Samak Sundaravej was elected

[Old Man River]

I am really not sure which thread this belongs in, but it is one of the funniest things I have ever read. Now, if a draft legislation is passed, in order to achieve the profession of beggar, you have to qualify! A work permit will be needed.

http://thaicrisis.wordpress.com/2008/08/20...-you-qualified/

[Plus]

Yeah, in the meantime they've just appointed Asavahame offspring that nearly shot a policeman who stopped him for drunk driving as an official at ICT ministry.

[Tony Clifton]

Watch out children! Don t corner Samak in the washroom, he just may snap once again.

[Old Man River]

Yeah, in the meantime they've just appointed Asavahame offspring that nearly shot a policeman who stopped him for drunk driving as an official at ICT ministry.

And didn't the reason given sound so, so much like the reasons given when Chalerm's son was appointed? I think they copied the same press release and only changed the name.

This government has nothing to do with governing the country. It is all about power - getting it and keeping it.

[sriracha john]

* edit.... post moved

Edited August 24, 2008 by sriracha john

[thaigene2]

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

It may be worthwhile to take another look at policies geared to a previously neglected segment of society and implemented by the self-exiled former PM,

THOMAS ATWOOD

With the departure of Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has a good opportunity to reassess its problems without the prejudices and biases that Thaksin personality-politics have brought to the table in the past

One issue that merits further attention in the coming months is the government's attempt to amend the constitution. Up to this point, the debate over constitutional amendments has largely been clouded by reactionary politics and other political manoeuvrings. Most recently, the government and its opponents were engaged in a dispute over the PPP's proposal to amend Article 63 of the constitution, which protects the rights of public demonstrators. The amendment, now put on hold, would have provided the government with legal leverage to curb the PAD's persistent anti-Thaksin and anti-government protests.

It is worth pointing out that the attempt to amend Article 63 was unrelated to previous efforts to amend the constitution and in many respects served as a distraction from the central issues surrounding the government's call for more comprehensive changes.

Once again, the divide established between pro- and anti-Thaksin factions seems to have silenced the moderate voice, reducing the debate to an argument about whether or not amendments are required rather than a discussion about which amendments are required and why

...

Continued here: www.bangkokpost.com/240808_Perspective/24Aug2008_pers22.php

Thomas Atwood is a recent graduate of Dartmouth College where he studied English Literature and Mathematics. He is American-Ecuadorian but grew up in Thailand.

Source: Bangkok Post 2008-08-24

//Edit: Quoted text from news article reduced in line with Bangkok Post's copyright policy - Maestro

[Old Man River]

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

[thaigene2]

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

Come on - spare me the "Old Thai Hand" bit - I've lived here a long time too. Anyone who takes time to read the whole article will connect with the resonance of his suggestions - that the anti-thakisn camps conveniently ignore the masses and the reasosn they liked TRT to begin with. The old 'buying votes' argument that you make is what I would deem under-graduate in nature here, as it has the "parrot-as-I-'ve-been-lectured-routine" and not the "think-for-myself" as 'graduates are trained to do.. It's funny how you apologists for the PAD go out of your way to avoid the 90 pound gorilla in the room - the 90% OF THE ELECTORATE wbho demand a say! That's the main point - and as the author suggestes it's time to revisit that - and not kepp heaping claims of disloyalty back and forth.. when it's cleart on the urban elite are the ones with the shrill, squeeky voices!

[Plus]

From that BP article:

"Following this line of reasoning, members of the PAD openly called for a "New Politics" early last month - a proposed parliamentary system in which 30% of MPs would be elected and 70% would be appointed. Such a form of "selectoral" democracy would effectively diminish the political power of the masses, placing that power, instead, in the hands of the urban establishment."

That does not follow, and it simply is not there, unless you can show some concrete numbers that PAD allocated disproportional quota to urban establishment over farmers and "informal mass" in general. Maybe the author meant that urban establishment can rig the selection process, but there's nothing about it in "new politics" either.

And the next sentence:

"As Michael Connors, professor of politics at La Trobe University in Melbourne , pointed out in a recent article in the Bangkok Post, "The [PAD's] rational for wanting to dismantle Thailand 's electoral system is evident: pro-Thaksin forces keep winning elections."

