The last decade in Cambodia has been marked by continuous political change and dramatic economic liberalization, resulting in, inter alia, an accelerating degree of dependence on external economic and political dynamics. Although Cambodia is now into a decade of ‘democratization’, changes in the domestic political institutions have remained superficial, particularly at the local level in the rural areas where the majority of the population lives. However, a decentralization reform that targets the interface of ‘democratization’ and ‘development’ at the local level is now being implemented. In theory this reform cuts deep into the everyday life of most Cambodians and may possibly bring about the political and social change that was generally anticipated when national elections were first conducted in 1993. The focus of this chapter is to assess the prospect for this reform and the consequences it may carry for the furthering of democratic change.

CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

Comprehensive democratic decentralization reform was formally launched in Cambodia in 2001. This reform was somewhat of a surprise to many observers; some questioned the genuineness with which the central state was driving this process (Meixner and Sovirak 1999), while others categorically rejected the possibility that bottomup processes and democratic representation in Cambodia might work (Ledgerwood 1998; cf. Thion 1993). Historians, on their part, have stressed the conservative nature of Khmer culture (Martin 1994; cf. Mabbet and Chandler 1995), while the NGO-community is worried that the process does not take into account the perspectives of all stakeholders adequately (e.g. NGO Statement 2000). In the popular debate, the reform is typically viewed as part of a greater power play involving players who are intrinsically uninterested in local-level development and democracy.

There is some justification for all these critical and cynical views. The rift between the far-reaching ambition of the administrative reform, and the high expectations of the outcome, on the one hand, and the difficult circumstances under which the reform is being carried out on the other, is wide, and calls for critical analysis. Historically, power has neither been decentralized in any meaningful way, nor has it been democratically distributed.