Democracy And Separation Of Power

[Ijustwannateach]

Hamilton and the Federalists had much the same fear of the uneducated majority as the professor mentioned in the OP- but he also had the personal reason of growing up as an impoverished orphan. I wonder how much influence personal fear of his own class, or envy of the upper-class elite, had in forming his political opinion?

"Steven"

[dumspero]

One person one vote.

Anything else is just the elites wanting to hold down the masses.

[Prakanong]

Hamilton and the Federalists had much the same fear of the uneducated majority as the professor mentioned in the OP- but he also had the personal reason of growing up as an impoverished orphan. I wonder how much influence personal fear of his own class, or envy of the upper-class elite, had in forming his political opinion?

"Steven"

That leads to one of the oldest jokes students of political science get told from boring lecturers when they first start and why I remember it I do not know but thank you Andrew Gamble and i still remember your joke about Breznev in Paris and the eifell Tower

What has Marx and Chiang Kai Shek got in common?

They were both traitors to their own class.

It was not funny then and its not now ;-)

[Plus]

" 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

Speaking of past, a hundred years ago women were not granted equal voting rights as male humans. They had to FIGHT for it, and in the process PROVE that they are mature enough to participate in politics. Even their first demands covered only married women, I think. About a hundred years passed since introduction of Bill or Rights before women were allowed to vote.

Thailand introduced universal suffrage for people who never even ASKED for it. Walk before you run. Their first experience with politics (i.e. voting for policies vs local pooyais) was with TRT. It's like losing virginity to your pervert uncle.

Is it patronising? Or politically incorrect? Or realistic?

[Meerkat]

So what do you suggest?

Rolling back the political process here so that only male landowners can vote, until we have suffragettes throwing themselves under horses and a "peasants' revolt"?

[pete_r]

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.

[...]

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

A relatively common opinion among the elite, I'm afraid. I've had a few lively discussions with a professor holding similar ideas in the past year.

We managed to agree that the key was to improve education, but the question why this hasn't been done by the successive governments in the last decades was left unanswered.

// Edit: I might add that the impression I keep from these talks is not a wish for a better democracy, but for poor people to vote the way the elite want them too. And if they don't, then they should have no voting right (which is very consistent with the events of last September).

Edited May 18, 2007 by pete_r

[blaze]

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.

It may be the problem- but it's a universal problem- P.E. Trudeau referred to it is 'enlightened self interest'. The real problem was and still is, that in North America- not so much Europe- the 'enlightened' part takes back seat to the 'self interest part'.

And really what is kind of funny is that in North America- the most selfish self centered voters are not the poor- it is the middle class. Any party threatening siginficant tax increases to the middle class is doomed.

The poor are more likely to vote for parties (such as the Republican) that trumpet abstracts like 'family values' and 'freedom' etc etc etc- while the middle class tends to vote for parties that promise to help them pay the bills.

[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

Speaking of past, a hundred years ago women were not granted equal voting rights as male humans. They had to FIGHT for it, and in the process PROVE that they are mature enough to participate in politics. Even their first demands covered only married women, I think. About a hundred years passed since introduction of Bill or Rights before women were allowed to vote.

Thailand introduced universal suffrage for people who never even ASKED for it. Walk before you run. Their first experience with politics (i.e. voting for policies vs local pooyais) was with TRT. It's like losing virginity to your pervert uncle.

Is it patronising? Or politically incorrect? Or realistic?

So groups should not get sufferage unless they ask for it - you just get better and more laughable by the post.

The right to vote is everyones - they do not have to ask for it be they women or the poor people you want to exclude

Do you vote at home - why not exclude you on grounds of wealth - it absolutely ridiculous and you make yourself look so trying to defend it

If you are not winding people up and really beleive that you do need some profesional help

[TAWP]

blaze>> You are correct in the 'somewhat' oversimplified view of american democracy, but then again, they have a really flawed system to begin with. Their save is a strong and fair constitution. Something Thailand lacks.

[Plus]

So what do you suggest?

Rolling back the political process here so that only male landowners can vote, until we have suffragettes throwing themselves under horses and a "peasants' revolt"?

No, but a unquestionable acceptance of votes by millions of duped farmers is not a solution either.

Why is saying that low classes can be easily duped is labeled as "showing contempt" but saying that elites manipulate poor people's votes isn't???

Why is it ok to thrash middle classes but no demening words about peasants are tolerated?

1997 Consitution had lots of provisions for lifting the political consciousness of lower classes. LOTS. Had they been implemented by TRT we wouldn't be where we are now.

Education was one, decentralisation in nearly all aspects of governance was another, people sponsored laws was yet another. Thaksin simply blocked any progress in those areas.

The only successfully implemented part was awareness of party political platforms.

[Prakanong]

So what do you suggest?

Rolling back the political process here so that only male landowners can vote, until we have suffragettes throwing themselves under horses and a "peasants' revolt"?

He is winding you up - has to be ;-))

[Plus]

The right to vote is everyones - they do not have to ask for it be they women or the poor people you want to exclude

This understanding is only a snapshot of evolutionary process. Two hundred years ago no one even thought that women and slaves had automatic right to vote simply because they were born. Two hundreds years from now the family pets might get voting rights, who knows.

