the most — the poor and marginalised. While written law has never
reached very far into Cambodia’s rural communities, with many people
traditionally settling disputes through informal conciliation, the lack of
legal assistance compounds access to the formal justice system.
Given the government’s insufficient legal aid budget, the
majority of legal aid lawyers are provided by donor-funded Cambodian NGOs. But
the number of lawyers has actually decreased over the past years, especially in
rural areas. This shortage of
lawyers is curious, considering that hundreds of students graduate annually
from Cambodia’s many law schools. However, only a few dozen lawyers are
admitted each year by the country’s Bar Association, whose admission process
has been hampered by allegations of corruption and politicisation.
Far from its early resistance to law reform
projects, the government now embraces the law. It has manipulated
the law to favour members of the elites and to lash out against its opponents,
launching numerous defamation law suits against NGO workers and members of the
political opposition over the past few years. Kheang Un described this
situation as a move towards ‘rule by law rather than rule of law’.
For the many donors who have, over the past two decades,
poured significant resources into legal and judicial reforms, scepticism has
turned into exasperation. Many cite rule of law as the most frustrating field
in the country’s development. As a result, many have simply given up, as
Denmark did a few years ago. Others — such as Australia — have reduced their
involvement. Although the internationalised justice process put into place
through the Khmer Rouge Tribunal has enhanced the capacities of the many
Cambodian legal professionals in its ranks, it has had little impact
on the country’s justice system so far.
Blame and explanations for this dire state of
affairs abound. To begin with, Cambodia had a difficult start. Past
violence, especially under the Khmer Rouge regime, devastated the country’s physical
infrastructure and its human resources, including its legal professionals. The
1980s then paved the way for a socialist court system that was subordinated to
the central party level and subtly nested existing patrimonial structures into
state institutions. Many of today’s judges were appointed during that time.
From the 1990s onwards, foreign assistance promoted a
global liberal rule of law project, emphasising legislative reform and
technical assistance. Hundreds of laws were drafted during those years in an
often-uncoordinated manner, training workshops organised and court buildings
renovated. But the interventions by and large failed to instil a rule of law culture. The result is a ‘rights ritualism’ or a
façade of a relatively well-developed legal framework behind which lies a
different reality of poor implementation and practice in the hands of badly
paid officials.
But Cambodia is not static, as everyone who frequently
visits the bustling capital Phnom Penh can confirm. The country’s rapid
demographic changes, in particular, will be a major factor in shaping
Cambodia’s future outlook. The current compact between the ruling elite and
those who survived the conflicts of the past — stability at the cost of
foregoing rights and other aspirations — will change with a new generation that
is better educated and has fundamentally different expectations.
Against the background of reduced donor support, the ball
is more than ever in the hands of Cambodians. To secure the desired long-term
stability the government will need to make considerable systemic changes in
order to provide the youth with social and economic opportunities. In a context
of investment competition and regional economic integration, this will also
necessitate a more professional, accountable and fair legal system with
improved regulatory capacity.
Christoph Sperfeldt is a PhD student at the Centre for
International Governance and Justice, RegNet School of Regulation and Global
Governance, The Australian National University.
No comments:
Post a Comment