That is again quite a stretch. What Sondhi actually said was: "But the critical idea is for the country to get a system which is not dominated, controlled and influenced by all those corrupt politicians who are good only at buying votes in order to gain power and rob the country"

It's a lot bigger target than simply "pro-Thaksin" forces, reducing "new politics" to a pro/anti Thaksin issue does not do it justice, and neither does reducing it to urban establishement vs rural majoirty conflict.

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ThaiTalk/2008/07/10/entry-1

[Old Man River]

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

Come on - spare me the "Old Thai Hand" bit - I've lived here a long time too. Anyone who takes time to read the whole article will connect with the resonance of his suggestions - that the anti-thakisn camps conveniently ignore the masses and the reasosn they liked TRT to begin with. The old 'buying votes' argument that you make is what I would deem under-graduate in nature here, as it has the "parrot-as-I-'ve-been-lectured-routine" and not the "think-for-myself" as 'graduates are trained to do.. It's funny how you apologists for the PAD go out of your way to avoid the 90 pound gorilla in the room - the 90% OF THE ELECTORATE wbho demand a say! That's the main point - and as the author suggestes it's time to revisit that - and not kepp heaping claims of disloyalty back and forth.. when it's cleart on the urban elite are the ones with the shrill, squeeky voices!

Sorry, but I don't see what the revelation is here. The 90% electorate as you put it has always been the main voting block. As the saying goes, the northeast elects politicians and Bangkok removes them.

Note, I didn't get personal with you. Next time try to be a bit more mature in your responses and stay away from personal comments.

[blaze]

THere is I think, a convenient (for some) perception- that were it not for mass vote buying, those who elect populist oriented governments in Thailand, would instead, elect a 'proper' government- one more in line with the aspirations of the urban middle class and elements of the blue blood aristocracy.

The author has attempted to disspell this notion- probably unsucsessfuly. He has tried to show that the idea that the poor will become politically engaged when they can see that such engagement is to their best interests, is not limited to just the countries of say, Latin America-. It also applies in Thailand. In short the rural poor in the northeast no more need to be purchased than did the rural poor of Boliva that voted for Morales- (or Ecuador, Brazil etc etc).

He neglects though to talk about an apparant anomoly: the south. There the poor do not support -or do not appear to support- the kind of policies that PPP, TRT offered. I think a much more interesting discourse would be an analysis of why that is the case. Absent policies which serve the interests of the poor majority, how are the Democrats able to retain their popularity in the southern provinces where the poor are also in a majority- yet reject the kind of populism that the middle class (understandably) fears.

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

Come on - spare me the "Old Thai Hand" bit - I've lived here a long time too. Anyone who takes time to read the whole article will connect with the resonance of his suggestions - that the anti-thakisn camps conveniently ignore the masses and the reasosn they liked TRT to begin with. The old 'buying votes' argument that you make is what I would deem under-graduate in nature here, as it has the "parrot-as-I-'ve-been-lectured-routine" and not the "think-for-myself" as 'graduates are trained to do.. It's funny how you apologists for the PAD go out of your way to avoid the 90 pound gorilla in the room - the 90% OF THE ELECTORATE wbho demand a say! That's the main point - and as the author suggestes it's time to revisit that - and not kepp heaping claims of disloyalty back and forth.. when it's cleart on the urban elite are the ones with the shrill, squeeky voices!

Sorry, but I don't see what the revelation is here. The 90% electorate as you put it has always been the main voting block. As the saying goes, the northeast elects politicians and Bangkok removes them.

Note, I didn't get personal with you. Next time try to be a bit more mature in your responses and stay away from personal comments.

Edited August 25, 2008 by blaze

[hammered]

THere is I think, a convenient (for some) perception- that were it not for mass vote buying, those who elect populist oriented governments in Thailand, would instead, elect a 'proper' government- one more in line with the aspirations of the urban middle class and elements of the blue blood aristocracy.

The author has attempted to disspell this notion- probably unsucsessfuly. He has tried to show that the idea that the poor will become politically engaged when they can see that such engagement is to their best interests, is not limited to just the countries of say, Latin America-. It also applies in Thailand. In short the rural poor in the northeast no more need to be purchased than did the rural poor of Boliva that voted for Morales- (or Ecuador, Brazil etc etc).

He neglects though to talk about an apparant anomoly: the south. There the poor do not support -or do not appear to support- the kind of policies that PPP, TRT offered. I think a much more interesting discourse would be an analysis of why that is the case. Absent policies which serve the interests of the poor majority, how are the Democrats able to retain their popularity in the southern provinces where the poor are also in a majority- yet reject the kind of populism that the middle class (understandably) fears.

