Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta: Panel

[Baerboxer]

20 hours ago, darksidedog said:

And that is exactly how Prayut wants it to be. He can proclaim to the world an election was held and it all was free and fair, when it was of course completely the opposite, and he stays in control. He probably thinks things are running like clockwork.

 

It will be fair by international standards - just like the recent elections in Turkey and Venezuela and the soon to be one in Cambodia ! ?

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Good post; let me both agree and disagree.

 

I disagree that the Thai people do not care; Thailand actually has a high voter turnout figure which demonstrates that they do care. Apologies, I don't have the precise number in front of me, but it is north of 70%. Perhaps another member who has a more accurate number could post it? @Eric Loh? TIA. @Srikcir? TIA.

 

I agree that currently the Thai people don't have a great deal of choice among the parties, but there are differences and they are significant, if not to the scale of a mature Western Democracy. The best example is/was the 30 Baht health scheme introduced by Thaksin. Without getting into the whole 'red' vs. 'yellow' debate, it was a crystal clear difference at the time and was a hugely significant factor in the early 2000's. That said, I would tend to agree that the two main parties/groups have similar policies and that they lean toward the right-wing business type.

 

I disagree that it will continue for the long run, although I think Thailand is stuck with it for a bit. The reason is one of political development; despite parties winning elections and forming a government, Thailand is still in it's infancy of political development. Again, despite the events and election of this century, Thailand has never seen an elected government hand over power to another elected government; this is a HUGE HUGE step in a country's development and it has been thwarted every time. Until this type of handover occurs and occurs more than once, Thailand will be stuck in a rut.

 

Finally, you mention that you would like to see "...workers party, farmers party, Socialist party, Green party, farmers party etc....". It is an excellent point, and I would like to see it too. Unfortunately, when one looks at the history of political development, there is a 'general rule' (with exceptions) that countries go through a phase of two, right-wing business parties whose differences are usually personalities rather than policies. I am not sure of your nationality, but as most members of TVF seem to be British, let me use a British example. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215 (?) and Parliament(s) were established in (?Don't know the first one, anyone?), but the emergence of the Labour Party didn't occur until around 1915 or so. My point here is that although the first steps of Democracy occurred in 1215, it wasn't until several hundred years later that a 'Labour Party' emerged. I strongly suspect that the political development of Thailand will occur much more rapidly, but nothing will happen until the military stops interfering and allows political development to progress here. When it does, a large number of parties will develop and eventually vie for power.

 

Some say that Thailand isn't ready for Democracy; I say "BS!!!" to that. Democracy is a process of political development and Thailand and the Thai people are certainly capable of beginning the journey; I would say that they have already begun. The problem is the military.

 

Until the military stays in the barracks, Thailand and the Thai people will suffer and be denied their future.

 

 

Quite agree. Using the British example, Magna Carta, indeed signed in 1215, was for the benefit of the land owning aristocracy and very rich and gave them specific rights. It's didn't do anything for the masses. Struggles include the Peasants Revolt, the Peterloo massacre, and many more. At the time of WW1 many British soldiers sent to fight and die didn't enjoy the right to vote. Nor did any females! That was 700 years after Magna Carta. 

 

The notion of feudal loyalty, hierarchical society based on family and origin, and deference to "ones betters" is still strong here. I wouldn't like to predict the time it will take for real change, especially with strong desires by some to prevent it.

Edited June 27, 2018 by Baerboxer

[gamini]

23 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Good post; let me both agree and disagree.

 

I disagree that the Thai people do not care; Thailand actually has a high voter turnout figure which demonstrates that they do care. Apologies, I don't have the precise number in front of me, but it is north of 70%. Perhaps another member who has a more accurate number could post it? @Eric Loh? TIA. @Srikcir? TIA.

