The atomization of heritage politics in post-colonial cities: The case of Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Abstract

This paper analyzes the politics of heritage in urban Cambodia. Focusing on the capital, Phnom Penh, we argue that urban heritage is shaped at the intersection of global doctrines and professional knowledge, socioeconomic strategies at the national and local scales, real estate developments, and contextual institutional practices. We propose the concept “atomization of heritage politics” to explain the fragmentary and tentacular power relations that determine how built heritage is managed or destroyed. Drawing on heritage literature on Southeast Asian cities, we first argue that academic writers underestimate the role of land issues and localized power relations in shaping urban heritage politics. We contextualize the rise of heritage concerns in Cambodia. Since colonial times heritage strategies have focused on the UNESCO World Heritage Site of Angkor, with urban heritage being of only peripheral concern. Second, we explain how proposals made by international development partners for an overall heritage policy failed, as they conflicted with the rationality of land and power relations, leaving foreign consultants to renegotiate their position in Cambodian politics. Finally, we explore two case studies—the National Stadium and the Renakse Hotel—at the center of virulent, long-lasting political clashes between various forces that took root during the reconstruction of the Cambodian state in the 1980s and 1990s. Together with powerful individuals, families, and companies, the competition and tactical alliances between these forces shape the contested politics of urban heritage in the Cambodian capital.

A systematic review of literature on contested heritage

“…The conflicts caused by heritage demolition was studied in six articles, all of which explored instances where heritage was demolished to give way to modern urban development (e.g. Dawood et al, 2011;Esposito & Fauveaud, 2019;. Contention existed between governments who intended to demolish heritage and conservationists who strived to protect the heritage Leung, 2019;.…”

“…NGOs were discussed the least amongst all the stakeholders explored in the texts, despite their essential role in the management of contested heritage (Kouri, 2017). As an active protector of heritage, its conflicts with the public sector and private sector centred around heritage conservation, as examined in 12 of the articles (Esposito & Fauveaud, 2019;.…”

“…Shilo and Collins-Kreiner (2019) developed a framework for analysing conflicts in heritage tourism sites. In addition, Hall (2019) advanced a concept of 'heritage prospecting' to explain the constant formation, emergence, and expansion of heritage as a politicized and flexible resource (p. 333); and Esposito and Fauveaud (2019) raised the issue of 'atomization of heritage politics' (p. 671).…”

Beyond official heritage agendas: The third space of conservation practices in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

“…This Committee has become an arena of negotiation and struggle about doctrines of conservation and development (Peycam, 2016). At the same time, UNESCO's listing of Angkor repositioned the country on the expanding routes of international tourism (Winter, 2007), which has become one of the pillars of national economic growth (Esposito, 2018a;Esposito and Fauveaud, 2018).…”

Decision-making processes for public memorials in Seoul: How well do they reflect and contribute to South Korea’s democracy?

“…This article seeks to extend existing Western-centric international scholarship on memorials and collective memory, to identify what decision-making processes for public memorials in Seoul can contribute to current research into the politics of urban heritage in newly democratic national contexts in East Asia, and in particular, into how planning and governance approaches for heritage in themselves enable the transformation of collective identity, by increasing social inclusion and accepting contestation (Chung, 2011; Esposito and Fauveaud, 2019). The article shares Chung’s (2011: 975–76) focus on governance, as “the idea of power sharing in decision making,” and on “people’s increasing interest in … reconstruct[ing] a new identity from the bottom up.” This research into decision-making for public memorials provides an opportunity to explore the contribution that urban planning processes can make to “bottom-up” democratic practices.…”