I stress again that it is an evolutionary process, Thailand, as a society, MUST complete the same stages as western countries to get there. The society MUST learn the lessons in freedoms, rights, coups, democracy, justice etc.

[Prakanong]

The right to vote is everyones - they do not have to ask for it be they women or the poor people you want to exclude

This understanding is only a snapshot of evolutionary process. Two hundred years ago no one even thought that women and slaves had automatic right to vote simply because they were born. Two hundreds years from now the family pets might get voting rights, who knows.

I stress again that it is an evolutionary process, Thailand, as a society, MUST complete the same stages as western countries to get there. The society MUST learn the lessons in freedoms, rights, coups, democracy, justice etc.

So you are saying Thailand can not stand on the shoulders of giants and miss out certain stages - they must expand the franchise at the rate say it was in Europe - the peasants in Thailand have a long way to go then?

Is this the same in all area's of the Thai polity - should economic progressbe the same - after feudalism do they go through mercantalism, have a I then on to todays technological revolution in that order?

You are funny - thanks for making me smile.

[TAWP]

History clearly tells us they can't?

[larvidchr]

I am suprised about the number of seemingly well educated people on this thread, who defends wiews that belong in the dark middel ages, it shows that not only the Thais has a long way to go, and that education alone, dont do the trick

Kind regards

[highdiver]

I am suprised about the number of seemingly well educated people on this thread, who defends wiews that belong in the dark middel ages, it shows that not only the Thais has a long way to go, and that education alone, dont do the trick

Kind regards

Bingo..

[Plus]

I am suprised about the number of seemingly well educated people on this thread, who defends wiews that belong in the dark middel ages, it shows that not only the Thais has a long way to go, and that education alone, dont do the trick

I'm suprised that after seeing so many posters from middle ages you expect Thailand to be a fully functional, particpative democracy starting from tomorrow.

>>>>>>

Prakanong, Thailand does not have to REPEAT all the steps Western countries went through it simply has to learn the same lessons. Hopefully Thais can learn from others experience to speed up the process.

Not so long ago the main question for Thai anthropologists was: "Do hill tribe people really have tails?". Certain amount of progress has been made since then, but not that much.

[mogoso]

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.

The electroral college was established to protect states rights. In a popular vote situation all power would lie in states with large cities, totally disregarding the people who live in smaller states, giving them no say in their gov't.

Originally the US senators were appointed by each states legislature rather than by popular vote. The senators job was to watch over to their states interest . The US representatives were elected to look out for even a smaller slice of the pie determined by the US population and look out for their states interest.

Democracy was consider mob rule or if there were three animals deciding what was for dinner and if two were wolves and one was a chicken you could guess the vote.

The electoral college simply gives power to what the US is, the United States, not a big city popular vote only for president. I belive in the 1960 presidential race Nixon had more votes than Kennedy, but Kennedy won on electoral votes. Those clamoring for popular vote today were on the other side of the fence in that election, and were very happy with that outcome.

[lannarebirth]

blaze>> You are correct in the 'somewhat' oversimplified view of american democracy, but then again, they have a really flawed system to begin with. Their save is a strong and fair constitution. Something Thailand lacks.

I'm not sure what you mean here. If you believe the system is flawed it is because the constitution is flawed, but you go on to say that it is not. The US constitution while being well crafted, wouldn't be worth the parchment it is written on if not for the US justice system. While at times flawed, the checks and balances and the equal access it provides is the key factor in maintaining America as the worlds oldest democratic nation. Thailand can write a hundred constitutions, and none will be worth a ###### until the justice system starts working for the benefit of all Thais.

[TAWP]

No, the american system isn't flawed since the constitution is, read again. It's flawed since it's a two-party system that effectivly removes any chance of nuanses in politics. The world isn't black and white and political life shouldn't be either.

It however has a strong constitution aiming for the freedom of speach and right to bear arms, and those are important in maintaining the populations control over its goverment. Something the goverment tries to offset more and more ofcourse...

They also have a system of checks and balances that many other countries, including Thailand, lack.

[torito]

The concept of democracy is always complex and it is a principle that does not appear to apply to everybody, in the same way and at the same time.

Still I remember one day on the 70's, when I had the chance to listen an USA ambassador. In his discourse he said "nobody can teach us democracy...my country has lived 200 years of it". At the time I questioned whether his view about democracy, was the same than of an American Negro. Negroes had no right at that time.

At the same time, Chile has the democratically elected socialist president. USA put this democracy down as "it was not on its interest" (in the words of the same ambassador, on an interview in the year 2001). By the way, this was the first September 11 of the modern days.

I do not want to make this an anti USA stuff or American bashing....because this is not my point. The point is that even America, the biggest promoter of democracy in the word, achieved its own democracy on steps.

Poor people who struggle everyday without know whether tomorrow will have something to eat, are not worry about democracy or constitution. When they eat today, the do it thinking that tomorrow may be nothing on the table. And many times simply there is nothing. I know this by experience.

Perhaps the professor views have some rational after all.

Edited May 25, 2007 by torito