The development and modernization of emerging countries and cultures is a complex and many-faceted issue. Without a keen understanding of the cultural mores of the country in question and an excellent grasp of the concept of development, it is nearly impossible to conduct an in-depth analysis of the issue. Countries that are still emerging into modernization may face a variety of different issues, many of which are compounded by conflict, either past or present. Without knowledge of both the recent history of the country and the history of conflict within the country, it is difficult to understand the issues that the country faces when it comes to joining the modernized world.
Cambodia, like many countries in Asia, faced a variety of problems in the mid- to late-twentieth century. Although most are familiar with the problems that the United States caused in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, many are unfamiliar with the fact that the war frequently spilled over the borders of Vietnam into Cambodia (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463). The level of anti-American sentiment at the time was very high, and this frequently translated to anti-democratic and pro-communist sentiment. Many texts have been written on the topic of the rise of communism and socialism in Southeast Asia, but in Cambodia, the rise of socialism and communism was particularly destructive: it brought with it the rise of the Khmer Rouge, a group that was purportedly supportive of the working classes (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463). However, the Khmer Rouge committed one of the most atrocious and unique acts of genocide in recent history. The Khmer Rouge formulated their plan for Democratic Kampuchea-- their name for the current-day Kingdom of Cambodia-- and modeled it after Mao's Great Leap Forward (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463). Unlike China, however, Cambodia was relatively sparsely populated, and thus, the evacuation of the cities was both much more effective and much more devastating to the population (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463).
As the Khmer Rouge evacuated the cities, they simultaneously rounded up those individuals that they considered to be too westernized. This included anyone who spoke French, which the Khmer Rouge considered to be a holdover from the time when the Kingdom of Cambodia was colonized by the French. Although the French had been gone for some time, many of the best schools in the country still taught their students in the French language, and thus, many of the most educated Cambodians still spoke French fluently and had frequently been abroad to study (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463). Many of the doctors, lawyers, and scientists who were native Cambodians spoke French or English fluently; these language skills were necessary for accessing the higher education system. When the Khmer Rouge rounded up all those who spoke these languages and began to send them to work camps or even to prisons to be killed, they effectively undercut an entire generation of professionals within Cambodian society (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463).
While genocide has always been devastating to the countries that have been victims of it, Cambodia was unique because of the relatively small population of the country before the genocide. The Khmer Rouge is estimated to have killed anywhere from one to three million people in Cambodia, through a variety of tactics, including forced labor, killing fields, torture in prisons, and hunger; even the most conservative estimates say that the Khmer Rouge were responsible for the death of a quarter of the population (Rigg, 2003, pp. 110-190). Many of those killed during the Khmer Rouge regime were professionals and academics; this left a large gap in the population that can still be seen today.
Dependency theory, as it is understood by political theorists, suggests that the nations of the world are divided into wealthy and poor nations (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). Cambodia inarguably falls into the latter category; with a GDP of less that $13 billion USD, it is decidedly an underdeveloped nation (Geva, 2009, pp. 402-439). Dependency theory suggests that developed nations rely upon underdeveloped nations like Cambodia to prop up their hegemony on the world stage. Adherents to dependency theory suggest that the connection between underdeveloped nations and developed nations is a parasitic relationship, and that to develop, underdeveloped nations must cut their ties with developed nations to continue to develop.
For Cambodia, there is a problem with this prescription for independence. First, Cambodia’s most recent foray into isolationism was devastating on the population: it led to a mass culling of the intellectual and city-dwelling population. Second, the gap in the professional world in Cambodia has had a lasting effect on the country as a whole: rather than having a generation of experts who are native to the country to develop laws, science, and other disciplines, Cambodian universities and schools must rely upon experts from other nations to teach Cambodian students (De Walque, 2006, pp. 223-231). Although exposing students to international education is never a negative experience, both the educational system and private sector are severely lacking in native Cambodian experts in many fields (De Walque, 2006, pp. 223-231). In addition to depriving the Cambodian people of their middle, upper-middle, and most educated classes, the Khmer Rouge instituted a regime that was so blasé about utilizing torture, forced migration, and death that it traumatized Cambodian culture. To this day, the remnants of a culture that was so fearful remain; the old holdovers of corruption and fear of authority figures still lurk closely below the surface ((De Walque, 2006, pp. 223-231).
When considering Cambodia in the context of whether or not Cambodia can be considered a “developing nation,” it is important to understand how experts define the idea of “developing.” According to Peet and Hartwick (2009, pp.1-20), development in a nation is an “ideal concept [it] comes from Enlightenment notions of the intervention of the modern, scientific, and democratic mind into the improvement of human existence. Development entails human emancipation, in two of the senses of the word: liberation from the vicissitudes of nature, through greater understanding of earth processes followed by carefully applied technology; and self-emancipation, control over social relations, conscious control over the conditions under which human nature is formed, rational and democratic control over the cultural production of the human personality” (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). This is a very optimistic view on what development entails, and the most pessimistic of political theorists may say that by this definition, all countries in the world barely fit the definition of “developing,” and none can be considered “developed.” However, digging deeper into Peet and Hartwick's (2009, pp. 1-20) definition of a developing nation, it is clear that there are issues that can and should be unpacked that pertain directly to Cambodia's present-day status.