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

Come on - spare me the "Old Thai Hand" bit - I've lived here a long time too. Anyone who takes time to read the whole article will connect with the resonance of his suggestions - that the anti-thakisn camps conveniently ignore the masses and the reasosn they liked TRT to begin with. The old 'buying votes' argument that you make is what I would deem under-graduate in nature here, as it has the "parrot-as-I-'ve-been-lectured-routine" and not the "think-for-myself" as 'graduates are trained to do.. It's funny how you apologists for the PAD go out of your way to avoid the 90 pound gorilla in the room - the 90% OF THE ELECTORATE wbho demand a say! That's the main point - and as the author suggestes it's time to revisit that - and not kepp heaping claims of disloyalty back and forth.. when it's cleart on the urban elite are the ones with the shrill, squeeky voices!

Sorry, but I don't see what the revelation is here. The 90% electorate as you put it has always been the main voting block. As the saying goes, the northeast elects politicians and Bangkok removes them.

Note, I didn't get personal with you. Next time try to be a bit more mature in your responses and stay away from personal comments.

It has been explained to me by Thai politicians (mostly TRT/PPP and CT) the following way. It is not about vote buying. It is not even really about policies. In most rural areas (urban it works a little differently) there are candidates who will always win whatever party they stand for. Thai politcs until Thaksin's time was always regional so MPs would by and large group together regionally. NAP was Isaan, Dems South, CT certain central areas and the north was quite split etc. Then Thaksin with his huge funds and with certain ex-party leaders finacially wrecked by the 1997 crash joined several parties together as factions inside the TRT. The only parties not really sucked as it was described) into this were CT and Dems. The Dems retained the MPs where they were strong except the and CT struggled to keep its central base alive. That meant though that the TRT was full of cnadidates who were unbeatable on their own turf and guaranteed victories. This analysis explains why the poor in different areas vote in different ways fairly well although it is not popular with most westerners.

The populist policies may at this point in time may be more of a factor but it is still probably a lot about the "man" standing. It would be interesting to see say Newin Chidchob run against an overt Thaksin backed candidate in Buri Ram to test the arguement that it is all about policies. Certainly the policies arguement cannot explain the Southerners vote democrat case, and I suspect that Newin could beat a Thaksin backed candidate in a theoretical match up.

[Old Man River]

THere is I think, a convenient (for some) perception- that were it not for mass vote buying, those who elect populist oriented governments in Thailand, would instead, elect a 'proper' government- one more in line with the aspirations of the urban middle class and elements of the blue blood aristocracy.

The author has attempted to disspell this notion- probably unsucsessfuly. He has tried to show that the idea that the poor will become politically engaged when they can see that such engagement is to their best interests, is not limited to just the countries of say, Latin America-. It also applies in Thailand. In short the rural poor in the northeast no more need to be purchased than did the rural poor of Boliva that voted for Morales- (or Ecuador, Brazil etc etc).

He neglects though to talk about an apparant anomoly: the south. There the poor do not support -or do not appear to support- the kind of policies that PPP, TRT offered. I think a much more interesting discourse would be an analysis of why that is the case. Absent policies which serve the interests of the poor majority, how are the Democrats able to retain their popularity in the southern provinces where the poor are also in a majority- yet reject the kind of populism that the middle class (understandably) fears.

I know nothing about the south (which is why I have never posted anything pertaining to the south). You do raise a very interesting question though, and I am also interested to hear others views on this.

From my experience (includes Latin America), the comparison you make between the northeast and Latin America (LA) is a tough one given LA has the established Social Democratic party which represents the poor, while Thailand had the TRT which used the poor to represent themselves (not quite the same). Now, if Thailand can ever get a Social Democratic party (or its equivalent) off the ground, then all bets are off.

[Meerkat]

Plus, "New Politics" is a reactionary idea; one that was born out of the PAD's frustration that the majority (or at least a plurality) of the people want the "wrong" party in power. Your interpretation of the 30:70 scheme goes much further than Suryasai's, in that you propose the 70% of MPs still to be elected by the people, but on a functional constituency basis rather than by direct elections.

