What The West Needs To Learn About Democracy From Thailand

[gregb]

Several hundred years from now, history will define democracy in the 20th and early 21st century as "tyranny imposed by manipulating poor and uneducated voters."

What we need is a realistic alternative to democracy. Thailand has an excellent chance hear to be a beacon to the world right now, by abandoning democracy and putting something better in its place. Much like the American revolution 200+ years ago, it is time for another great experiment. The West will suffer this same fate as Thailand eventually as the deindustrial age ensues tracking down the energy depletion curve. As per capita income decreases, there simply is no ability to look beyond immediate survival needs. The human brain's discount function guarantees that all will be abandoned for immediate needs, and the future will be sacraficed in the process. It is at this point when the poor can be manipulated to give their votes to tyrants, as has currently happened in Thailand. If it can happen in Thailand today, it can happen in the West years from now when incomes have collapsed.

The only thing that saves countries like the US right now from this fate is that poor people don't vote as a rule. As the middle class who is used to voting becomes the poor who vote out of force of habit, you can expect a similar situation to arise.

I applaud the PAD for recognizing that democracy as it is implemented today is a sham, and we need a replacement system that is workable for the future.

Comments? (Hoping for a lively discussion..)

[GuestHouse]

Several hundred years from now, history will define democracy in the 20th and early 21st century as "tyranny imposed by manipulating poor and uneducated voters."

It takes a certain 'boldness' of imagination to come up with such wild statements... Usually of the 'induced' kind.

[willywonker]

PAD arent interested in helping anyone other then themselves and they dont have the brains to form some wonderful Utopian alternative, unless a dictatorship is the dream.

Poor people do vote in LOS thats what seems to be the problem, why do you need a education to be able to have the intelligence to know which party is best for you?

As for poor people in the US not voting, there are only almost identical liberal parties that bow to corporations to choose from, so from that point of view it hardly makes a difference if they vote or not.

Edited September 4, 2008 by willywonker

[Spee]

Several hundred years from now, history will define democracy in the 20th and early 21st century as "tyranny imposed by manipulating poor and uneducated voters."

.........

What we need is a realistic alternative to democracy. Thailand has an excellent chance hear to be a beacon to the world right now, by abandoning democracy and putting something better in its place.

"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."

Do Dee Do Doo .... Do Dee Do Doo

[Spee]

As for poor people in the US not voting,

If the poor in Thailand were to have what the poor in America have (on average), they would hardly be considered poor, would they? (edit: regardless of whether or not they vote, or who they may choose to vote for)

Edited September 4, 2008 by Spee

[taxexile]

gregb , your post is nothing but a crock of delusional madness , the sort of rubbish put together by people who imagine themselves to be brave new revolutionaries but who are in fact dysfunctional loners with skin conditions stuck in sticky bedsits in wolverhampton or walsall.

Thailand

Worse than a coup

Sep 4th 2008

From The Economist print edition

An authoritarian rabble should not be allowed to turf out a deeply flawed but popularly elected government

EPA

STANDING up for democracy sometimes entails standing up for some unappealing democrats. Thailand’s pugnacious prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, is an especially hard man to defend. A ferocious rightist, Mr Samak was accused of inciting the policemen and vigilantes who slaughtered dozens of unarmed student protesters in Bangkok in 1976. On becoming prime minister following the election last December that restored democratic rule after a 2006 coup, Mr Samak chose for his cabinet some of the most unsavoury figures linked to the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in the coup. But with the army on the streets of Bangkok again, Mr Samak is for once, if not in the right, then at least less wrong than those calling for his head.

His government is deeply flawed. But it would be wrong and dangerous if the authoritarian rabble who have seized Government House in Bangkok forced it out of office. After violent clashes between supporters and opponents of the government, Mr Samak this week declared a state of emergency in Bangkok (see article). The army chief backed his decision, but by mid-week was still ruling out the use of force to clear the squatters out. If the protesters, the woefully misnamed People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), do succeed, democracy in Thailand—not so long ago a beacon, by Asian standards, of pluralistic politics—will be in grave danger.

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.

The palace and a Burmese road to ruin

As in the build-up to the 2006 coup, PAD leaders are trying to oust a popular government on the bogus pretext of “saving” Thailand’s revered King Bhumibol from a supposed republican plot. Some of the PAD protesters reportedly believe their sit-in has the crown’s tacit backing. Almost anywhere else, the police would have removed them, forcibly if necessary, by now. But it is whispered that the PAD has protectors “on high”—hardline army generals and possibly figures in the royal palace (though not the king himself). This may be nonsense; but by preventing the discussion and hence refutation of such royal rumours, Thailand’s harsh, much-abused lèse-majesté law has the ironic effect of helping them spread.

In the official version of modern Thai history, the king is the great defender of peace and democracy, who comes to the rescue at moments of crisis. Now would seem to be one such moment: some wise words from the king could do much to defuse tension. Thais like to believe they are good at seeking compromise to avoid conflict. But there has been little sign of compromise in the past three years, and there is now the risk of a bad one. The elected government might be forced out of office to pacify the PAD’s demagogues, it might be made to share power with the undeserving opposition Democrat party, which has shown little leadership while waiting for power to be handed it on a plate, or, as in Bangladesh, a civilian front might provide a cloak for de facto military rule.

