'new Politics' And The Pad Challenge

[sabaijai]

'New Politics' and the PAD challenge

By Suriyasai Katasila

Source: Manager Online, 25 June 2008

“A challenging proposal by the leaders of the PAD is the 70:30 model, where 70 percent of political officeholders will be appointed while 30 percent will be elected. This can be counted as a start or an initiative for society to consider and debate more widely.”

---

The PAD mobilized hundreds of thousands of people through the barricades of police and has been successful in seizing the area in front of Government House without the violence that many sides had feared. The PAD also built a huge permanent stage at Chamaimaruchet Bridge and has been holding regular speeches similar to the ones held earlier at Makawan Rangsan Bridge.

The issue that has raised the interest and questions from the media and which has developed into a debate among a larger group is the proposal by the five leaders regarding the establishment of a “new politics”. It is a critique of the current parliamentary politics which has not been able to heal or solve the national crisis in a timely manner.

The new politics has become a political discourse that different groups have tried to understand, interpret, and expand, and concerns have been raised that the PAD has a special or hidden agenda behind this new flagship policy.

As coordinator of the PAD, I have been quite familiar with the thoughts of the five PAD leaders from meeting with them both inside and outside meeting rooms.

I feel that the new flagship policy by the five PAD leaders which calls for the “joint establishment of a new politics” will raise the level of the struggle of the PAD leaders and supporters.

Although this raising of the level might sound too advanced or beyond the understanding of the general public, it needs to be discussed and proposed. We must be brave and light a spark before everything is too late, or else, if we can compare the country to a fish, we will leave only the bones for the next generation.

If we look at the establishment of the PAD two or three years ago to campaign against Thaksin Shinawatra and to expose the evil of the Thaksin regime to the public, we were campaigning back then under the theme of “national liberation”. In the end, although Thaksin was ousted through the coup and the Thaksin regime was removed to a certain extent, everything did not end there.

Things turned out to be worse after the election, and we now have a nominee government, and it is clear that Thai politics is heading back to the Thaksin system, with the re-emergence of Thaksin Shinawatra, and the political capitalists from the former Thai Rak Thai camp.

For these reasons, calls for the resurrection of the PAD could not be avoided. Under the new circumstances, the battle standard of the alliance is a new banner and larger than the one before. We call for “the overthrow of the Thaksin system and the ouster of the puppet government”. This will be “the last battle of national liberation”.

At the same time, we have declared a new war calling for nation-building under a new political discourse. We are calling to go beyond parliamentary politics, or 4-second democracy, or the cult of using elections to determine everything.

This “new politics” in the eyes of the PAD is a politics that will be people-centred. The power of representatives will be reduced while the role and power of the people will be increased.

No one can deny that parliamentary or representative democracy has been ridiculed around the world as being limited and incapable of facing world crises where evil capital is in control of things. The worldwide international movement of democratic development therefore has begun to give importance to reforming the democratic system so as to strengthen the participation of the people.

In some countries, especially in Scandinavia, not only is the role and decision-making power of elected-representatives decreased, decision-making power has been increasingly transferred to the people as the direct owners of sovereignty in the form of public hearings and referenda.

New politics in the sense of new democracy must not only give importance to the source and process of decision-making alone, but must create guarantees that people from all occupations and all classes will have access to decision-making power or will set the direction of national development in a concrete way, whether they are farmers, workers, the urban poor, the rural poor, marginalized ethnic peoples, traders, middle-class businesspeople, women, the disabled, or the socially disadvantaged.

This not only means that the proportion of seats in the legislative branch (MPs-senators) must be structured to guarantee diversity representation, but at the same time the executive branch needs to create space for these groups at the same level.

A challenging proposal by the leaders of the PAD is the 70:30 model, where 70 percent of political officeholders will be appointed while 30 percent will be elected. This is only the starting point to spark wider discussions and debates in society.

The details or model of the new politics needs knowledgeable people, academics, educational institutions, universities and different sectors to debate a structure to go beyond the cult of elections where capital rules and the country can be bought, while the people have only the right to vote obediently.

