Why Did They Kill?: Cambodia in the Shadow of Genocide

3. In the Shade of Pol Pot’s Umbrella

Chapter Three In the Shade of Pol Pot’s Umbrella 126 When the Khmer Rouge came to power, they took control of a society that had been devastated by war, social upheaval, and economic collapse . Such circumstances are conducive to the emergence of high-modernist authoritarianism, since high-modernist regimes are often willing to use coercive force to implement a radical program of social engineering, and the devastated populace usually lacks the ability to resist these plans.1 Although the Khmer Rouge faced factional disputes that helped catalyze the DK purges, they nevertheless found themselves in a situation in which they could rapidly centralize control and begin implementing communist reforms. In one sense, therefore, the DK regime’s program of centralization and social transformation resembled that of other communist, high-modernist , and authoritarian states. In other ways, however, this process of centralization and change was a distinctly local phenomenon, patterned by a set of social institutions and political understandings about power, patronage, and relationships of personal dependency. Ultimately, all communist and high-modernist regimes blend the new with the old both to maximize the “take” of their ideological models among the general populace and because the leaders themselves interpret global models through local categories, thereby giving rise to synthetic new formations. ângkar and the Eyes of the Pineapple A key symbol of the new order, Ângkar, constitutes a Khmer Rouge ideological palimpsest linking high-modernist thought, communist ideol- ogy, and local understandings to idealize a new potent center. The term Ângkar may be translated as “organization” but includes an array of connotations not captured by the English word. Ângkar is derived from the Pali term anga, meaning “a constituent part of the body, a limb, member,” and proximately from the Khmer term ângk, which has the primary meaning of “body, structure, physique; limb of the body” but is also used to refer to “mana-filled” objects such as monks, royalty, religious statuary, or Siva lingas.2 The Khmer Dictionary defines ângkar as “a type of structure, an orderly institution that arranges the state of affairs of the government or a governmental [administrative] group created in order to achieve prosperity—as in a ‘political organization’ or a ‘state organization.’ ” Thus, Ângkar can be properly glossed as “the organization,” but it also connotes a structure that orders society, a partwhole relation (i.e., the relation of a constituent part to the structured whole), and an organic entity that is infused with power. During DK, the word Ângkar seems to have taken on all of these connotations . Both DK ideology and cadres frequently spoke of “the Organization” (Ângkar), the “Revolutionary Organization” (Ângkar bâdevatt), and the “Upper Organization” (Ângkar loe). Sometimes these terms signified the Party Center or Pol Pot himself. In other situations, they might designate the “higher authorities.” Thus cadres often told people who were about to be reprimanded, imprisoned, or killed that “Ângkar wants to see you” or “Ângkar wants you to go to a study session .” Cadres frequently invoked Ângkar in such ways to deflect responsibility , implying that they were just obeying Ângkar’s instructions when they had to take someone away, appropriate property, relocate families, or enact seemingly unreasonable policies. In addition, Ângkar sometimes seemed to refer to all the members of the new society. If a person asked who Ângkar was, for example, he or she might receive the following type of cryptic reply: “Why, the people of course! It is everyone; it is you.”3 At times these senses converged, as when Ângkar was portrayed as a quasi-divine entity, comprising both the party leadership and the populace , that should be worshiped by everyone. Haing Ngor explained, “Logically, Angka had to be a person or a group of people, but many found it easier to believe that Angka was an all-powerful entity, something like a god.”4 Interestingly, “the Organization” co-opted aspects of Buddhism, a social institution that the Khmer Rouge disbanded both because it was considered “reactionary” and “exploitative” and because, as an alternative center of power and loyalty, it represented a possible source of opposition to the DK regime.”5 Like other Marxist-Leninists, In the Shade of Pol Pot’s Umbrella 127 the Khmer Rouge viewed religion as an “opiate of the people.” Buddhism was seen as particularly noxious, since it justified social inequalities through the concept of karma. Moreover, Buddhism siphoned off a large proportion of what little...