Democracy And Separation Of Power

[dominique355]

In today's The Nation is an article about a Chulalongkorn University professor and former dean of the Law School, Bowornsak Uwanno. He apparently was also in Thaksin's Cabinet.

In short, he advocates that poor people should have no voting right.

"Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture."

(http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/17/politics/politics_30034402.php)

He goes on to advocate that the bureaucrats (I understand this to be the government clerks or administration) should also have power in the new legislative assembly!

I was always under the impression that in a democracy, which earns this name, there is separation of power:

- The Legislative power. This is the people and it's elected representatives

- The Executive power. That's the government and it's administration

- The Judicial power. That's the Courts, judges

Under the new draft Constitution there is a total mix-up of these 3 fundamental powers. No checks and no balances. So e.g is it planned that the Judicial Power (the judges) appoint half of the Legislative Power, i.e. the Senate. (thank you very much, I will return the favor!)

Now, according to this "legal expert" the bureaucrats or the Executive power will form the Senate.

What happened to the Separation of Power? What happened to the basic and fundamental democratic principles?

But the cynical views of this professor about the so-called poor people of Thailand are really alarming!

[Gumballl]

The separation of powers is not a pillar of democracy. It may be practiced in many countries, but don't confuse it with democracy.

A democracy permits many "voices" to be heard; but as for the system of government, well it can be configured any way those voices dictate. So if Thailand wishes to merge all government departments into one organization, with only one leader, then it will be so if the majority of people vote for such a change. But I doubt that will occur.

I for one believe that stupid people should not be allowed to vote. But since my opinion is not shared by the majority, I lose out. That is democracy!

[PhilHarries]

Put simply, Thai democracy = Government by the elite for the elite.

[Prakanong]

In today's The Nation is an article about a Chulalongkorn University professor and former dean of the Law School, Bowornsak Uwanno. He apparently was also in Thaksin's Cabinet.

In short, he advocates that poor people should have no voting right.

"Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture."

(http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2007/05/17/politics/politics_30034402.php)

He goes on to advocate that the bureaucrats (I understand this to be the government clerks or administration) should also have power in the new legislative assembly!

I was always under the impression that in a democracy, which earns this name, there is separation of power:

- The Legislative power. This is the people and it's elected representatives

- The Executive power. That's the government and it's administration

- The Judicial power. That's the Courts, judges

Under the new draft Constitution there is a total mix-up of these 3 fundamental powers. No checks and no balances. So e.g is it planned that the Judicial Power (the judges) appoint half of the Legislative Power, i.e. the Senate. (thank you very much, I will return the favor!)

Now, according to this "legal expert" the bureaucrats or the Executive power will form the Senate.

What happened to the Separation of Power? What happened to the basic and fundamental democratic principles?

But the cynical views of this professor about the so-called poor people of Thailand are really alarming!

Yes the new constitution will be interesting - maybe they do not want anybody gaining power through free and fair elections though?

As for poor people and the vote. Without reading his full views its hard to coment but from one way I can see where he is coming from. If people are living hand to mouth on subsistance (or sufficiency) then how can they put any effort into thinking about the democratic process when there are other things to think about?

So poor they will sell their vote for 200THB?

Raise all the licving standards then they have the leaisure time to consider democracy.

Amyarta Sen has some interesting things to say on this in books like Democracy as Freedom.

That great Liberal John Stuart Mill was fearful of "The tyranny of the majority" and thus wanted people to have to take a citizenship test so they could prove they knew enough about politics, society and the world to vote properly - I tend to agree - there would be less right wing nutters with the vote ;-)

[Prakanong]

Put simply, Thai democracy = Government by the elite for the elite.

Sums it up in a nutshell!

[TAWP]

But unfortuanly it's even more true when the base of the voters have no clue what and why they are voting for. If they recieve money/threats/promises for the 'Who'-part and little else, it's not democracy.

The main flaw about democracy is that it can repudiate itself.

[Prakanong]

As I said I can not comment on what the Thai guy in the OP's approach was and its a long time since i looked at this but here is a summation from Wiki of Sen;s view

"Sen's revolutionary contribution to development economics and social indicators is the concept of 'capability' developed in his article "Equality of What." He argues that governments should be measured against the concrete capabilities of their citizens. This is because top-down development will always trump human rights as long as the definition of terms remains in doubt (is a 'right' something that must be provided or something that simply cannot be taken away?). For instance, in the United States citizens have a hypothetical "right" to vote.