 

I agree that currently the Thai people don't have a great deal of choice among the parties, but there are differences and they are significant, if not to the scale of a mature Western Democracy. The best example is/was the 30 Baht health scheme introduced by Thaksin. Without getting into the whole 'red' vs. 'yellow' debate, it was a crystal clear difference at the time and was a hugely significant factor in the early 2000's. That said, I would tend to agree that the two main parties/groups have similar policies and that they lean toward the right-wing business type.

 

I disagree that it will continue for the long run, although I think Thailand is stuck with it for a bit. The reason is one of political development; despite parties winning elections and forming a government, Thailand is still in it's infancy of political development. Again, despite the events and election of this century, Thailand has never seen an elected government hand over power to another elected government; this is a HUGE HUGE step in a country's development and it has been thwarted every time. Until this type of handover occurs and occurs more than once, Thailand will be stuck in a rut.

 

Finally, you mention that you would like to see "...workers party, farmers party, Socialist party, Green party, farmers party etc....". It is an excellent point, and I would like to see it too. Unfortunately, when one looks at the history of political development, there is a 'general rule' (with exceptions) that countries go through a phase of two, right-wing business parties whose differences are usually personalities rather than policies. I am not sure of your nationality, but as most members of TVF seem to be British, let me use a British example. The Magna Carta was signed in 1215 (?) and Parliament(s) were established in (?Don't know the first one, anyone?), but the emergence of the Labour Party didn't occur until around 1915 or so. My point here is that although the first steps of Democracy occurred in 1215, it wasn't until several hundred years later that a 'Labour Party' emerged. I strongly suspect that the political development of Thailand will occur much more rapidly, but nothing will happen until the military stops interfering and allows political development to progress here. When it does, a large number of parties will develop and eventually vie for power.

 

Some say that Thailand isn't ready for Democracy; I say "BS!!!" to that. Democracy is a process of political development and Thailand and the Thai people are certainly capable of beginning the journey; I would say that they have already begun. The problem is the military.

 

Until the military stays in the barracks, Thailand and the Thai people will suffer and be denied their future.

 

A good reply to my post. My only comment is that the high turnout that you mention was because voters were coerced into voting by promising them payments and other things. I remember a by-election in Bangkok many years ago when only 29% of the electorate  voted.  And they voted for an army candidate . Things have changed since then. But unfortunately many Thais still prefer the military because of their past experience of civilian governments.

[KhunFred]

Elections in Thailand are pointless unless they are local affairs. The military will always rule Thailand. Much money could be saved by admitting this fact and ending any pretense of rule of the people. Pressure from real democracies does more harm than good in Thailand's case. Most people here seem to think they are "free", so the term can mean whatever you want it to mean. I've had former citizens of the old Soviet bloc insist that they never felt they were living in an unfree country. I certainly thought Russia was a bad place to live while I was growing up, but many older Russians have told me they miss the old days. Go figure.

[Eric Loh]

33 minutes ago, gamini said:

A good reply to my post. My only comment is that the high turnout that you mention was because voters were coerced into voting by promising them payments and other things. I remember a by-election in Bangkok many years ago when only 29% of the electorate  voted.  And they voted for an army candidate . Things have changed since then. But unfortunately many Thais still prefer the military because of their past experience of civilian governments.

That's a comment devoid of common sense. There are 43 million eligible voters and average voter turnout rates in election that have full parties participation was around 70%. You seriously think that anyone can pay that kind of money to coerced voting. Do the math.

 

 

[yellowboat]

On 6/26/2018 at 6:23 PM, sweatalot said:

Fair Elections Not Possible Under Junta

 

neither  with thaksin around,  still able to talk and pay

Thaksin in his wildest dreams could not have imagined appointees in parliament.   The junta has gone way beyond what Mr. T was accused of and not prosecuted for.  Please, continue the old yarn about buying votes, as many news outlets have no proof and it is considered non consequential in past elections anyway.  As bad as he was, he was so much better than the imbeciles running the country now and those who claim to be democrats but do the army's bidding.