The definition provided by Peet and Hartwick (2009, pp. 1-20) regarding the development of a country can be split into two parts. The first part of development can be defined as the control over the individual’s environment, through the use of technology and science; examples of this may be the invention of things like houses, for instance, or antibiotics. These interventions on the part of a developing country are designed to make life better for the citizenry (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). The other portion of the definition can be categorized as a social improvement; the developing country tends toward a greater sense of individual freedom, personal autonomy, and the development of individuality (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). As such, the discussion of Cambodia will be considered on two fronts: first, the technological and industrial side of development, and second, the cultural, sociological, and political side of development.
Development theory suggests that education is an extremely important aspect of modernization of a nation, while modernization theory suggests that modernization is an internal economic state of a nation’s economy (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 21-27). In a modernized, developed nation, laws are restitutive, whereas in an underdeveloped nation, laws are punitive or oppressive. Similarly, in an underdeveloped nation, economy is mechanical and rote, but in a modernized and developed nation, the economy is specialized and allows for greater creativity (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 21-27). These distinctions are very important for classifying a nation as particularly developed or underdeveloped, and these classifications should be considered in the context of Cambodia’s present state. According to the HPI, or the Happy Planet Index, an index that utilizes a number of factors to determine the happiness level of people living in certain countries, Cambodia generally ranks between 80th and 90th. The HPI is used to give a different perspective on life in a country, making attempts to quantify happiness.
As previously discussed, there is a severe shortage of academics in present-day Cambodia. Some of the children of academics survived the purge that the Khmer Rouge inflicted upon the population, but these individuals are few and far between. It is difficult for Cambodia to join the world market when its ability to make intellectual and technological contributions is so depleted (Aryes, 2000, pp. 440-463). Considering Peet and Hardwick's (2009, pp. 1-20) definition of what constitutes a developing nation, it is easy to see that Cambodia will struggle with the cultural integration of technology and technological advances into its current-day culture (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). To illustrate this point, an excellent example is the issue of cell phone use in Cambodia. Today, cell phones in Cambodia exist, but the service and type of cell phone available is approximately equivalent of what was available in the late 1990s in the United States (Hubbell 2006). While other places in Asia have ubiquitous cell phone service and usage, Internet availability and cell phone service are both sparse and sporadic in Cambodia, even in Phnom Penh, the current-day capital city of the Kingdom of Cambodia (Hubbell 2006).
Besides the problems faced in the educational sector, Cambodia also faces a problem of currency. The Cambodian riel is used as currency in Cambodia, but the American dollar is also commonly used. The riel is tied to the dollar: 4,000 riel make one American dollar, and riel is commonly used in the place of American coinage, which is not utilized at all in Cambodian commerce (Geva, 2009, pp. 402-439). While the utilization of American currency in Cambodia has kept the economy afloat for many years, the fact that the riel is not used as a stand-alone currency in Cambodia is worrisome from a developmental perspective.
The issuance of a currency and the population’s willingness to accept the currency and trade on the perception of value is fundamentally important to the stability of a nation (Geva, 2009, pp. 402-439). Setting aside economic issues momentarily, the populace’s willingness to accept a currency as valuable is highly indicative of their confidence in the government issuing the currency (Geva, 2009, pp. 402-439). Because Cambodian businesspeople and vendors alike are unwilling to accept the riel as sole currency in Cambodia, this indicates that there is still a distrust of the government when it comes to economic stability (Geva, 2009, pp. 402-439).
Developmental theory and modernization theory suggest that modernization and development of a country cannot happen without the help and assistance of developed nations (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). The developmental state of a nation is heavily affected by the way the state acts; in this case, the state of Cambodia is acting in such a way that allows the nation to continue its reliance on the American dollar for sustenance, rather than working towards internal economic independence. Similarly, Peet and Hartwick (2009, pp. 1-20) suggest that a nation that is controlled by a small group of powerful individuals that are moving the country towards technological advancement is not experiencing development (Peet and Hartwick, 2009, pp. 1-20). Rather, developmental theory suggests that development is defined by the process, rather than the outcome. If the process of moving towards technological or social advancement is controlled by an elite group, it is not truly advancement.