Your interpretation, though still flawed IMO, at least has more merit than the PAD's one. The PAD scheme does not advocate functional constituencies voted in by the public; only that 70% of MPs would be "selected" or "appointed" to represent them. This begs the obvious question, selected by whom? My guess (and it is only a guess but I don't see it as far-fetched) is that it would be judges and/or bureaucrats - I think this is what the article means by moving power to the urban establishment.

We already have all but half of the Senate selected by just seven judges. That those seven people themselves are affirmed by the very same Senate that they half select leads to what charitably could be called a cozy situation. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? The people have to trust that those judges act altruistically and for the good of the country, but if they don't there is no real comeback for the people to oust them; it lacks transparency and accountability, precisely what politics in this country needs more of, not less.

New Politics seeks to extend this system of selection. Whilst we don't know exactly how they would be selected, IMO any selection other than by the public at large (ie election) is a huge step backwards for transparency and accountability. Selection too in no way lessens the potential for "vote" buying; it just changes the the target for those bribes.

Democracies need to mature. Putting up half-arsed schemes to try and "fix" the system in the short term do not allow it to do so (nor do coups) - in fact they set the process back. All mature democracies have gone through difficult periods - you only have to go back to the 60s - perhaps even later - in the US to see some of the same hallmarks of where Thai democracy is now; vote buying by one means or another and small-town voters turning to their town elders for direction on which way to vote *. Similarly you only have to go back to 1968 to find the last serious (though clumsy) plotting towards a coup in the UK. In an eerie parallel, one of the ringleaders, the media baron Cecil King, wanted appointed specialists to be brought into government instead of elected politicians too - his scheme fell apart after he tried to get the monarchy onside though...

These democracies are largely free of such issues now (and they continue to mature and evolve, as we see with Upper House reform in the UK, and talk of campaign finance changes in the US for instance), and Thailand's system of democracy will mature too - but only if it is given the chance to do so. Indeed with access to information becoming easier and easier even for the rural poor, it should progress more rapidly than before, as failures of policy and corrupt practices are more readily exposed (and the PAD has a role in this, but it should be a watchdog over all parties, not just the ones they don't like). Sadly for me, the PAD's recent extremism (not just New Politics, but also Sondhi's ridiculous policy initiative for dealing with Cambodia) threatens to overshadow its potential legitimate role as a civic group exposing abuse within the system.

* There was a interesting anecdote in Bill Clinton's autobiography about when he was on the campaign trail for Senator Fulbright in 1968:

"Center Point was a little place of fewer than two hundred people. The black notebook said the man to see was Bo Reece, a longtime supporter who lived in the best house in town. In the days before television ads, there was a Bo Reece in most little Arkansas towns. A couple of weeks before the election, people would ask, 'Who's Bo for?' His choice would be made known and would get about two-thirds of the vote, sometimes more."

[blaze]

THere is I think, a convenient (for some) perception- that were it not for mass vote buying, those who elect populist oriented governments in Thailand, would instead, elect a 'proper' government- one more in line with the aspirations of the urban middle class and elements of the blue blood aristocracy.

The author has attempted to disspell this notion- probably unsucsessfuly. He has tried to show that the idea that the poor will become politically engaged when they can see that such engagement is to their best interests, is not limited to just the countries of say, Latin America-. It also applies in Thailand. In short the rural poor in the northeast no more need to be purchased than did the rural poor of Boliva that voted for Morales- (or Ecuador, Brazil etc etc).

He neglects though to talk about an apparant anomoly: the south. There the poor do not support -or do not appear to support- the kind of policies that PPP, TRT offered. I think a much more interesting discourse would be an analysis of why that is the case. Absent policies which serve the interests of the poor majority, how are the Democrats able to retain their popularity in the southern provinces where the poor are also in a majority- yet reject the kind of populism that the middle class (understandably) fears.

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

Come on - spare me the "Old Thai Hand" bit - I've lived here a long time too. Anyone who takes time to read the whole article will connect with the resonance of his suggestions - that the anti-thakisn camps conveniently ignore the masses and the reasosn they liked TRT to begin with. The old 'buying votes' argument that you make is what I would deem under-graduate in nature here, as it has the "parrot-as-I-'ve-been-lectured-routine" and not the "think-for-myself" as 'graduates are trained to do.. It's funny how you apologists for the PAD go out of your way to avoid the 90 pound gorilla in the room - the 90% OF THE ELECTORATE wbho demand a say! That's the main point - and as the author suggestes it's time to revisit that - and not kepp heaping claims of disloyalty back and forth.. when it's cleart on the urban elite are the ones with the shrill, squeeky voices!

