Clan politics is bad for Thai democracy

[klauskunkel]

Quote

Clan politics is bad for Thai democracy

From what I've seen, Democracy is bad for Thai Democracy.

[Eric Loh]

6 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Narrator: They weren't

Narrator? You are funny. Anyway, the UN recognized them as democratically elected prime ministers and current government as military-dominated semi-elected government. 

 

[Enzian]

This whole democracy idea around the world is a fallacy and red herring. The only thing that has a chance over time is some sort of republicanism with a small "r". Most so-called democracies are de facto republics in the way they operate. SPQR. The USA is not a democracy, de facto or de jure, and yet it keeps supposedly promoting this garbage idea of mob rule.

[OneMoreFarang]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

That all three share family ties with former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra — a daughter, sister and brother in law — cannot escape notice. 

The big problem is that this wouldn't work if not millions of stupid voters can be convinced to vote for one person only because of their family name. Does anybody asks for qualifications? Experience? What did they do until now in their life? And will they obey the laws? Or are they planning to use their influence to free or pardon certain criminals?

Smart people don't vote for people with no experience who are family members of well known criminals.

[sawadee1947]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

also a very common practice across Thai political parties.

Not only political Parties.

Think of it how countries get their Monarchs.........

[BangkokReady]

34 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Does anybody asks for qualifications? Experience? What did they do until now in their life? And will they obey the laws? Or are they planning to use their influence to free or pardon certain criminals?

"He gave me money so I like him."  I completely understand this, but I don't necessarily think it is good for democracy.

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Smart people don't vote for people with no experience who are family members of well known criminals.

I guess they are smart enough to know that their lives are better under Thaksin.

[IanDelMar]

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Clan politics is bad for democracy all over the world even in western democracy.  

Define clan politics. Do you mean as in the Central Asian countries such as Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan whose authoritarian  leaders keep a tight grip on power, don't allow elections and pass leadership onto family members? Or do you mean western democracies such as the US and UK and numerous other countries worldwide where politics runs in the family eg Bush, Kennedy, Johnson, Trudeau, Shinawatra? Do you get my point? Using the phrase 'Clan politics' per se could be misleading.

[Eric Loh]

6 minutes ago, IanDelMar said:

Define clan politics. Do you mean as in the Central Asian countries such as Azerbaijan or Kyrgyzstan whose authoritarian  leaders keep a tight grip on power, don't allow elections and pass leadership onto family members? Or do you mean western democracies such as the US and UK and numerous other countries worldwide where politics runs in the family eg Bush, Kennedy, Johnson, Trudeau, Shinawatra? Do you get my point? Using the phrase 'Clan politics' per se could be misleading.

Agree with you that the word clan in this editorial is misleading. The right word to use should be dynasty and that will include the family you mentioned. Clan is associated with rulers from one family that were handed down. Hope I explain appropriately. 

[peter zwart]

Any politics is bad for any country. And it's only getting worse as more and more puppets on the political spectrum are being pulled by corporate states.
 

[IanDelMar]

2 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Narrator: They weren't

Huh? Can you expand on this?

[candide]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

Sure.  Thailand has a history of it.  Look it up.

 

One could equally argue that they have been virtuous and the result of corruption, where improperly elected clans have only sought to enrich themselves and gotten dangerously close to bankrupting the country.

 

As the current topic confirms, clan politics and corruption is standing in the way of any improvement in democracy in Thailand.  (Probably a lack of proper education also.)

 

On the contrary, the coup would serve as an essential part of the process, to ensure that absolute power does not slip into anyone's hands and remain there indefinitely.

 

There is no democratic country where "the will of the people" goes against the interest of the ruling elite.  It just doesn't happen.  This is a delicate balance that Thailand needs to learn to manage, as other countries have.

How can a coup be virtuous as it leads to a government which is at least as corrupt as the democratically elected government, and on top of it cannot be voted out or be made accountable. Really? 

 

The main aim of coups in Thailand  is not to avoid absolute power does slip into anyone's hand. It is to make sure absolute power REMAINS into the hands of the dominant network (the so-called old elite), and not ultimately in the hands of voters.

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by candide

[BangkokReady]

17 minutes ago, IanDelMar said:

Huh? Can you expand on this?

Sure, basically the methods that Thaksin and his proxy sister used to gain and hold power were such that you cannot really class them as being properly democratically elected. Did they get the most votes? Technically, sure. But if they had not used corruption, cronyism, silencing free speech/criticism, and the straight up purchasing of votes (and not the regular kind), would they have still gotten into power? Possibly not.