To Sen, this concept is fairly empty. In order for citizens to have a capacity to vote, they first must have "functionings." These "functionings" can range from the very broad, such as the availability of education, to the very specific, such as transportation to the polls. Only when such barriers are removed can the citizen truly be said to act out of personal choice. It is up to the individual society to make the list of minimum capabilities guaranteed by that society"

Maybe these functioning in Thailand include the food in the mouths of the poor or at least food without it coming from subsistance farming?

[PeaceBlondie]

We can easily name one or more Western democracies where they have separation of powers and still have serious problems in governing the nation. There are many ways to define democracy, and to do it. For 71 years, Mexico progressed to the modern age with a sham democracy more properly called "The perfect dictatorship" - one party rule not too different to what TRT enjoyed at its height.

However, IF a Constitution is worthy of its name, and if that Constitution will be the law of the land as properly interpreted by a supreme court, then the drafting of the Constitution must be done correctly.

My country used to have a poll tax, which poor people couldn't afford, to be able to vote. Or, they had a simple literacy test. Would that be so unreasonable in Thailand?

[Prakanong]

"My country used to have a poll tax, which poor people couldn't afford, to be able to vote. Or, they had a simple literacy test. Would that be so unreasonable in Thailand? "

I think it would be unreasonable in Thailand.

I think we can forget a poll tax - no-one pays any tax there anyway ;-)

As for the literacy test - that can be abused so much to disenfranchise certain groups - like it was usee in your country to disenfranchise the black population in many states.

Was it the 97 consitution that first required all MP's in Thailand to have degree's?

Look at that farce ;-)

[ProThaiExpat]

The framers of the U.S. Constitution had so little faith in the electorate that they created the electoral college that virtually eliminates direct voting for president as demonstrated by the current president of the U.S., who did not win the popular vote, but was elected anyway. And you know what has happened since.

[wintermute]

Put simply, Thai democracy = Government by the elite for the elite.

Well stated.

[samran]

I think what he says has some merit. I agree with 50% of what he is saying, which essentially is restrict political competition, but unleash economic competition.

I don't agree with restricting of the voting franchise, and I'd also do away with the educational requirment to get into parliament. Neverthess his points about poor people repaying patronage with their vote is a valid one, but philisophically, I'm opposed to limiting voting rights as a way to stamp out that problem. I don't agree as well with his views on restricting the rights of people to sue the government. The government needs to be kicked up the arse, and quite regularly, and Thai people need to develop a taste for doing it, which they currently don't.

But, he did say quite a few other things which I strongly agree with including:

- deregulation of the all sectors of the thai economy, opening them up to competition. This is the real reason why the rich get richer.

[blaze]

A very thought provoking article. While on the surface it seems that the professer wants to limit the political clout of the poor majority- his actual concern seems to focused on the lack of democratic ideals in the middle class.

Am I misreading him or is he, in effect, saying- limit the political power of the poor or the middle class will continue to force popular gov'ts out of office.

What an interesting catch 22. If you want democracy to endure in Thailand, then checks must be built into the system to ensure that true majority rule can not occur.

Something I don't understand though- and we hear this repeatedly- that the poor only vote out of selfish self interest: if all the poor in Thailand had PhDs in political philosophy- would they no longer vote in such a way as to improve the material quality of their lives?

[Prakanong]

" deregulation of the all sectors of the thai economy, opening them up to competition. This is the real reason why the rich get richer."

Seems he and Amyarta Sen agree!

"Reducing corruption in developing countries by opening markets would be reason enough to liberalize, even if no other economic benefits materialized.

--Globalisation Institute"

Trouble is Thailand is becoming more isolationist and looks even less likely to open up its markets.

The losers in the long run are the vast majority of the Thai people.

[PeaceBlondie]

In most democracies, almost all the voters act in their own self interest. That's politics, and non-democratic rulers do the same. However, that doesn't mean that individuals always disregard the common good. They merely have positions that are affected by their personal interests, about what the common good is, or how it should be achieved. Does Thailand now have far a stronger "social contract" than what England had in the days of Locke and Mill?