Sorry, but I don't see what the revelation is here. The 90% electorate as you put it has always been the main voting block. As the saying goes, the northeast elects politicians and Bangkok removes them.

Note, I didn't get personal with you. Next time try to be a bit more mature in your responses and stay away from personal comments.

It has been explained to me by Thai politicians (mostly TRT/PPP and CT) the following way. It is not about vote buying. It is not even really about policies. In most rural areas (urban it works a little differently) there are candidates who will always win whatever party they stand for. Thai politcs until Thaksin's time was always regional so MPs would by and large group together regionally. NAP was Isaan, Dems South, CT certain central areas and the north was quite split etc. Then Thaksin with his huge funds and with certain ex-party leaders finacially wrecked by the 1997 crash joined several parties together as factions inside the TRT. The only parties not really sucked as it was described) into this were CT and Dems. The Dems retained the MPs where they were strong except the and CT struggled to keep its central base alive. That meant though that the TRT was full of cnadidates who were unbeatable on their own turf and guaranteed victories. This analysis explains why the poor in different areas vote in different ways fairly well although it is not popular with most westerners.

The populist policies may at this point in time may be more of a factor but it is still probably a lot about the "man" standing. It would be interesting to see say Newin Chidchob run against an overt Thaksin backed candidate in Buri Ram to test the arguement that it is all about policies. Certainly the policies arguement cannot explain the Southerners vote democrat case, and I suspect that Newin could beat a Thaksin backed candidate in a theoretical match up.

I think that's a pretty good analysis- and certainly not unique to Thailand- It also reflects the perception that you will probably be better represented by someone with established ties and a history of (perceived) service to the local community- regardless of political affiliation. Banharn could probably run as an MP for any party he liked - and win. Not because the voters of Suphan are blindly following his lead- but because he has shown himself a worthy representative of their needs. Even in North America, it's not uncommon for an mp to switch parties- and be relected resoundingly. I wonder what would happen if some of the more popular PPP MPs switched to the Democrats.

It is possibly a mark of voter sophistication though when people vote along party lines rather than for the man. (or woman). They have made the leap of reasoning that a party which offers strong policies nationally will be in a better position to help 'me' than someone who is running pretty much as an independent. They are also more likely to regard polititians more as elected intermediaries between national policy and local needs- and less likely to regard them in simplistic terms of good and evil- (or handsome and pigfaced). And hopefully, they become less tolerant of abuse of position- recognizing that their best interests are served by policies- and not individuals- that the individual can easily be turfed out should he screw around- but the attractive policies will remain.

EDIT: (I just read Meerkat's (characterstically excellent) post above this- and sorry if I'm saying some of what he said - but less coherently).

Edited August 25, 2008 by blaze

[hammered]

THere is I think, a convenient (for some) perception- that were it not for mass vote buying, those who elect populist oriented governments in Thailand, would instead, elect a 'proper' government- one more in line with the aspirations of the urban middle class and elements of the blue blood aristocracy.

The author has attempted to disspell this notion- probably unsucsessfuly. He has tried to show that the idea that the poor will become politically engaged when they can see that such engagement is to their best interests, is not limited to just the countries of say, Latin America-. It also applies in Thailand. In short the rural poor in the northeast no more need to be purchased than did the rural poor of Boliva that voted for Morales- (or Ecuador, Brazil etc etc).

He neglects though to talk about an apparant anomoly: the south. There the poor do not support -or do not appear to support- the kind of policies that PPP, TRT offered. I think a much more interesting discourse would be an analysis of why that is the case. Absent policies which serve the interests of the poor majority, how are the Democrats able to retain their popularity in the southern provinces where the poor are also in a majority- yet reject the kind of populism that the middle class (understandably) fears.

..A voice of reason finally -- from Sunday's Bangkok Post Editorial pages. Probaby will get bashed by both the pro-coup anti-democrat PAD supporters and the Thaksinites alike.

POPULISM REVISITED

I really cannot disagree with what was said, but it was really meant for those that don't live here. It is something I might have written when I was a new graduate. There is nothing new in it.

