From Tribal Khum to Colonial Commune: Cambodia's Struggle for Decentralization

The remarkable work of Im Monychenda, a historian graduated from the eighteenth promotion of the Royal University of Phnom Penh, allows us to understand how difficult it has been for Cambodian officials to agree on a decentralization system that could function properly in the country.

A bit of history…

The khum

Before the establishment of the French protectorate in Cambodia, the khum could be compared to the tribal structure within a village, but the khum that already had some structure did not have characteristics as precise as those put in place by the French in Cambodia in 1908. Indeed, the French commune turns out to be a particular administrative unit. In fact, the khum did not appear in written texts, and we are only certain of the existence of the provincial structure (khet) led by a provincial governor (chauvay khet) (senior official) who was responsible for everything and ensured the link with the king.

Each province was divided into srok, each under the authority of a chauvay srok (head of srok).

As for the villages, each was under the authority of a mé srok or village chief. Usually, the mé srok was a mé kantreanh (tribal chief) and was the representative of the chauvay srok, the latter having the most power. For these reasons, the French considered the khum to be the equivalent of a town hall, and consequently, they gradually reorganized these structures according to the model and legislation of France at the time. The Cambodian mé srok of former times was a dynamic man young enough to fulfill his duties, and he was chosen by a group of elders from the srok. The srok at that time meant the “native village” and did not have the current administrative meaning of “district.”

The tutelage of the elders

The groups of elders were called “group of deliberation of the elders” (krom chumnum chas tum) – to be compared with the term grāmav® ddha meaning “the sages of the village” or “the sages in the village,” which is attested in pre-Angkorian and Angkorian inscriptions.

The decisions made by the “group of deliberation of the elders” were transmitted to the mé srok, who was responsible for implementing them. The mé srok carried out his work without any monetary remuneration but was rewarded with the esteem and gratitude of the inhabitants, and received the gifts they wished to give him.

This administrative system was a system based on “seniority,” that is, the elders were respected, and their orders were carried out and their opinions respected.

Due to the presence of former mandarins, laypeople versed in Buddhist rites (achar), and scholars of letters who participated in the affairs of the srok, this “deliberation group” (krom chumnum) later transformed into a krom ponhea (group of officials). The members of the krom ponhea chose the deputies of the mé srok, called chumtop. The chumtop themselves could find smien (secretaries) to assist them with writing tasks and various other duties.

Everyone worked without a salary because the notion of “money to spend” was the work of King Ang Duong, that is, only from the second half of the nineteenth century. The chumtop received fish, coconuts, fruits, vegetables, etc., as rewards for their efforts.

The colonial tax-collecting commune

Upon their arrival, the French used the mé srok to collect taxes for the administration (French). For this reason, no one wanted to become a mé srok. Later, in 1901 and 1902, the French introduced the principle of electing mé srok and “deliberation groups” (krom chumnum), while also establishing the principle of a percentage benefit for the mé srok. But they also increased the powers of the latter. These measures were taken to make tax collection more efficient.

The money and honors (bon sak) that the French protectorate bestowed upon the mé srok transformed them from people serving the population, whom the latter esteemed, into salaried agents of the French who oppressed other Cambodians to collect taxes.

In the administrative sense, mé srok designated commune chiefs (mé khum), an expression used before 1908, but due to its popularity, this expression remained in use for a very long time, up to the 1960s, but without any precise meaning regarding the intermediate administrative division between the province (khet) and the village (phum).

In 1901, a srok council was created, comprising the mé srok, the chumtop, and two notables.

This council was under the direct administration of the mé srok and under the high responsibility of the chauvay srok, whose role was to collect taxes. The mé srok was the one who created strong relations between the higher levels and the population. It seems that the system of electing mé srok and “deliberation groups” (krom chumnum) had no well-defined boundaries, especially since the French only sought to get rid of mé srok from the old structure. There were no further “attempts to organize Cambodian communes” after 1902. The old khum practically ceased to function, and it became necessary to create new entities of a “communal” type.

The birth of the communal organization

In 1908, the French changed the word srok to khum, and the mé srok became a mé khum (commune chief) feared and hated by the population. Seeing the lack of collaboration, the French proceeded in 1919 with universal elections to choose the mé khum and deliberation groups (krom chumnum) and allowed the khum to have their own budget. The communal budget was bait to attract more tax revenues.

But this approach did not yield many results due to the population's lack of collaboration, which found itself crushed by additional burdens that worsened their living conditions. Communal budgets were created while knowing full well that the mé khum had no capacity and remained always subject to the representatives of the central power (the government). Thus, we realize that from 1889 to 1953, the French protectorate administration carried out eight major reforms of communal administration, but without any effect, and from one stage to another, nothing is observed except the publication of royal ordinances aimed at organizing the communes.

Likewise, we realize that the administration of that era followed a model that was both decentralized and centralized. From January 1926 to 1943, the khum truly had a function under the law like the French commune. But it is regrettable that the communal election system was abandoned after the 1943 communal reorganization under the colonial administration loyal to the Vichy regime of Admiral Decoux. The commune chiefs (mé khum) and their deputies (chumtop) were appointed by the aphibal khet (chauvay khet or provincial governor) with the approval of the French resident.

Starting with decrees No. 53 NS and No. 40 NS of December 5, 1941, and July 1943, communes were divided into two categories, based on status and work capacity — some communes having communal councils formed by appointment, while others had councils formed on an elective basis. Important communes or those with the largest area saw their elections postponed or suspended.

In small or less important communes, elections were authorized but not put into practice. On the other hand, according to the principles set by the law, if a position became vacant during the term of the commune chief, it was not permitted to elect a substitute. One had to wait until the end of the said chief's term before proceeding to elections.

In reality, all vacant seats were filled through appointments. Until 1955, a circular proposed the election of commune chiefs, but its application varied by province, with the authorities' concern being to maintain a democratic veneer on the system. Thus, the commune appeared in Cambodian society starting in 1908, but without its full characteristics or stability. As for the organization of communal administration, it brought about a very important change in public administration in Cambodia, the effects of which we still perceive today.

Im Monychenda