[Mid]

I think what he says has some merit. I agree with 50% of what he is saying, which essentially is restrict political competition, but unleash economic competition.

I don't agree with restricting of the voting franchise, and I'd also do away with the educational requirment to get into parliament. Neverthess his points about poor people repaying patronage with their vote is a valid one, but philisophically, I'm opposed to limiting voting rights as a way to stamp out that problem. I don't agree as well with his views on restricting the rights of people to sue the government. The government needs to be kicked up the arse, and quite regularly, and Thai people need to develop a taste for doing it, which they currently don't.

But, he did say quite a few other things which I strongly agree with including:

- deregulation of the all sectors of the thai economy, opening them up to competition. This is the real reason why the rich get richer.

good post ,

especially this bit

The government needs to be kicked up the arse, and quite regularly, and Thai people need to develop a taste for doing it, which they currently don't.

your in a position to help this along

[larvidchr]

So how do we insure, that the rich and well educated with voting right, not only make legislation that lines their own pockets, Will they vote for changes that will deminish their powers, or make them loose money, as long as the proposal is for the greater good of all Thais????

It is just as dangerus just to leave the voting right to the ones that proclaim the are well educated, they to have specific reasons as to where they cast their vote, and those reasons are no more valid than the poor farmer who casts his vote to the ones who have improved his life.

One man one vote, rich or poor.

Kind regards

[GuestHouse]

It is interesting to note that the suggestion is that the poor and uneducated should be disinfranchised for being poor and uneducated, rather than address the poverty and lack of education.

It is also interesting that poverty is considered a barrier to involvement in the democratic process, perhaps Thais really are different from the rest of the world where the poor have been eager participants in the democratic process.

The issue to my mind is the corrupted education system and the control of all forms of public media.

Having brainwashed the population they are now to be denied a vote for having been brainwashed.

--

A failing in the arguments made by many foreigners on what Thai democracy should be is to missunderstand the social contract as it applies in Thailand and how Thai culture comes into play.

This does not only apply with respect to Thailand. There are many aspects of the British democracy which fall short of what a Frenchman or an American would regard as 'democracy' but it would be a nonsense to claim that the UK is not one of the finest examples of democracy in action.

[Prakanong]

Seems the elites in Thailand are very old fashionaed indeed! There is a massive watershed coming in the Thai system and I only hope it goes the right way.

From Amartya Sen - "Democracy as a Universal Value"

"While democracy is not yet universally practiced, nor indeed uniformly accepted, in the general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved the status of being taken to be generally right. The ball is very much in the court of those who want to rubbish democracy to provide justification for that rejection. "

"Throughout the nineteenth century, theorists of democracy found it quite natural to discuss whether one country or another was "fit for democracy." This thinking changed only in the twentieth century, with the recognition that the question itself was wrong: A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy. This is indeed a momentous change, extending the potential reach of democracy to cover billions of people, with their varying histories and cultures and disparate levels of affluence.

It was also in this century that people finally accepted that "franchise for all adults" must mean all"

[larvidchr]

"Throughout the nineteenth century, theorists of democracy found it quite natural to discuss whether one country or another was "fit for democracy." This thinking changed only in the twentieth century, with the recognition that the question itself was wrong: A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; rather, it has to become fit through democracy. This is indeed a momentous change, extending the potential reach of democracy to cover billions of people, with their varying histories and cultures and disparate levels of affluence.

It was also in this century that people finally accepted that "franchise for all adults" must mean all"

Absolutely right.

[Plus]

It's not poverty, it's patronage system that is the greatest impediment to democracy in Thailand.

"One man one vote" principle does not apply here. There no "one man" concept to start with, it's a collectivist society, people always have pi's and nongs to consider and take care of.

[samran]

I think what he says has some merit. I agree with 50% of what he is saying, which essentially is restrict political competition, but unleash economic competition.

I don't agree with restricting of the voting franchise, and I'd also do away with the educational requirment to get into parliament. Neverthess his points about poor people repaying patronage with their vote is a valid one, but philisophically, I'm opposed to limiting voting rights as a way to stamp out that problem. I don't agree as well with his views on restricting the rights of people to sue the government. The government needs to be kicked up the arse, and quite regularly, and Thai people need to develop a taste for doing it, which they currently don't.

