N. N. BEKTIMIROVA, V. A. DOLNIKOVA. CAMBODIA AND THAILAND: POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS (1980-2000). Moscow: Gumanitarii, 2007. 228 p. (1)

N. N. BEKTIMIROVA, V. A. DOLNIKOVA. ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF DEMOCRATIZATION: ON THE EXAMPLE OF CAMBODIA AND THAILAND. MOSCOW: LENAND, 2009. 320 p. (2)

The peer-reviewed monographs are a continuation of a series of works previously published by these authors on the political problems of the Indochina Peninsula countries and carried out under the auspices of the Departments of Political Science of the East and History of Southeast Asia and the Far East of the Institute of Asia and Africa of Moscow State University.

At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, democratization processes affected countries on all continents. South-East Asia was also not left out. The political relevance and scientific significance of the peer-reviewed works consists in a comparative analysis of the development of liberal-democratic processes in the socio-political life of two countries - Thailand and Cambodia, as well as in a comparison of democratization based on accelerated modernization (Thailand) and initiated and funded from outside by the international community (Cambodia). Despite the common civilizational characteristics, the fate of these two countries developed differently after the Second World War: Thailand developed in general in conditions of peace, despite crises and military upheavals.-

Cambodia, from 1970 to the early 1990s, lived in a continuous and full-scale civil conflict, aggravated by the impact of destructive external aggression.

The influence of liberal democracy on the political culture of the region correlates well with the concept of three waves of democratization proposed by S. Huntington.

In Thailand , the only country in Southeast Asia that has maintained formal political independence, the first wave of democratization resulted in the coup of 1932, which is also called the bourgeois revolution, because it objectively solved a number of its problems. However, the leaders who found themselves in power accepted only the formal postulates of democracy and in their practical activities did not follow the principles of democracy and ensuring the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The second wave of democratization had a more significant impact on Southeast Asia, although it affected different countries in the region to varying degrees. Thailand still has a monarchical system, but a multi-party system has been established, and a new constitution has been adopted that eliminated the system of appointing deputies and reduced the prerogatives of the monarch. The liberal-democratic models in Southeast Asia have proved ineffective, and they have not been followed for very long. In Thailand, a military dictatorship was established in 1947, which lasted for several decades.

The main content of the peer-reviewed works was the impact of the third wave of democratization, which occurred in the last third of the 20th century and was called the "global democratic revolution".

Based on an extensive array of socio-economic information and research on social shifts in Thai society, V. A. Dolnikova and N. N. Bektemirova reasonably attribute the beginning of democratic changes in Thailand during the third wave to 1973-1976, emphasizing their weakness and instability. Periods of more or less democratic civilian governments were followed by periods of military coups and a return to authoritarian rule. In the 1990s, the liberal movement became more active, resulting in the adoption of the most democratic constitution in the country's history in 1997 and the strengthening of parliamentary institutions. The authors ' conclusion is quite fair that this was the result of rapid capitalist modernization and Thailand's transition over the years of one generation from socio-economic backwardness to the ranks of the NIS, the formation of the most politically active layers of the national bourgeoisie and the modern middle class, interested in strengthening the democratization of socio-political life. However, in 2006 After almost a decade of rule by a democratic civilian regime, a military coup took place again, which resulted in the repeal of the 1997 Constitution and the formation of a Cabinet of Ministers without the participation of Parliament. The coup took place under the slogan of fighting corruption and was supported by the king.

The authors note an interesting and significant feature of the democratization process in Thailand: in a country where over the past two decades there has been a gradual and difficult democratic transformation of the political system and parliamentary institutions of power have been established, parties and political blocs are still formed around charismatic leaders on the basis of patronage-client relations and hierarchical ties (2, p. 303)., i.e. based on traditional Thai political culture.

Summing up a detailed analysis of the political development of Thailand at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, the authors conclude that democratization in such countries goes through a tortuous path, experiencing successes and setbacks, because it is strongly influenced by the traditional political culture permeated by Theravada Buddhism with such attitudes as the hierarchical structure of power relations, the personification of leadership, patronage and client relations, the omnipotence of the bureaucracy, the stability of the institution of monarchy and its high authority, the paternalistic nature of the supreme power (2, p. 10).

In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the Cambodian people experienced the most difficult trials, and in the scientific and journalistic literature, Cambodia was firmly defined as a "long-suffering country", which was by no means an exaggeration. But in the twenty-first century. Cambodia entered, leaving behind its sad status as a "hot spot on the planet": the socio-political situation in the country is stable, the economy (open and multi-layered) shows steady growth rates. Cambodia has become an active, full-fledged and recognized member of the regional community. The country has institutions that are typical of the liberal-democratic system enshrined in the Constitution. However, the mere fact of such rapid (by historical standards) metamorphoses casts doubt on the adequate content of the human body.-

It is intended to provide a meaningful content to the liberal-democratic forms of social and political life that have been purposefully implanted in Cambodia since 1993 with the sponsorship of the West.