Many people may be curious as to how to start. Will there have to be a revolution or a coup? Will the constitution have to be torn up, or will a national or interim government be needed? But I feel that the means might not be as important as the principles. If society today wants to see the importance and the urgent necessity to build the nation and a new politics, the structure of the process might not be difficult and might be easier than we think and will not reach the level of violence in the city as many fear.

Today, the People’s Alliance for Democracy asks to take up the banner and promises to fight with all who love justice. The last war to overthrow the Thaksin system was just a transition to the holy war of joining together for the establishment and the realization of a new politics.

[jumnien]

Will the Thai people accept the PAD wish for 70% militarist bozos and 30% elected representation? He_l No! The PAD has really hit an all-time low with this farce. Their true colors are showing and many of the naive zombies who were caught up in their publicity are dropping away in disgust.

[Los78]

Utter rubbish from the (People Against Democracy). We will never fall for your hidden agendas for Thailand. Come on. The 70:30 model is just hidden military dictatorship. Long live a Democraticlly elected Government.

[plachon]

Will the Thai people accept the PAD wish for 70% militarist bozos and 30% elected representation? He_l No! The PAD has really hit an all-time low with this farce. Their true colors are showing and many of the naive zombies who were caught up in their publicity are dropping away in disgust.

Are you able to read? Or are you blinded by the light? Now where does it say anything about giving 70 % of seats to the military? It talks about devolving power to the people in a way that money politics has not been able to. PAD are no more likely to accept a military-controlled govt than anyone. In fact less so. They want real change in Thai politics, not "4 second demoncracy" of the sort you Thaksinistas adore.

Yes, their true colours are beginning to show - this is a battle cry for real change to wash the "evils" that Toxin personified away. Good luck to them I say, if they can deliver. No one should have any illusions that real change will not come without a long and arduous struggle - same as its ever been. The question is, at what cost will it come?

[hammered]

This PAD proposal seems quite outlandish to me. By the way I think this is actually old news as the proposal has been discussed for some time now.

Maybe if someone wanted to address the problems of local money politcs and unfairness they could suggest a more democratic system than the present one such as proportional representation on a countrywide basis. That would mean all votes were equal and hence the system would be more democratic than any to date. No votes would be wasted by those with different opinions to most in their constituency. It would also mean local powerbrokers had less power.

For the latter reason it will never happen.

[chuang]

Totally rubbish the 70/30 New Polictics..PAD is trying to get in via the back door just like their counterpart the Democrat Party.

PAD leaders Sondhi and Chamlong used to be Thaksin's buddies but now they are venomous toward him and anything and anyone connected to him. How come? not paid enough...

[clausewitz]

It is clear that Plachon is correct. Anyone disagreeing with PAD must be against Thailand and the Royal Family.

It will be an easy matter to decide the 70% of members who are selected, as this will be done by Chamlong Sri Maung and Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the Dear Leaders of PAD. If there is any disagreement between them they can consult The Little Red Book or Lenin's "How can you make a revolution without executions" for a definitive answer. We can look forward to a bright future where the proletariat are led wisely by elite minds.

All Proles are equal, but some proles are more equal than others.

[Meerkat]

A few critiques of this nonsense in Prachatai here, here and here, along with one from the Nation/Thai Rath.

Limiting elected politicians and giving the military legitimate grounds to intervene in government. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. You gotta wonder if half those in PAD rallies are actually aware of what they're protesting for.

[plachon]

New politics in the sense of new democracy must not only give importance to the source and process of decision-making alone, but must create guarantees that people from all occupations and all classes will have access to decision-making power or will set the direction of national development in a concrete way, whether they are farmers, workers, the urban poor, the rural poor, marginalized ethnic peoples, traders, middle-class businesspeople, women, the disabled, or the socially disadvantaged.

This not only means that the proportion of seats in the legislative branch (MPs-senators) must be structured to guarantee diversity representation, but at the same time the executive branch needs to create space for these groups at the same level.

A challenging proposal by the leaders of the PAD is the 70:30 model, where 70 percent of political officeholders will be appointed while 30 percent will be elected. This is only the starting point to spark wider discussions and debates in society.

