Hun Sen and his questionable legitimate rule

Monday, 7 July 2014

Hun Sen greets King Sihamoni (Image www.zimbio.com)

Legitimacy is a core value to all governments around the world, and the government in each country  has different levels of legitimacy depends on how it comes to power-- by forces, cheated election, and free and fair election.  For Cambodia, a question of legitimacy for the government has been raised since 1979 when Vietnam had invaded Cambodia and installed its satellite regime to rule the country on its behest until today.  Despite legitimacy has been questionable, Hun Sen regime has managed to hold its power for over three decades with minimum interruption.  Literally, legitimacy means that the rightful king or queen is on the throne by reason of "legitimate birth."  Since the European Middle Age, the term means to the legal and psychological rights to govern.  But nowadays legitimacy is more referred to an attitude in people's minds--in some countries strong, in other weak--that the government's rule is rightful.  As the current Cambodian unilateral government has been decried for its legitimacy, Hun Sen recently has brazenly compared himself with a Thai military coup leader, General Prayuth Chan Ocha, who had launched a bloodless coup to topple an elected government and proclaimed himself as a legitimate ruler of Thailand when he got endorsement from the king.  Hun Sen assumed that if Prayuth was a legitimate leader why not him since he and Gen. Prayuth have received the same royal endorsement.  Can the king or queen give legitimacy to any leader on his or her own will?

Since Thailand is the most prominent constitutional monarchy and democracy in the region, a recent military coup in Thailand has sent a wrong message to the entire region while democracies are flourishing in some countries--Indonesia and Philippines-- some are struggling to nurture it-- Cambodia and Myanmar--and the others are either partially democratic-- Singapore and Malaysia--or autocratic--Brunei, Laos, and Vietnam.  Cambodia which has gained momentum in searching for true democracy, the Thai military coup has pushed the democratic forces into disadvantageous position when Hun Sen, a braggart and dictatorial leader, has used a situation in Thailand as a good excuse for iron fist rule.  He confused himself, stating that the Thai coup leader, Gen. Prayuth Chan Ocha was legitimate leader why not him when he and Gen. Prayuth got the same approval from the king, the highest authority in the country.  Hun Sen's thinking is in hundreds years back to the European Middle Ages.  Nowadays even if legitimacy is still endorsed by the king or Queen in some countries, the true legitimacy is stemmed from the hearts and minds of the people.  The king or queen in Britain, Japan, Spain, Norway, Sweden, and so forth can only endorse any leader if and only if the leader was freely and fairly elected by the people.  In this scenario, Prayuth is not a legitimate leader of Thailand in the eyes of people and the international community though he was endorsed by the king because he was not elected by the people.