Both mass consciousness and socio-political practice in this country remain basically almost the same as they were at the time of French colonization in the second half of the XIX century. This phenomenon has been in the field of view of N. N. Bektimirova for many years. Both peer-reviewed books did not disappoint the expectations of historians and political scientists-Indo-Sinologists: the authors presented a largely heuristic analysis of the internal political process in the Kingdom of Cambodia after the general elections organized and funded by the United Nations in 1993. The Cambodian chapters in both monographs complement each other in a harmonious way. Thus, an essay on the development of Cambodia during the Sihanouk period (1, p. 8-24) represents the "golden age" of this kingdom (1955-1970), when under the shell of "Khmer unity", overshadowed by the charisma of the "father of the nation" Prince Sihanouk, the sprouts of all political regimes that would replace each other after the overthrow were ripening heads of state in March 1970 These regimes (the Khmer Republic, the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, and the People's Republic of Kampuchea) successively existed between 1970 and 1990. The authors, having chosen the internal political process as a criterion, call it a time of "Crisis of legitimacy of the government" (1, p. 24).

The second monograph "Cambodian pages" is devoted to the period of 1993 - 2008, when the formation of the modern image of Cambodia took place. (However, the Cambodian People's Party (CPP), which is leading the political process in this period, is still genetically related to the last of the regimes of the "Crisis of Legitimacy of Power" - the NRC regime.) This paper presents the mechanism and process of restoring the constitutional monarchy in Cambodia (but taking into account the changed internal and external conditions). The reader is confronted with the stages of an implicit, but most persistent and brutal dispute between what can be called the " old government "(represented by the NPC, personified by one of its leaders and the country's Prime Minister, Hun Sen), and the new contenders for power - the United National Front Party for a Sovereign Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Open Democracy. for cooperation, Cambodia (FUNCINPEC) and, somewhat later, the Sam Rainsy Party (AKP), based on the emigrant cadre and formed in the context of the implementation of the liberal - democratic model "established" with the participation of the UN. Thus, the Cambodian chapters of peer-reviewed publications close a significant gap in the domestic scientific knowledge about the political process and political culture of Cambodia.

I would like to highlight the specific scientific achievements in the field of numerology demonstrated in these monographs, especially since they seem to be important for larger-scale Afro-Asian studies. Thus, the authors convincingly show that without mastering effective control over the bulk of the population (for Cambodia, figuratively - "over rice fields"), it is impossible to count on the sustainable and long-term existence of the regime. Parties that are particularly urban in their electorate are soon marginalized. Based on concrete historical material, the authors reveal the most important feature of Khmer political culture (more precisely, its supporting framework-the patronage-client system) - the principle of irreconcilability of political opponents, which made it extremely difficult for productive intra-Khmer dialogue and makes the struggle for power in Cambodia (and precisely in the conditions of formal democracy!)extremely difficult. extremely tough, and even bloody.

Despite all the known costs and mistakes of the NRK regime (1979 - 1990), it is noteworthy that it is productive (from the point of view of the tasks of the struggle for political stability and economic progress). The legacy is the national party structure and strict party discipline of the NPC (which, by the way, became a mass party precisely during the "liberal-democratic" period). As shown in both works, the opponents of this party did not and do not have anything similar. This largely explains the gradual retreat of the leaders of FUNCIPEC and AKP to Hun Sen. The figure of a "radical liberal democrat" and at the same time a Khmer chauvinist, Rainsy Himself, is clearly represented in peer-reviewed studies. Its very precise political analogs are also found in other Asian countries, and they are just as constrained by their own postulates.

And finally, about Hun Sen, the Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Korea and then the Kingdom of Cambodia. In fact, it is also, as the monographs show so well, an absolutely traditional leader. However, only he managed, on the one hand, to retain the old levers of power that he already had by 1993 (the party organization, the administrative vertical, the power structures of the state, the judicial authorities, and the largest media), and on the other hand, to quickly master the new ones. Among the latter is the ancient Buddhist institute " dana "(turned into a purely secular practice in Cambodia

bestow social benefits to the people, but before Hun Sen was associated only with the highest aristocrats, primarily with kings) and the largest sect of the Cambodian Buddhist Sangha-Mahanikai. Observation of Hun Sen since 1985 has increasingly convinced us that in the context of the "response" of Eastern countries to the global challenges of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, not only "re-traditionalization" as such is important, but also the ability of Afro-Asian societies (primarily those with an ancient state tradition) to nominate new national leaders, those who decided not to reject the "waves of democratization", but to ride them.

On November 20, 2007, the ASEAN Charter was approved. The preamble declares the commitment of the Association's member States to the principles of democracy, the rule of law, including international humanistic law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, which is considered an indispensable condition for stability, peace and development of the region. At the same time, the Charter states the need to protect and develop the cultural heritage of the Member States, to preserve and strengthen the common identity of the ASEAN countries. In this regard, the authors ' final conclusion that when assessing the concrete results of democratization in Asian and African countries, they must be correlated with the historically and civilizationally determined concrete political reality is fair and justified (2, p. 17).

Peer-reviewed works and their conclusions and conclusions based on specific historical material can be considered as a serious contribution to the currently developing political science of the East. The authors once again remind political scientists, especially those who study Western countries, that in all Eastern states, democratic models and institutions differ from liberal models and institutions, as they are used to seeing in Western countries, since liberal-democratic elements are subjected to the deforming influence of local political cultures and traditions, which have not lost their influence in the XXI century.

Permanent link to this publication: