INTRODUCTION

After achieving independence from France in 1953, Cambodian history has been characterized by deep conflicts, social fragmentation and political turmoil. The arrival of the Khmer Rouge regime began a genocidal period, from 1975–1979, in which the vast majority of Cambodian people faced unspeakable sufferings, and in less than three years, nearly 2 million people were killed (Chandler 1991, Kiernan 1993). Despite the collapse of the Khmer Rouge regime in early 1979, the fighting was still continuing between the People's Republic of Kampuchea (PRK), which was installed by the Vietnamese government in the aftermath of their invasion into Cambodia, and the resistance factions along the Cambodian-Thai border. The signing of the Paris Peace Agreements (PPAs) on 23 October 1991 concluded this long period of conflict, and helped all the parties in dispute to finally achieve peace, stability and democracy through political reconciliation. Like most post-conflict societies, Cambodia was overwhelmed with the task of ensuring a permanent ceasefire, disarming and demobilising the various armed forces and arranging a national election that would allow all parties to compete for power through a democratic and peaceful process.

The term ‘political reconciliation’ has been used loosely by the Cambodian leaders to simply mean a conclusion of disagreement and conflict through compromise and mutual benefits. Thus, the process happens mainly at the top level among the contentious factions, and the political reconciliation process has always been attached to the necessity to preserve peace and stability. However, this top level approach is just the beginning of a long road to fully achieve political reconciliation. It also requires more efforts from citizens and government officials to deal with the past memory of hatred, resentment and fragmentation. Without successfully resolving the underlying causes of conflict and violence, the top level approach may exacerbate the already divisive and contentious politics among parties in dispute, because the dominant party will attempt to weaken or eliminate their opponents rather than reconcile with them. Since there is no sincere political will among the leaders, the national reconciliation is no more than just a lip service.

Despite the shortcomings and challenges, the top level approach of political reconciliation establishes a necessary foundation for the citizens and government officials to go beyond political settlement among leaders of all the parties in dispute in order to achieve the society-wide national reconciliation.