The details or model of the new politics needs knowledgeable people, academics, educational institutions, universities and different sectors to debate a structure to go beyond the cult of elections where capital rules and the country can be bought, while the people have only the right to vote obediently.

I think this is the critical sentence that riles the Thaksinistas so much. They have clung onto the cult of elections so strongly as being the only legitmacy that Toxin had, that when new models are proposed they go into paroxysms of fear that their corrupt world will collapse around them. The thought that there could be a different/alternative model of politics, when the old model has been such an abject failure is just too much to bear I guess.

Many people may be curious as to how to start. Will there have to be a revolution or a coup? Will the constitution have to be torn up, or will a national or interim government be needed? But I feel that the means might not be as important as the principles. If society today wants to see the importance and the urgent necessity to build the nation and a new politics, the structure of the process might not be difficult and might be easier than we think and will not reach the level of violence in the city as many fear.

Today, the People’s Alliance for Democracy asks to take up the banner and promises to fight with all who love justice. The last war to overthrow the Thaksin system was just a transition to the holy war of joining together for the establishment and the realization of a new politics.

[jumnien]

Will the Thai people accept the PAD wish for 70% militarist bozos and 30% elected representation? He_l No! The PAD has really hit an all-time low with this farce. Their true colors are showing and many of the naive zombies who were caught up in their publicity are dropping away in disgust.

Are you able to read? Or are you blinded by the light? Now where does it say anything about giving 70 % of seats to the military? It talks about devolving power to the people in a way that money politics has not been able to. PAD are no more likely to accept a military-controlled govt than anyone. In fact less so. They want real change in Thai politics, not "4 second demoncracy" of the sort you Thaksinistas adore.

Yes, their true colours are beginning to show - this is a battle cry for real change to wash the "evils" that Toxin personified away. Good luck to them I say, if they can deliver. No one should have any illusions that real change will not come without a long and arduous struggle - same as its ever been. The question is, at what cost will it come?

Ah, there's nothing like a large cool goblet of the PAD kool-aid to make one really think!

[Meerkat]

It's a holy war now? So having already used the Monarchy and nationalism to whip up support, they're now turning to religion?

Oh God [sic].

[h90]

Utter rubbish from the (People Against Democracy). We will never fall for your hidden agendas for Thailand. Come on. The 70:30 model is just hidden military dictatorship. Long live a Democraticlly elected Government.

Yes I would also like to see a democratically elected government, but how to get one?

The last 3 or so were not democratically elected!

[jumnien]

'New Politics' and the PAD challenge

By Suriyasai Katasila

Source: Manager Online, 25 June 2008

"A challenging proposal by the leaders of the PAD is the 70:30 model, where 70 percent of political officeholders will be appointed while 30 percent will be elected. This can be counted as a start or an initiative for society to consider and debate more widely."

---

The PAD mobilized hundreds of thousands of people through the barricades of police and has been successful in seizing the area in front of Government House without the violence that many sides had feared. The PAD also built a huge permanent stage at Chamaimaruchet Bridge and has been holding regular speeches similar to the ones held earlier at Makawan Rangsan Bridge.

The issue that has raised the interest and questions from the media and which has developed into a debate among a larger group is the proposal by the five leaders regarding the establishment of a "new politics". It is a critique of the current parliamentary politics which has not been able to heal or solve the national crisis in a timely manner.

The new politics has become a political discourse that different groups have tried to understand, interpret, and expand, and concerns have been raised that the PAD has a special or hidden agenda behind this new flagship policy.

As coordinator of the PAD, I have been quite familiar with the thoughts of the five PAD leaders from meeting with them both inside and outside meeting rooms.

I feel that the new flagship policy by the five PAD leaders which calls for the "joint establishment of a new politics" will raise the level of the struggle of the PAD leaders and supporters.

Although this raising of the level might sound too advanced or beyond the understanding of the general public, it needs to be discussed and proposed. We must be brave and light a spark before everything is too late, or else, if we can compare the country to a fish, we will leave only the bones for the next generation.

If we look at the establishment of the PAD two or three years ago to campaign against Thaksin Shinawatra and to expose the evil of the Thaksin regime to the public, we were campaigning back then under the theme of "national liberation". In the end, although Thaksin was ousted through the coup and the Thaksin regime was removed to a certain extent, everything did not end there.

Things turned out to be worse after the election, and we now have a nominee government, and it is clear that Thai politics is heading back to the Thaksin system, with the re-emergence of Thaksin Shinawatra, and the political capitalists from the former Thai Rak Thai camp.

For these reasons, calls for the resurrection of the PAD could not be avoided. Under the new circumstances, the battle standard of the alliance is a new banner and larger than the one before. We call for "the overthrow of the Thaksin system and the ouster of the puppet government". This will be "the last battle of national liberation".

At the same time, we have declared a new war calling for nation-building under a new political discourse. We are calling to go beyond parliamentary politics, or 4-second democracy, or the cult of using elections to determine everything.

This "new politics" in the eyes of the PAD is a politics that will be people-centred. The power of representatives will be reduced while the role and power of the people will be increased.

No one can deny that parliamentary or representative democracy has been ridiculed around the world as being limited and incapable of facing world crises where evil capital is in control of things. The worldwide international movement of democratic development therefore has begun to give importance to reforming the democratic system so as to strengthen the participation of the people.

In some countries, especially in Scandinavia, not only is the role and decision-making power of elected-representatives decreased, decision-making power has been increasingly transferred to the people as the direct owners of sovereignty in the form of public hearings and referenda.

New politics in the sense of new democracy must not only give importance to the source and process of decision-making alone, but must create guarantees that people from all occupations and all classes will have access to decision-making power or will set the direction of national development in a concrete way, whether they are farmers, workers, the urban poor, the rural poor, marginalized ethnic peoples, traders, middle-class businesspeople, women, the disabled, or the socially disadvantaged.

This not only means that the proportion of seats in the legislative branch (MPs-senators) must be structured to guarantee diversity representation, but at the same time the executive branch needs to create space for these groups at the same level.

A challenging proposal by the leaders of the PAD is the 70:30 model, where 70 percent of political officeholders will be appointed while 30 percent will be elected. This is only the starting point to spark wider discussions and debates in society.

The details or model of the new politics needs knowledgeable people, academics, educational institutions, universities and different sectors to debate a structure to go beyond the cult of elections where capital rules and the country can be bought, while the people have only the right to vote obediently.

Many people may be curious as to how to start. Will there have to be a revolution or a coup? Will the constitution have to be torn up, or will a national or interim government be needed? But I feel that the means might not be as important as the principles. If society today wants to see the importance and the urgent necessity to build the nation and a new politics, the structure of the process might not be difficult and might be easier than we think and will not reach the level of violence in the city as many fear.

Today, the People's Alliance for Democracy asks to take up the banner and promises to fight with all who love justice. The last war to overthrow the Thaksin system was just a transition to the holy war of joining together for the establishment and the realization of a new politics.

Utter rubbish from the (People Against Democracy). We will never fall for your hidden agendas for Thailand. Come on. The 70:30 model is just hidden military dictatorship. Long live a Democraticlly elected Government.

Yes I would also like to see a democratically elected government, but how to get one?

The last 3 or so were not democratically elected!

Do you agree that the Democrats should be dissolved and Abhisit should be banned for believeing the previous elections to be democratic?

[Rajah]

This "new" politics is not so new. It's called corporatism:

Under fascism in Italy, business owners, employees, trades-people, professionals, and other economic classes were organized into 22 guilds, or associations, known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body.

Now you know where the PAD stands if you haven't known before.

Details about corporatism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporativism

[Martin]

PAD have a lot of explaining to do if they are to convince people (if that is possible) that this is other than a battle-cry of "Forward to 1931!"!!

The first question that should be asked of them is obviously "Who will do the appointing?".

We are a long way (at least a generation---approximately thirty years) from where the present stalemate produced by a General Election on the FIrst-Past-The-Post system will be superseded.