But, he did say quite a few other things which I strongly agree with including:

- deregulation of the all sectors of the thai economy, opening them up to competition. This is the real reason why the rich get richer.

good post ,

especially this bit

The government needs to be kicked up the arse, and quite regularly, and Thai people need to develop a taste for doing it, which they currently don't.

your in a position to help this along

playing devils advocate though (in the nicest possible way), it is usually the poor and disposesed who surcome (sp?) to the siren call of closed economies, and xenaphobic anti-foreigner nationaist cr@p. Do you think that rest of the Thai Visa mob poo-pooing this lecturer are really willing to have that happen, for the 'good' of democracy?

I know there is a tendency in the Thai poltical elite to see that the only way to an open economy (good) is via benevolant guidence, by them. I've worked with people who have argued long and hard, in public and private for the type of economic and social reform that Thailnd needs. They argue well for these things eluquently, and have spent their careers doing so. Many times, they are stopped in their tracks by those who represent, or proport to represent the 'poor'. Wouldn't it be better then, to let them run the shop for say, 10 years?

The counter argument is that absolute power corrupts absolutely...but is this necessarilty so?

Discuss.

[Prakanong]

It's not poverty, it's patronage system that is the greatest impediment to democracy in Thailand.

"One man one vote" principle does not apply here. There no "one man" concept to start with, it's a collectivist society, people always have pi's and nongs to consider and take care of.

So your defence of rejection of universal democracy is the above?

""While democracy is not yet universally practiced, nor indeed uniformly accepted, in the general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved the status of being taken to be generally right. The ball is very much in the court of those who want to rubbish democracy to provide justification for that rejection. "

So sad really - so sad to see someone try to defend the indefensible!

[Prakanong]

"Wouldn't it be better then, to let them run the shop for say, 10 years?"

Have these people not run it for a lot longer than that already?

[Plus]

It's not poverty, it's patronage system that is the greatest impediment to democracy in Thailand.

"One man one vote" principle does not apply here. There no "one man" concept to start with, it's a collectivist society, people always have pi's and nongs to consider and take care of.

So your defence of rejection of universal democracy is the above?

""While democracy is not yet universally practiced, nor indeed uniformly accepted, in the general climate of world opinion, democratic governance has now achieved the status of being taken to be generally right. The ball is very much in the court of those who want to rubbish democracy to provide justification for that rejection. "

So sad really - so sad to see someone try to defend the indefensible!

I'm not defending rejection of universal democary in any way, I'm simply stating a fact that often gets overlooked.

I suppose Thailand will eventually grow into a democracy through practicing it but I'm not sure that the best way to teach swimming is by tossing toddlers overboard.

[Mid]

Discuss.

couple of specific peculiarities here , to wit

face and phoyai ,

both valid concepts that have been hi-jacked ...................

my answer to all of society's ills globally is education to a level where LOGICAL thought is normal ...................

[Prakanong]

" suppose Thailand will eventually grow into a democracy through practicing it but I'm not sure that the best way to teach swimming is by tossing toddlers overboard."

Its a bit patronising is it not - are not all humans created equal to you or do you still want them in chains?

Its exactly because of the feudal society in Thailand that it needs democracy and fast.

Its archaic and stuck in the past and is holding it back. Keeping a lid tight on a boiling pot means the backlash will be greater when released

We all know a rather large watershed will happen in Thailand sooner thather than later and can only hope for a peaceful re-alignment.

[PlainJane]

The professor is very realistic! Poor people with not enough meals in a day will more likely be tempted to sell their votes for a substantial amount. Most people affected by poverty doesn't think past their meals or past today. I am sorry to say this, but it is true.

Democracy - people has freedom irregardless if you're poor, middle-class or rich. This factor makes things spicy and a little bitter, depending on how you see it. This makes politics crazy, dirty, a big joke and FUN!

[samran]

"Wouldn't it be better then, to let them run the shop for say, 10 years?"

Have these people not run it for a lot longer than that already?

The people I'm talking about aren't the ones running the shop.

I know who you are talking about though.....

[TAWP]

Something I don't understand though- and we hear this repeatedly- that the poor only vote out of selfish self interest: if all the poor in Thailand had PhDs in political philosophy- would they no longer vote in such a way as to improve the material quality of their lives?

If your political plattform before an election are that Ben should get money from Stefan, then you can count on Ben's vote.

And there in lies the problem.