[BangkokReady]

33 minutes ago, candide said:

How can a coup be virtuous as it leads to a government which is at least as corrupt as the democratically elected government, and on top of it cannot be voted out or be made accountable. Really? 

As I said, they should certainly have returned to democracy after a year or two, but there was a certain transition that they wanted to prepare for. Also, the coups removed a government that couldn't really be voted out or held accountable, so that doesn't quite add up.

 

So it isn't really the coup that is the problem, so much as the failure to follow the pattern and return to democracy.

 

33 minutes ago, candide said:

The main aim of coups in Thailand  is not to avoid absolute power does slip into anyone's hand. It is to make sure absolute power REMAINS into the hands of the dominant network (the so-called old elite), and not ultimately in the hands of voters.

I don't think that's quite true. Why let them have a democratic election in the first place? Why not rig the elections or only allow approved candidates? Why haven't laws and policies that Thaksin brought in all been reversed? Why was the final straw with Thaksin when he was selling off a big telecoms company? Why did they only step in with Yingluck when she tried to pardon Thaksin and bankrupt the nation?

 

I don't think the reality necessarily support what you are saying here. They certainly didn't have to manufacture anything or accuse them of anything they didn't do.

Edited March 24, 2022 by BangkokReady

[BangkokReady]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

I guess they are smart enough to know that their lives are better under Thaksin.

Well, they believed that their lives were better under Thaksin because in the short term they had more money in their pocket. Meanwhile Thaksin was using the country as his own personal piggy bank. Once Thaksin ran out of money (or rather could not pilfer anymore money) to buy votes, and probably fled the country leaving a massive whole in the economy, what would they think then?

[Eric Loh]

5 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

Well, they believed that their lives were better under Thaksin because in the short term they had more money in their pocket. Meanwhile Thaksin was using the country as his own personal piggy bank. Once Thaksin ran out of money (or rather could not pilfer anymore money) to buy votes, and probably fled the country leaving a massive whole in the economy, what would they think then?

Say the narrator with a sumptous amount of imagination. 

[ThailandRyan]

So we need another Braveheart style of Clan then, and lets not forget to wear the kilts....

[BangkokReady]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Say the narrator with a sumptous amount of imagination. 

These are the facts. Thaksin and Yingluk paid the provinces to get into power and that money was running out. Hence the rice pledging scheme.

 

They were almost as unaccountable as the current government. Almost.

[BangkokReady]

14 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

So we need another Braveheart style of Clan then, and lets not forget to wear the kilts....

That might explain what happened to poor General Taksin.

[candide]

56 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

As I said, they should certainly have returned to democracy after a year or two, but there was a certain transition that they wanted to prepare for. Also, the coups removed a government that couldn't really be voted out or held accountable, so that doesn't quite add up.

 

So it isn't really the coup that is the problem, so much as the failure to follow the pattern and return to democracy.

 

I don't think that's quite true. Why let them have a democratic election in the first place? Why not rig the elections or only allow approved candidates? Why haven't laws and policies that Thaksin brought in all been reversed? Why was the final straw with Thaksin when he was selling off a big telecoms company? Why did they only step in with Yingluck when she tried to pardon Thaksin and bankrupt the nation?

 

I don't think the reality necessarily support what you are saying here. They certainly didn't have to manufacture anything or accuse them of anything they didn't do.

Sorry but the Yingluck government could have been voted out as it intended to have elections organised (by an EC appointed by Abhisit). Or do you mean cannot be voted out because people wanted to vote for her? Really?

 

Sorry but the coup makers did exactly what you claim the didn't do. They changed the constitution to make sure they would keep control whoever would be elected, did rigg the last elections, did ban political parties, etc...

I did not say they manufactured offenses (well, they did to some extent), but that was not the reason they made a.coup. For example, the yellow judiciary has been quite efficient to remove Yingluck. So the democratic system worked: she was removed and elections were planned, without the need for a coup. They did a coup because they did not want elections, they did not want the people to choose to vote out PTP or not. 

[Grusa]

Thailand has never been colonised.  (?)

 

 

Maybe now is the time.

[BangkokReady]

26 minutes ago, candide said:

Sorry but the Yingluck government could have been voted out as it intended to have elections organised (by an EC appointed by Abhisit). Or do you mean cannot be voted out because people wanted to vote for her? Really?

I mean they weren't going to be voted out because they were paying people huge sums to keep themselves in power regardless of what they actually did for the country or for themselves. I'm not sure how that isn't a problem for you, as long as they're "voted in" nothing else matters? They can be completely illegitimate in every other way as long as they get the most votes?

 

26 minutes ago, candide said:

Sorry but the coup makers did exactly what you claim the didn't do. They changed the constitution to make sure they would keep control whoever would be elected, did rigg the last elections, did ban political parties, etc...