I expect that Isaan and most of the North will continue to go along with TRT, PPP, and anything it changes into, for as long as the answer to my question: "What do you think of the Democrats?" draws a snappy reply of: "We not take Chuan!". And that will be at least a generation.

The perception is that the Democrats looked after the exploiters (middle and power classes) in Bangkok and the southern provinces and shafted the folk of Isaan. So they have a lot of winning of hearts and minds up here to do before they (or, rather, the next generation of them) will be accepted.

In the meantime, there is the other big thing; but I am not mentioning that, since I don't want my contribution to be trashed by the moderators.

[hammered]

This "new" politics is not so new. It's called corporatism:

Under fascism in Italy, business owners, employees, trades-people, professionals, and other economic classes were organized into 22 guilds, or associations, known as "corporations" according to their industries, and these groups were given representation in a legislative body.

Now you know where the PAD stands if you haven't known before.

Details about corporatism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporativism

Giles Ungpakorn pretty much recently summed up the current politcl division as one between a government led by a facist PM with a cabinet of crooks and gangsters versus a facist PAD. I think he also more or less labelled the Dems as serial electoral failures who had little appeal to the masses.

I dont agree with everything the guy says but that analysis while bleak is pretty hard to deny.

[ratcatcher]

It is clear that Plachon is correct. Anyone disagreeing with PAD must be against Thailand and the Royal Family.

It will be an easy matter to decide the 70% of members who are selected, as this will be done by Chamlong Sri Maung and Sonthi Boonyaratglin, the Dear Leaders of PAD. If there is any disagreement between them they can consult The Little Red Book or Lenin's "How can you make a revolution without executions" for a definitive answer. We can look forward to a bright future where the proletariat are led wisely by elite minds.

All Proles are equal, but some proles are more equal than others.

Begging your pardon but might you have meant Sondhi Limthonkul of Manager Media Group?

I believe Sonthi Boonyaratgalin was chairman of the C.N.S. and led the coup in 2006.

[h90]

PAD have a lot of explaining to do if they are to convince people (if that is possible) that this is other than a battle-cry of "Forward to 1931!"!!

The first question that should be asked of them is obviously "Who will do the appointing?".

We are a long way (at least a generation---approximately thirty years) from where the present stalemate produced by a General Election on the FIrst-Past-The-Post system will be superseded.

I expect that Isaan and most of the North will continue to go along with TRT, PPP, and anything it changes into, for as long as the answer to my question: "What do you think of the Democrats?" draws a snappy reply of: "We not take Chuan!". And that will be at least a generation.

The perception is that the Democrats looked after the exploiters (middle and power classes) in Bangkok and the southern provinces and shafted the folk of Isaan. So they have a lot of winning of hearts and minds up here to do before they (or, rather, the next generation of them) will be accepted.

In the meantime, there is the other big thing; but I am not mentioning that, since I don't want my contribution to be trashed by the moderators.

I don't think a switch to such a system is possible. A more possible solution would be to make the laws against vote buying and fraud stronger and faster. So they can really kick them out in a few weeks instead of month and put them in jail.

That would fix the problem after a few elections (which will be pretty fast)

[Gravelrash]

Appoint a non elected government and you get them for life. No doubt some interesting deals been done already with the various vested interests wanting to get their snouts permanently in the trough, before this announcement was made. It is an attempt at a fascist take over pure and simple, even the military weren't game to try this one on.

Thailand is not Singapore where this type of thing works. Give an old failed idea a nice new label "new politics" to hide what it really is, unfortunately despair with the current mob may make people more receptive.

Finally PAD shows what they really stand for, amazes me some twits here actually fall for it too.

[Nampeung]

Go PAD... guarantee diversity representation - exactly what's needed if Thailand is to move forward

[Plus]

I looked at Prachathai articles and Corporativism entry in Wikipedia. They are all ingoring important points and arguing nonsensical ones.

The reality, and the problem for "democracy", is that the military appointed government was a lot more responsive and open than the current one, or TRT governments before the coup.

