Cambodia’s long-time Prime Minister Hun Sen had announced that he would step down, and his son, 45-year-old Hun Manet, who had won a seat to the 15-member parliament for the first time, will step into his shoes. Hun’s Cambodian People’s Party had been in power ever since the controversial Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot, accused of killing two million people, had been thrown out of power with the help of the Vietnamese.

In the 1980s, Hun Sen was the favourite of the Western governments and media though he was part of the Khmer Rouge government but broke away from it. Hun Sen was seen as the man who stood against the murderous communist dictator Pol Pot. But his standing began to decline in the 1990s and after when Hun Sen stood firmly against foreign intervention of bringing to the Khmer Rouge generals to trial, and he wanted Cambodians to do the job of restoring justice themselves.

It was a slow process, and many of the Khmer Rouge leaders and generals were old by the time they faced trial. Pol Pot, the man responsible for the holocaust, died in exile. Hun Sen had increased his hold on Cambodian politics and he became dictatorial in turn. The opposition was eliminated. The point in favour of Hun Sen was that he was not Pol Pot.

All that Hun Sen can claim is that he has brought back normalcy to a traumatised country, and Cambodia has been limping back economically and otherwise. But his unwillingness to let an opposition emerge stands as the most negative aspect. In Sunday’s election, there was no other party in the fray. The Candle Light Party, the only opposition organisation, was disqualified by the country’s election commission on technical grounds. Western observers of Cambodia’s election have said it was neither free nor fair.

And the fact that Hun Sen is handing over power to his own son, who has been the chief of the armed forces, goes against the spirit of democracy. Hun Sen can argue that he has brought peace and stability to the country, and it has been a blessing for the country. In form, Cambodia remains a constitutional monarchy, where King Norodom Sihomani is the head of the state.

There are three examples in Cambodia’s neighbourhood, Vietnam, Thailand and Singapore. Vietnam is ruled by the communist party, and it is a one-party state. Thailand has been experiencing political turbulence where the opposition party had won the election and it is finding hard to form a government. Hun Sen can cite these two examples and say that he has chosen the Vietnam model. And unlike in Vietnam, where the ruling party, the communist party, follows an ideology, Hun Sen’s Cambodian People’s Party is not bound by an ideology or a communist party. Hun Sen can say that all that he wants is the prosperity of Cambodia. In Singapore too, the architect of modern Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was followed by his son, Lee Hsien Loong. Singapore had succeeded in creating a meritocracy and a vibrant economy.

Hun Sen cannot claim that he has created a meritocracy and a vibrant economy. For democracy advocates in Cambodia and outside, Hun Sen’s argument of political stability is not convincing. The economy is doing well because of tourism. Majority of the arrivals are from China and the sector plays a key role in Cambodia’s prosperity. The big factor in favour of Hun Sen is that he favours market economy and foreign investments. The trade-off between economic growth and lack of democracy raises more questions than it answers.