By the way, it has been well known that the northeast was the main force in elections. That is why before each national election pick up trucks from Bangkok full of cash went to the northeast. Thaksin simply made these payoffs part of his national campaign.

I agree with its conclusion, but again, nothing new in what was said.

Come on - spare me the "Old Thai Hand" bit - I've lived here a long time too. Anyone who takes time to read the whole article will connect with the resonance of his suggestions - that the anti-thakisn camps conveniently ignore the masses and the reasosn they liked TRT to begin with. The old 'buying votes' argument that you make is what I would deem under-graduate in nature here, as it has the "parrot-as-I-'ve-been-lectured-routine" and not the "think-for-myself" as 'graduates are trained to do.. It's funny how you apologists for the PAD go out of your way to avoid the 90 pound gorilla in the room - the 90% OF THE ELECTORATE wbho demand a say! That's the main point - and as the author suggestes it's time to revisit that - and not kepp heaping claims of disloyalty back and forth.. when it's cleart on the urban elite are the ones with the shrill, squeeky voices!

Sorry, but I don't see what the revelation is here. The 90% electorate as you put it has always been the main voting block. As the saying goes, the northeast elects politicians and Bangkok removes them.

Note, I didn't get personal with you. Next time try to be a bit more mature in your responses and stay away from personal comments.

It has been explained to me by Thai politicians (mostly TRT/PPP and CT) the following way. It is not about vote buying. It is not even really about policies. In most rural areas (urban it works a little differently) there are candidates who will always win whatever party they stand for. Thai politcs until Thaksin's time was always regional so MPs would by and large group together regionally. NAP was Isaan, Dems South, CT certain central areas and the north was quite split etc. Then Thaksin with his huge funds and with certain ex-party leaders finacially wrecked by the 1997 crash joined several parties together as factions inside the TRT. The only parties not really sucked as it was described) into this were CT and Dems. The Dems retained the MPs where they were strong except the and CT struggled to keep its central base alive. That meant though that the TRT was full of cnadidates who were unbeatable on their own turf and guaranteed victories. This analysis explains why the poor in different areas vote in different ways fairly well although it is not popular with most westerners.

The populist policies may at this point in time may be more of a factor but it is still probably a lot about the "man" standing. It would be interesting to see say Newin Chidchob run against an overt Thaksin backed candidate in Buri Ram to test the arguement that it is all about policies. Certainly the policies arguement cannot explain the Southerners vote democrat case, and I suspect that Newin could beat a Thaksin backed candidate in a theoretical match up.

I think that's a pretty good analysis- and certainly not unique to Thailand- It also reflects the perception that you will probably be better represented by someone with established ties and a history of (perceived) service to the local community- regardless of political affiliation. Banharn could probably run as an MP for any party he liked - and win. Not because the voters of Suphan are blindly following his lead- but because he has shown himself a worthy representative of their needs. Even in North America, it's not uncommon for an mp to switch parties- and be relected resoundingly. I wonder what would happen if some of the more popular PPP MPs switched to the Democrats.

It is possibly a mark of voter sophistication though when people vote along party lines rather than for the man. (or woman). They have made the leap of reasoning that a party which offers strong policies nationally will be in a better position to help 'me' than someone who is running pretty much as an independent. They are also more likely to regard polititians more as elected intermediaries between national policy and local needs- and less likely to regard them in simplistic terms of good and evil- (or handsome and pigfaced). And hopefully, they become less tolerant of abuse of position- recognizing that their best interests are served by policies- and not individuals- that the individual can easily be turfed out should he screw around- but the attractive policies will remain.

EDIT: (I just read Meerkat's (characterstically excellent) post above this- and sorry if I'm saying some of what he said - but less coherently).

I think the test case of a PPP heavyweight switching to the Dems is unlikely right now as there is emnity although grudges only usually last through 1-2 election cycles so maybe in the future.

The movement to a party system where voters look at party rather than individual to a much larger degree (it already exists to some degree) will inevitably happen although in the short term if we see PPP split that could be set back a few years or so as many small parties usually equates to personality control. Thailand also needs to get over the Thaksin phenomena which is about a personality in ways too. Even though Thaksin did strengthen the idea of party and in fact pretty much created a two party system at the end of the day the party was still about him. But develpoment of democracy, and hence party voting is inevitable provided democracy continues to be the system used. Education will be the rate determining factor of how quickly it happens in my opinion but short of ditching democracy it cant be stopped totally.

