When the news broke that the mass protests led by the opposition party turned violent last Sunday, there were reports that many Cambodians were shocked by the rapid escalation from a civil protest to a deadly clash between civilians and the police. After all, there had been bigger scale rallies since the July elections and there were hardly indications of violence to begin with. Many, apparently, have been trying to breach the barricades set up at the Royal Palace, in their bid to reach the King with their pleas.

The scene of tear gas bombs and barricades right in the heart of the river quay where i used to stay stood in sharp contrast to the peaceful idyllic memories i had of Phnom Penh. The series of events that unfolded since the Cambodia Elections was like a mash-up of repeated telecasts of our friendly neighbour, such as the indelible ink fiasco , presence of phantom voters  and  the saffron revolution in Myanmar . It’s like watching history repeat itself, a sombre reminder that the peace we know of should never be taken for granted.

For a country that has been steadily recovering from a painfully recent history of civil war and genocide, social unrest and upheaval are the last things on Cambodians’ minds. So this recent turn of events really begs the question (at least for me) why, in respite of all the reasons to keep things status quo, the people in Cambodia have decided to go out in the streets, and rallied hard?

In other words, what was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back?

Arguably, IMHO, it was the deadly mentality that “there’s nothing to lose” that gave life to the heady combination of desperation (and exasperation) at the current situation and strong feelings of injustice, setting in motion a chain of events that disrupted the everyday lives of millions in the city.

The mentality polarises the everyday city folks at Phnom Penh from the actual protestors, of which yield largely from the villages. Reports of land grabbing were rife even in the early years, but escalated quickly in frequency in recent years as land prices grew dramatically in response to growing interest from foreign investments. It was not uncommon to hear of hoardes of impoverished people being driven out of the squatter areas in the city, to make way for a new urban development, and their fates often remain tragically unknown, and little reported.

For those who have a stable income, a home to call their own, and aspirations to live toward, it seems perfectly illogical to throw all that into chaos; The protests are frowned upon, and perhaps viewed nothing more than an added inconvenience to the already notoriously bad traffic for the commuters.

Yet viewed empathetically, imagine if fates were reversed, and one lost whatever little that he/she possessed, and struggles with even the basic elements of sustenance – What is there to lose, anyway, in challenging the status quo? It is this mindset which is truly dangerous, for there are no restraints nor a price too high to pay, leading individuals down a dark slippery slope of no return.

Contrary to popular belief, these individuals (often lumped in the same categories of terrorists, trouble makers or crazed zealots) are actually pretty logical in their decision making; As in the study of psychology or the economist’s game theory of decision making, it is important for us to understand the underlying circumstances that prompted the behavior. In this case, an insightful theory would be the  Prospect Theory , which postulates that people make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome, and that people evaluate these losses and gains using certain heuristics. A powerful restraint in influencing decision making, is people’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains, which has been widely applied in fields of marketing and even arguably, in managing nations. The magic lies in how the situation is framed to use/capitalize on humans’ natural tendency to avoid potential losses. Since studies have suggested that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains, the potential rewards/ gains would have to be more than twice than the status quo to sufficiently motivate people to want to give up what they have right now (i.e. status quo).

But used in another way, if framed such that the potential of loss is minimal (e.g. current state of living is unbearable as it is, making it a question of “why not, rather than why” ), one wonders if the reverse in effect is actually liberating people to do as they wish, with little bearings of the consequences?

So, was it the hopes for a better future, stoked by the return of a strong opposition, or was it the supposed injustice of the electoral voting system? To me, it was neither, but a springboard for the desperate to alter the status quo, and a dangerous pursuit that, if mishandled, could erupt to further chaos and tragedies in the days to follow.