State, Society and Democratic Consolidation: The Case of Cambodia

Introduction Since its inception in 1993, Cambodian democracy has struggled to muddle through like other unconsolidated democracies,2 in which elements of democracy, such as liberal constitutions and free and fair elections, mix with authoritarian and traditional practices, such as a lack of rule of law, rampant corruption, widespread patronage and executive usurpation of power.3 This paper investigates why Cambodian democracy has failed to consolidate, approaching question by juxtaposing state and society rather than focusing exclusively, as most analyses heretofore have done, on political elites. Much of literature on democratic consolidation emphasizes role of political elites. Elite behaviour and interactions, collectively termed political culture, certainly play an indispensable role in process of democratic consolidation, because democracy would not function without elites' acceptance of regularity and predictability of the rules, and limit of constitutional system and legitimacy of opposing actors who similarly commit themselves... .4 The significance of elite political culture in process of democratic consolidation, Larry Diamond argues, is twofold: first, elites' political decisions are contingent on their beliefs; second, as leaders of a polity, magnitude of their impact on political events is high.5 The role of elites, especially their consensus on legitimacy of democratic institutions and rules, is crucial to process of democratic