I agree Meerkats post is a winner.

[Siripon]

Voting for the party, not the candidate, was why the Party List vote was introduced into Thailand, and in that area the Democrats did very well in the last election.

[hammered]

Voting for the party, not the candidate, was why the Party List vote was introduced into Thailand, and in that area the Democrats did very well in the last election.

Yes they did. What I never understood was why the generals didnt introduce proportional representation as the electoral system. Not only is it technically more democratic but it also weakens local influential control and it also leads to coaliton government most of the time. Using your example of how the dems did in the proportional party list bit they would almost certainly have ended up leading the government after a close defeat by PPP (both got about 41% in the party list vote) with the smaller parties allying with and giving the Dems a handy majority. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but for me it was the obvious way to create a system that Thaksin couldnt have beaten even back before the election. Then again I do fixate on politics and so may have had an advantage over military types;)

[Meerkat]

Education will be the rate determining factor of how quickly it happens in my opinion but short of ditching democracy it cant be stopped totally.

Thank you (and Blaze) for your kind words.

Yes, better education furthering informed voting is an excellent point and a glaring omission from my post. It is imperative that educational standards are improved, and that those standards are spread everywhere - the notion that urban schools are better than rural ones seems to be something I've often read about.

Do any of the main parties have comprehensive policies to improve education in Thailand and if so what are they? (That's not a cynical or rhetorical question; I'd really like to know).

[A_Traveller]

Am travelling, but had to log in with this Freudian typo from the current Nation front page. Guess it'll get amended soon:- or maybe not?

Regards

PS I'll be back

[Old Man River]

Am travelling, but had to log in with this Freudian typo from the current Nation front page. Guess it'll get amended soon:- or maybe not?

Regards

PS I'll be back

I skipped over that. Thanks for bringing it up as it is so appropriate.

[Plus]

... "New Politics" is a reactionary idea; one that was born out of the PAD's frustration that the majority (or at least a plurality) of the people want the "wrong" party in power.

Where did you get this idea? Read the Sondhi's quote again - it's about "wrong" people, not "wrong" parties. There were some detailed accounts of this proposal where they explain who the target is - corrupt politicians who use money to control the elections. When elected, they do not even think about representing the people - they have huge debts and favours to repay as well as steal as much as possible for themselves.

There's absolutely nothing about "wrong" parties or wrong policies there.

The PAD scheme does not advocate functional constituencies voted in by the public; only that 70% of MPs would be "selected" or "appointed" to represent them. This begs the obvious question, selected by whom? My guess (and it is only a guess but I don't see it as far-fetched) is that it would be judges and/or bureaucrats - I think this is what the article means by moving power to the urban establishment.

That's a legitimate concern. However, the selection process can be made a lot more transparent than nationwide elections once every five years that give out blank checks to unnamed people.

One big advantage is that there must be certain criteria for every position, something that simply doesn't exist in the current system. Apart from the Foreign Minister, no one in the current cabinet would pass even the first round of applications. Rigged selection or not, you won't see spa owners reading up how to run Finance Ministry on the Internet or Mr Happy Toilets. We've really got nothing to lose here.

PAD was concerned with getting representation in parlament for every social group instead of parlament filled with relatives of feudal lords in slavery of big money - that would surely be an improvement. You attack them on non-essential or non-existent issues - who will do the selecting, they don't want certain parties and so on.

Unlike Western democacies, Thailand doesn't have 200 years to mature. Globalisation doesn't wait and it doesn't give second chances. You screw once, and you'll be in the cesspit forever. Just look at Philippines.

[Meerkat]

... "New Politics" is a reactionary idea; one that was born out of the PAD's frustration that the majority (or at least a plurality) of the people want the "wrong" party in power.

Where did you get this idea? Read the Sondhi's quote again - it's about "wrong" people, not "wrong" parties. There were some detailed accounts of this proposal where they explain who the target is - corrupt politicians who use money to control the elections. When elected, they do not even think about representing the people - they have huge debts and favours to repay as well as steal as much as possible for themselves.

There's absolutely nothing about "wrong" parties or wrong policies there.

Parties are made up of people - there is no intrinsic value in a "party" without its members. You're welcome to think that the PAD would be heralding New Politics were the Democrats in power, but I'd have to agree to differ.