As I said already, I'm not in favour of what is happening now, only that the coups have clearly been necessary.

 

26 minutes ago, candide said:

I did not say they manufactured offenses (well, they did to some extent), but that was not the reason they made a.coup. For example, the yellow judiciary has been quite efficient to remove Yingluck. So the democratic system worked: she was removed and elections were planned, without the need for a coup. They did a coup because they did not want elections, they did not want the people to choose to vote out PTP or not. 

They obviously would have voted her or another Thaksin proxy straight back in. It cannot simply be a case of remove the proxy and let them vote another straight back in. How would that solve the problem that necessitated the coup in the first place?

 

I'm not sure how you expect democracy to function in Thailand without some way of prevent a Thaksin/Yingluck situation from reoccurring.

[IanDelMar]

5 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

On the contrary, the coup would serve as an essential part of the process, to ensure that absolute power does not slip into anyone's hands and remain there indefinitely.

Really? This doesn't make sense to me. Your saying give the army (or other force) of a country the essential right to ursurp the democratic process and take absolute power to avoid absolute power being taken by somebody else. That's a new one.

[khunPer]

It's not abnormal in other countries that politics stay in the family, even in my otherwise very democratic home country Denmark, and US also had a Kennedy-clan.

[BangkokReady]

28 minutes ago, IanDelMar said:

Your saying give the army (or other force) of a country the essential right to ursurp the democratic process and take absolute power to avoid absolute power being taken by somebody else. That's a new one.

No, it's more about accepting the military's role in preventing a group from usurping the democratic process to take absolute power.

 

How else would you address it? Or would you just go the "they were voted in so let them do whatever they want as that means it's democracy and therefore best regardless of their conduct or what method they used to get the votes" view?

[Eric Loh]

54 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

mean they weren't going to be voted out because they were paying people huge sums to keep themselves in power

Here you go again spewing unproven allegations. Which political party has the deepest pocket to pay voters. Think which party has the most yellow elites and big corporations. Dem Party paid voters too and they will take and vote others. This has been admitted by K Korn himself admitting that paying voters doesn’t guarantee voters will vote for the party. Sometime you got to stop making allegations without any evidence. 

[BangkokReady]

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Here you go again spewing unproven allegations. Which political party has the deepest pocket to pay voters. Think which party has the most yellow elites and big corporations. Dem Party paid voters too and they will take and vote others. This has been admitted by K Korn himself admitting that paying voters doesn’t guarantee voters will vote for the party. Sometime you got to stop making allegations without any evidence. 

How can you expect to discuss this if you lack the most basic of understandings of it? These are established and widely reported facts.

 

Just search for Thaksin and vote buying or Yingluck and the rice pledge scheme.

 

I'm honestly surprised you're discussing this topic without knowledge of this.

[Eric Loh]

22 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

How can you expect to discuss this if you lack the most basic of understandings of it? These are established and widely reported facts.

 

Just search for Thaksin and vote buying or Yingluck and the rice pledge scheme.

 

I'm honestly surprised you're discussing this topic without knowledge of this.

Let me lay out the facts to you. All parties pay voters. This has been a time honored culture that date back before Thaksin. The court doesn’t find Yingluck guilty for the rice pledging scheme. Don’t you know that before making asinine comment. 

[BangkokReady]

19 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Let me lay out the facts to you. All parties pay voters. This has been a time honored culture that date back before Thaksin.

No.  Thaksin took it to another level, as I said before.  I highly recommend you look into it a lot more.

 

19 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The court doesn’t find Yingluck guilty for the rice pledging scheme.

Are you sure?  As far as I can tell she was held criminally responsible but was not made to pay compensation in a civil court.

 

I mean, besides, it was her rice pledging scheme, she orchestrated it and she is responsible for it.  You can't just pretend it was nothing to do with her because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

19 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Don’t you know that before making asinine comment. 

Nothing I have said is asinine whatsoever.  As I said, look it up properly before you discuss it.

 

If anyone "doesn't know", it's you.

Edited March 24, 2022 by BangkokReady

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

No.  Thaksin took it to another level, as I said before.  I highly recommend you look into it a lot more.

 

Are you sure?  As far as I can tell she was held criminally responsible but was not made to pay compensation in a civil court.

 

I mean, besides, it was her rice pledging scheme, she orchestrated it and she is responsible for it.  You can't just pretend it was nothing to do with her because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

Nothing I have said is asinine whatsoever.  As I said, look it up properly before you discuss it.

 

If anyone "doesn't know", it's you.

Have fun with your own version of alternative facts.