You would be right to feel pessimistic about it 

By Tulsathit Taptim 
The Nation

 

 

By the time we meet next week, Thailand will have changed. Or so it will seem. An election will have been held and the nation will have  taken a big stride back towards civilian rule.
 

If Prayut Chan-o-cha’s political camp prevails on Sunday, his transformation from coup-maker and political referee to a leader restricted by normalised parliamentary and legal rules will be just steps away. If not, his opponents, the self-proclaimed “pro-democracy” camp, may surmount what now seem huge obstacles and take control. 

 

Whichever scenario prevails, we can look at it two ways. 

 

Either a big change has occurred, or no change at all. Either Thailand has entered a new era, or it is returning to square one. Either “the people will have spoken”, or the people will have spoken for someone else and not themselves. 

 

Either the country will continue to be ruled by Prayut, or the old guard will return. Deep divisions will remain in either scenario, possibly simmering under the surface or, worse, breaking into the open in the same manner as the 2010 red-shirt uprising or the mass protests before the downfall of the Yingluck government. 

 

Such political nightmares, marked by violence and severe disruption of daily life and business, are not the only things we might pessimistically expect.

 

Our bitter national divide has politicised and hampered good policies, or even aborted great development ideas entirely. Moreover, it has foiled attempts to create political transparency, by allowing the corrupt to cry “conspiracy” or “persecution” in their defence. 

 

Prayut’s return to power would be cheered by half of Thailand, but it would be accompanied by accusations of being engineered by unfair rules written by his coup regime. A win for his opponents would generate euphoria among the other half, but the path ahead would be strewn with landmines all the same. Uncertainties would remain in either scenario. 

 

This is what the zero-sum game of democracy gives us. If voters are not mature enough, it can turn strong principles into something else. The need to win and retain power at all costs can overshadow everything else and open the door for much malice to sneak in. It can generate great contempt for “the other side”, something genuine democracy is not supposed to do. 

 

Proposals for a “national government” have been dismissed as unfeasible or ridiculed as a “loser’s gambit”. But if democracy’s biggest flaw is that the wrong people get the important jobs – like minister of education or of justice – what’s wrong with eradicating the winner-takes-all element and embracing a new governmental structure that allows qualified people to lead important ministries regardless of their “colour”? 

 

Sunday is unlikely to produce a national government. The winner is unlikely to say, “Well, the Democrats and Pheu Thai can actually work together. The former have good policies on child welfare so they can head the Education Ministry, while the latter has strong ideas on healthcare so it should oversee the Public Health Ministry.” What will likely happen instead is that if the Democrats get a chance to control education, someone less qualified than Pheu Thai will handle public health, and vice versa. 

 

Democracy, they say, is for the people. The truth is, Thai-style democracy is not in the best interests of the people. No matter what pro-democracy rhetoric would have us believe, far fewer voters will enter the ballot booths on Sunday thinking about education competitiveness or drug problems than those hell bent on backing individuals that have little to do with their daily lives. 

 

Questioning zero-sum-game democracy is a risky business, not least because democracy is practised everywhere, including in global superpowers. Again, the question is whether Thais are mature enough to embrace it and not disrupt their own development or curtail their own best interests in the process. 

 

Raising the maturity question can risks even more of a backlash. Most preachers of democracy say that a period of wrongdoing must be painfully endured before the system eventually becomes workable. Any suggestion that voters may fall for highly divisive and damaging propaganda that goes with the territory tends to be irritably dismissed by democracy idealists. They insist that the zero-sum game is necessary to promote checks and balances and keep everyone on their toes. 

 

Whether Thailand can have strong checks and balances that keep ruling politicians on their toes is the biggest question. And it will remain a major question after Sunday, no matter who wins. Like they say, we hope for the best and fear the worst. Thai democracy, though, has a way of generating more fear than hope. 

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30366127

 

 -- © Copyright The Nation 2019-03-20

The Master of Gibberish returns...

 

And I know of only one way to comment on his work...