The PAD scheme does not advocate functional constituencies voted in by the public; only that 70% of MPs would be "selected" or "appointed" to represent them. This begs the obvious question, selected by whom? My guess (and it is only a guess but I don't see it as far-fetched) is that it would be judges and/or bureaucrats - I think this is what the article means by moving power to the urban establishment.

That's a legitimate concern. However, the selection process can be made a lot more transparent than nationwide elections once every five years that give out blank checks to unnamed people.

But who selects the selectors? The PAD's scheme puts another level of priveleged souls between the people and their rulers - actually two levels; the selectors themselves, and the selectors' selectors (and who selects them?). How many of these two groups would themselves be elected/accountable to the public? It adds complexity and does nothing to increase transparency. Your scheme on that front is even worse, with multiple series of elections which would very quickly lead to voter-fatigue.

One big advantage is that there must be certain criteria for every position, something that simply doesn't exist in the current system. Apart from the Foreign Minister, no one in the current cabinet would pass even the first round of applications. Rigged selection or not, you won't see spa owners reading up how to run Finance Ministry on the Internet or Mr Happy Toilets. We've really got nothing to lose here.

Cabinet members have to have a degree here, and that's already too much regulation as far as I'm concerned; I've brought this up before. John Major could never have become the UK PM for instance as he didn't have a degree, and Thatcher was a chemist. The only criterion for an individual to become an MP should be for them to get themselves elected by their constituents (obviously without corruption, which the beefed up EC seems to be handling well). If they don't do a good job in cabinet, they get sacked by the PM: if they don't do a good job in the House, they get sacked by their constituents. I guess it comes down to how precious you consider democracy, and how much you entrust the public. Recent comments of your's lead me to believe that you don't think much of either. At best.

PAD was concerned with getting representation in parlament for every social group instead of parlament filled with relatives of feudal lords in slavery of big money - that would surely be an improvement. You attack them on non-essential or non-existent issues - who will do the selecting, they don't want certain parties and so on.

Depending upon how representative you want the system to be, there aren't enough seats in parliament for every group to be represented; you'd need almost as many seats as there are voters and then still someone will feel left out. Groups can already get representation by directly approaching their member or via lobby groups. Don't get the attention they believe they deserve? Fine: vote them out next time around. It really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp and serves most of the free world admirably well. Better education of the voting public to make them understand their rights would be a good idea.

How you can think that the importance of who does the selecting is either a non-essential or non-existent issue is bizarre. It is the exact opposite of both (and didn't you just say above that it's a "legitimate concern"?).

Unlike Western democacies, Thailand doesn't have 200 years to mature. Globalisation doesn't wait and it doesn't give second chances. You screw once, and you'll be in the cesspit forever. Just look at Philippines.

Where did 200 years come from? I was talking about the state of democracy only around a generation ago; perhaps even closer when compared to some western democracies which are still going through growing pains, like Italy's. In the meantime Thailand still continues to grow, foreign businesses continue to come in, and the people are, slowly but surely, living better lives.

My opinion is still that forcing this abomination upon the people would do more harm than good to the natural progression of democracy in the country. Your rebuttals haven't done anything to change my view.

[thaigene2]

They haven't changed my view either.

Funny how (despite the best efforts of some above) most of the foreigners reading this can't be brainwashed either. Funnier - or perhaps sadder still - that the Thai people appear the most brainwashed in the world? How many countries have fought with their own students not once - but twice - to control thought and keep so-called "loyal" right-wing elements in control? (yes, I know the US and others did this..but only once right - and they learned a painful back-lash lesson? Any lessons here? Could history repeat itself? Is the anti-democrat 'hand' in motion now?). Thai people - the masses - deserve so much better than this irreverant dismissal. But the end game will probably mean less voice for the people. I think many would agree that's where this will probably end up in coming days or months.

[Tony Clifton]

Am travelling, but had to log in with this Freudian typo from the current Nation front page. Guess it'll get amended soon:- or maybe not?

Regards

PS I'll be back

I skipped over that. Thanks for bringing it up as it is so appropriate.

I thought it was a forensic reconstruction of how a PM was cornered into a washroom by journalists.

[phupaman]

Hi All.

What do you think of Pm Samak's principle? On tv you see him calling on the leaders of the PAD to surrender themselves to the police , and on the other hand he say's he has no intention of asking UK

for Thaksins extradition or canceling his diplomatic passport. Talk about double standards.

phupaman