The damning label that it was "military appointed" doesn't tell the whole picture either, and that's the most important point - NLA members, or half of the current Senate, were selected from people representing vaious sectors of society who came forward, and some were voted in by their respective assosiations, and they did a stellar job comparing to the current House.

The outcome is overall more representative of the society than any of the "elected" MPs. NLA has passed maybe a hundred bills, many were vigorously debated. Government had a very hard time in the House, some of their bills had to be withdrawn altogether. Current House hasn't done absolutely anything, and they all vote along party lines set last December, issues don't matter.

Then the government - it is assumed that the ruling party would select people from professional fields, economists to run Finances, doctors to manage health care and so on. Instead we have brothers and wives and assorted imbeciles running the country, and half of them are facing court battles, and there's no way anyone can do anything about it for the next four years.

Face it, our MPs are representatives only on paper, and even on paper lots of groups have been left out. Who represents farmers, for example? None of the farmer parties have made it to the Parlament, and they make up nearly 50% of the population. Under PAD proposed system farmers would be guaranteed to have representation. George Hatchison from Prachathai is having a good time deriding all those groups that were mentioned or excluded from Suriyasai's list, but when would it occure him that realistically "new politics" system is the only way for any of them to have their people in parlament at all? Fine, add women organisations, or gay, the details can be thrashed out later.

Look at it this way - instead of only geographical consituency based system we have now, we'll have a profession based system complementing it. Profession isn't really the right word, but I think you know what I mean.

The question "who will do the selecting" can be solved easily - let the groups nominate and vote on their representatives themselves. The really tough question is what should be each group's quota, but that can also be sorted out later.

Bottom line - peole will get to vote more - not only for someone from their neighbourhood, but for someone from their profession, too.

[h90]

Appoint a non elected government and you get them for life. No doubt some interesting deals been done already with the various vested interests wanting to get their snouts permanently in the trough, before this announcement was made. It is an attempt at a fascist take over pure and simple, even the military weren't game to try this one on.

Thailand is not Singapore where this type of thing works. Give an old failed idea a nice new label "new politics" to hide what it really is, unfortunately despair with the current mob may make people more receptive.

Finally PAD shows what they really stand for, amazes me some twits here actually fall for it too.

Learn Thai history before you post nonsense. Without a history book no one can tell how many non elected government Thailand had which handed over power to democracy again. Everything depends on the person in power.

[Nampeung]

Excellent recent post Plus, my thoughts exactly

[ray23]

A Question not a statement. The Pad is in my mind definetly involved in the Political system here. Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

[Plus]

Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

Because they don't believe in the current electoral system?

[jumnien]

A Question not a statement. The Pad is in my mind definetly involved in the Political system here. Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

Because parties and elections are silly things for democracies; PAD (People Against Democracy) are way beyond that!

[MrSnrang]

I don't see how having a bunch of corrupt, lazy, inept, and selfish appointed officials would differ from the current elected government.

[Meerkat]

A Question not a statement. The Pad is in my mind definetly involved in the Political system here. Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

Sondhi would have to divest himself of his media empire for starters. It's also a lot easier protesting from outside parliament rather than from inside, where there are greater standards of oversight (as the PPP are now discovering for example).

[plachon]

A Question not a statement. The Pad is in my mind definetly involved in the Political system here. Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

Perhaps because: 1/ They can't afford the entry costs required for Thai politics; 2/They are a diverse bunch of folk who are not easily bunched under the same political banner beyond a desire to see the end of Thaksin's domination of Thailand's political economy; and 3/ As Plus says, they oppose the present electoral system posing as "democracy" that has been co-opted by an elite of businessmen politicians who use the parliamentry process purely for their own financial gain.

PAD is not by definition a political party, but a diverse political movement united by a few common goals. Achieve those and it will cease to exist.

[plachon]

A Question not a statement. The Pad is in my mind definetly involved in the Political system here. Why didn't it formally become a party and run in the elections?

Sondhi would have to divest himself of his media empire for starters. It's also a lot easier protesting from outside parliament rather than from inside, where there are greater standards of oversight (as the PPP are now discovering for example).

You mean the standards upheld by Chai Chidchob?