 

Turnip, ho! Quite beaver dim normal or thine bee mule. Kill on very sweet zebra, forth speed fire wrote jam? Purse duet spam mine done less sing sing sing? Kuala xenophobe rewash trial kiln moot deny fewer. Less dumb vine cause?

 

Spam turnip, nose nose dealt spine!

 

Back over to you, Kh Tulsathit

 

 

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Either the country will continue to be ruled by Prayut, or the old guard will return.

worse and bad; thailand is only ready for a very limited democracy; 'sham democracy' comes to mind

2 hours ago, webfact said:

and the nation will have  taken a big stride back towards civilian rule.

Have I slept, did I miss something? Massive efforts made via constitutional and voting changes, laws to criminalise free speech, the selection of a senate and a 20 year military plan are not doing much for a civilian led future. 

That vast majority of Thai people still have a third world mentality. I don't see that changing no matter who is in power or what technological and economic advances are made. 

Hard to be optimistic.

 

One can always hope that modern technology and the information it puts at individuals' disposal may change the culture over time ... but then totalitarian China & Russia come to mind.

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

The Master of Gibberish returns...

 

And I know of only one way to comment on his work...

 

Turnip, ho! Quite beaver dim normal or thine bee mule. Kill on very sweet zebra, forth speed fire wrote jam? Purse duet spam mine done less sing sing sing? Kuala xenophobe rewash trial kiln moot deny fewer. Less dumb vine cause?

 

Spam turnip, nose nose dealt spine!

 

Back over to you, Kh Tulsathit

 

 

It was certainly more worthwhile to read your post than the flapdoodle which preceded it, but then no opinion pieces of late have been worth a hand shandy, let's be honest.

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Prayut’s return to power would be cheered by half of Thailand

Really? When he will have been chosen by possibly less than 25% of the electorate........plus 250 hand-picked senators!

1/2 the country wants him? More like 1/2 of the country who care who is in power want him, but they want him out.

It will change or remain the same, brilliant, give the man a banana.

Public image to show the world that Thailand HELD an election was the only objective,.... case closed

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Either a big change has occurred, or no change at all.

There is the third scenario:

A big change occurred and it was irrelevant.

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

There is the third scenario:

A big change occurred and it was irrelevant.

With the vast majority taking it in their stride and I asked myself why but got no real answer other than is the country slowly entering the 20th century with the 21st in its sights. 

Why is it that when I read all of Tulsathit's materials, I always felt that he is trying to avoid talking about the real problem facing Thailand since 1932. Thailand only gets passing glimpse of democracy and before we can blink, we back to square one with another coup. If Thailand don't confront the biggest elephant in the room that regularly derailed democracy. all have the right to feel pessimistic. Other countries have passed us by with power from the people and governments that are accountable to the people. 

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Why is it that when I read all of Tulsathit's materials, I always felt that he is trying to avoid talking about the real problem facing Thailand since 1932. Thailand only gets passing glimpse of democracy and before we can blink, we back to square one with another coup. If Thailand don't confront the biggest elephant in the room that regularly derailed democracy. all have the right to feel pessimistic. Other countries have passed us by with power from the people and governments that are accountable to the people. 

Unfortunately, the elephant in the room isn't about defending the country against its enemies; rather it is employed to protect the status quo demanded by the elite.

Every Thai I have spoken with about the election, seems to have very little interest in the outcome, believing they have no say in it in reality.

Elections are there to make the voters believe they actually have something to say.

 

In reality it's just simply not true ! In any country !!!

All politicians are pre-selected by the powers that should not be.

 

Who ever thinks there are true elections for any Government in the world in any Country

should try to get out of kindergarten ... the world works very different.

 

If elections would change something they would be illegal.

An old quote from a very smart man ... and still valid today.

15 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Spam turnip, nose nose dealt spine!

A ringing endorsement if ever I heard one. 

12 hours ago, baboon said:

It was certainly more worthwhile to read your post than the flapdoodle which preceded it, but then no opinion pieces of late have been worth a hand shandy, let's be honest.

I just love TVF. My vocabulary now includes "hand shandy" for all eternity. Such a learning experience.

Some troll posts and the replies have been removed.