Although many political theorists make an attempt to disentangle economics and political theory, in the modern world, they are inseparable. Because business controls so much capital and so much of the intellectual and technological power in the world, it is important to consider business and economic issues when unpacking the development and democratization of a country like the Kingdom of Cambodia (Springer, 2009, pp. 138-162). According to Springer (2009, pp. 138-162): “the promotion of intense marketization is revealed as a foremost causal factor in a country's inability to consolidate democracy following political transition. Neoliberalization effectively acts to suffocate an indigenous burgeoning of democratic politics. Such asphyxiation is brought to bear under the neoliberal rhetoric of order and stability, which can be read through the (re)production of public space.” Cambodia’s political transition came after the fall of the Khmer Rouge in the late 1970s, and continues to this day. According to Springer (2009, pp. 138-162), Cambodia’s GDP of nearly $13 million USD is primarily revenue from tourism and manufacturing.
Today, Cambodia is a constitutional monarchy. In the early 1990s, the Kingdom of Cambodia instituted a constitution that reinstated the royal family and created a parliamentary system of government (De Walque, 2006, pp. 223-231). This system, modeled after the British system of government, is designed to give the power back to the people in the post-war period (De Walque, 2006, pp. 223-231). The parliamentary system is primarily controlled by the Cambodian People’s Party, although there are some secondary parties that are present in Cambodian politics. Although the new constitution pays lip service to the idea of social and cultural equality, the levels of corruption in Cambodian politics is still very high (De Walque, 2006, pp. 223-231). In Peet and Hardwick’s (2009, pp. 1-20) definition of a developing country, the country must be moving towards a greater sense of political and social equality.
Dependency theory is primarily a political and sociological theory, whereas modernization theory is primarily an economic theory. While some adherents may advocate for the purity of one theory over another, the complexity of today’s world suggests that each theory-- modernization and dependency-- must be taken in conjunction to consider the development of underdeveloped nations. Money does make the world go round, as the old adage goes, but there are deeper nuances and subtleties to human interaction and culture that can only be explained by utilizing political and sociological theories.
No scholar will point to Cambodia as a bastion of social, gender, or political equality; however, considering the events of the past century, there is no denying that there is a movement towards greater equality and autonomy. There are issues that must be addressed in the Cambodian political system that will lead to greater development in the future. Peet and Hartwick (2009, pp. 21-30) postulate that in a system of free commerce, a country will devote their capital towards employment that most benefits the nation; the problem in current-day Cambodia is that the country is still recovering from a period that was devastating to both the economy and the social stability of the nation. A quarter of the population was killed in the 1970s, and as a result, the Cambodian people had to start largely from scratch in the educational and technological sense. The reason it seems that Cambodia is developing slower than other nations in Southeast Asia, such as Thailand or even Vietnam, is because the country faced a level of internal trauma that these nations did not face.
Cambodia is modernizing technologically and socially, although the process has been slow and rife with problems. While Cambodia still faces problems that other surrounding nations may not necessarily face, there has been a heartening resiliency in the recovery of the Cambodian culture and economy. Cambodia cannot be considered a developed country, but there is no doubt that the people and the government are making strides to develop the country, even though they are faced with corruption and other similar issues. The study of the Kingdom of Cambodia is particularly fascinating in the context of development and modernization because Cambodia truly has no modern-day analog; there is no country that has a similar size that has faced similar issues, so the developmental issues and system that is emerging in Cambodia is entirely unique and a response to the traumas of the recent past.
References
Aryes, D. 2000. Tradition, Modernity, and the Development of Education in Cambodia. Comparative Education Review, 44 (4), pp. 440-463.
Becker, E. 1998. When The War Was Over. New York: PublicAffairs.
Colletta, N. and Cullen, M. 2000. Violent conflict and the transformation of social capital. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
Croissant, A., Martín, B. and Kneip, S. 2006. The politics of death. Münster: Lit.
De Walque, D. 2006. The socio-demographic legacy of the Khmer Rouge period in Cambodia.Population Studies: A Journal of Demography, 60 (2), pp. 223-231.
Geva, B. 2009. Payment System Modernization and Law Reform in Developing Nations: Lessons from Cambodia and Sri Lanka. Banking Law Journal, 126 pp. 402-439.
Hideo, S. and Yoshihisa, W. 2006. A Study on Spatial Structure of High-Density Dwelling in Inner Cities of South-East Asia-The Case of Phnom Penh, Kingdom of Cambodia. Bulletin of Hiroshima Institute of Technology, 40 pp. 281-290.
Hubbell, L. 2006. One Cambodian Community’s Struggle with Development. International Third World Studies Journal and Review, 17.
Peet, R. and Hartwick, E. 2009. Theories of development. New York: Guilford Press.
Rigg, J. 2003. Southeast Asia. London: Routledge.
Springer, S. 2009. Violence, Democracy, and the Neoliberal “Order”: The Contestation of Public Space in Posttransitional Cambodia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99 (1), pp. 138-162.
