If a Westerner observes some act of Cambodian behavior that he finds rather bewildering, my advice is: ‘cherchez le patronage’. Khmer society is governed by a system of patronage, where every person owes allegiance to their ‘bong’, very much like the old European feudal system, or in some ways like Chinese Confucianism. The patronage mindset may be at the root of the unexpected behavior.
In this system, an employee ‘belongs’ to the patron, or ‘bong’, not to thecompany or group. When I first came to Cambodia, I noticed that when the company boss’s sister was getting married, all the employees were expected to serve as waiters, greeters, etc. at the wedding. A Western employee might have complained, “But that’s not my job; I don’t even know the sister.” But the Cambodian employee would not feel slighted at all, nor would it even cross their mind to complain. If the bong decrees it, then it must be done.
Indeed, in Cambodia, the company and the person-in-charge are not separate entities. The company vehicle is the bong’s vehicle. For example, it used to be the case the company that was Northwest Cambodia’s biggest employer had all its financial records and bank accounts in the personal name of the CEO. There was no formal distinction between company moneys and personal moneys.
One advantage of the patronage system is the smooth running of society. Everyone knows their place and no one rocks the boat. Cambodia has been remarkably stable for the past 25 years. (Add to this the absolute horror of returning to the violence of the Khmer Rouge days.)
One disadvantage is that there is little team spirit. People do not identify with a team or group working towards a common goal. Rather, all their actions are to serve the bong. One of Mao Tse Tung’s first initiatives was to form gung ho groups – meaning ‘work together’.
Non-Khmer employees are also frustrated when they have a good idea to share with the boss. It’s like talking to a brick wall; only the bong‘s own ideas can be considered. What’s worse, the bong will pretend to listen attentively to the new idea, but later, the employee is frustrated when no action is taken.
Both Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot saw the inherent inequities in such an entrenched hierarchical society, and they both tried to coerce the people into an egalitarian society, even if it meant killing off millions of people who adhered to the old, feudal system. Of course, they both failed. That shows just how thoroughly entrenched the hierarchies had become.
Years ago I saw a study done in Hong Kong, in which people were asked how they felt about the grossly unequal economy of Hong Kong. People didn’t express a need to tax or otherwise bring the super-rich down to their level. Rather, they just wanted to be rich like the elite. If the bong was ordering them around, they wanted to change places and be in a position to order other people around.
People in Hong Kong saw how the elite cheat and manipulate situations in order to rise to the top, but since people just want to emulate the elite, they accept the notion that corruption of all sorts is just part of the game, and they are even jealous that one person can succeed in bamboozling the authorities when they themselves cannot.
I have seen this attitude in play in Cambodia, where foreign employees complain about illegal or unethical behavior by the bong, while the local employees simply accept such behavior and may even be envious that the bong can get away with it.
I said that the Cambodian patronage culture reminded me of Confucianism. However, I get the feeling that there is a subtle difference (but I stand to be corrected). The philosophy of Confucianism saw ‘filial piety’ as a means towards the end of a smooth-running society. Cambodian culture sees the perpetuation of the patronage system as the end in itself.
Cambodians who witnessed the horrors of Pol Pot’s supposedly egalitarian system rapidly returned to the safety of their old patronage system, which now appears to be more deeply entrenched than ever.