It is just possible to imagine a decent compromise in which Mr Samak gives way to a more emollient figure from the ruling coalition—and the PAD and its supporters in the army, the bureaucracy and (if they exist) the royal palace accept the verdict of the people. But the PAD’s leaders may well not stop until they have imposed their own, undemocratic vision of Thailand. In this sense they are even more pernicious than the coupmakers of 2006, who at least promised to restore elected government and, under popular pressure, did so.

Prosperous, modern and open, Thailand has so far inhabited a different era from the dark ages in which its dismal neighbour, Myanmar, languishes under a thuggish, isolationist junta. Thailand’s foreign friends should make clear to the Thai elite that toppling elected governments would be a step backwards. As Myanmar has found, it might also court sanctions. Foreign tourists, seeing the unchecked disorder on their television screens, including blockades of some airports, may soon be imposing a boycott of their own.

[Spee]

Thailand

Worse than a coup

Sep 4th 2008

From The Economist print edition

An authoritarian rabble should not be allowed to turf out a deeply flawed but popularly elected government

EPA

STANDING up for democracy sometimes entails standing up for some unappealing democrats.

........................

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.

.........................

The palace and a Burmese road to ruin

Well thought out and written summary of the current situation and the resolve that Thailand needs to find within itself.

[willywonker]

As for poor people in the US not voting,

If the poor in Thailand were to have what the poor in America have (on average), they would hardly be considered poor, would they? (edit: regardless of whether or not they vote, or who they may choose to vote for)

If the poor in Somalia had what the poor in Thailand have they would hardly be considered poor.

[Spee]

As for poor people in the US not voting,

If the poor in Thailand were to have what the poor in America have (on average), they would hardly be considered poor, would they? (edit: regardless of whether or not they vote, or who they may choose to vote for)

If the poor in Somalia had what the poor in Thailand have they would hardly be considered poor.

I wouldn't consider the Somali's or others in the region to be poor. I would consider them to be impoverished, completely detached and disenfranchised from the rest of the world. For all intents and purposes, they are non-persons by deliberate acts of tyranny.

To be considered poor, a nation's people need to at least have something by which to be measured. They have no representative government. They have no means to grow basic food staples. They have little if any access to clean water. They have little if any access to basic medical care. There is no educational system to speak of.

There is a big difference between being poor and being impoverished. While things could certainly be better in Thailand (as in any other country), by and large Thailand is a self-sufficient country and the vast majority of the people are or can be at least be self-sufficient.

[nidhogg]

What we need is a realistic alternative to democracy. Thailand has an excellent chance hear to be a beacon to the world right now, by abandoning democracy and putting something better in its place.

Oh dear. Best advert against legalization of drugs I have seen in a while.

Anyway. I think Sir Winston Churchill said it best:

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Sir Winston Churchill

British politician (1874 - 1965)

[steveromagnino]

Thailand

Worse than a coup

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.

Well thought out and written summary of the current situation and the resolve that Thailand needs to find within itself.

I normally enjoy the Economist, but this is a bit of a strawman article, given that the Dems govt prior to Thaksin already had cheap healthcare, and all parties in the last election promised both cheap healthcare and credit.

It also of course fails to point out that both schemes were mired in corruption and totally non sustainable. It doesn't mention the miriad of rather undemocratic things that TRT/both the PPP coalition and the TRT governments engaged in - removing almost all checks and balances e.g. NCCC, NTC, influencing all non elected appointments, buying the supposedly non partisan senate, massive media intimidation.

And of course, it doesn't mention that PPP was NOT elected by the majority of voters; the current coalition indeed was elected by the majority.

If they held another election again, it is quite possible that PPP would not be able to form a coalition; after all theoretically there could have been a non PPP government had all smaller parties not joined with PPP, they did not have an absolute majority as this article would imply.

The Economist sees this as a PAD vs. elected majority argument. I think it is better to describe this as a PAD minority vs. PPP minority vs. the rest of us majority many of which who:

- don't like that the only major action from the PPP coalition to date has been to try to ammend laws to protect themselves from their own cheating endeavours in the last election, and to reinstate the former PM by manipulating a constitution that was voted for by the majority of Thais in the referendum held on that subject

- don't like that the PAD are trying to claim royal/popular backing and trying to eliminate true democratic process (incidentally one likely outcome of which would be the dissolution of PPP and other parties for many of their transgressions in the last election) with an unelected majority

- don't like that Samak has chosen to issue a state of emergency which was not required, and has proven that he does not know how to run a country

- don't like that both the PAD and the UDP/PPP are paying people now to form mobs (fact: several of my friends have been earning a nice income just by wandering around with the right coloured shirts)

- don't like that for the last 8 years we have had successive governments that have failed the electorate with non sustainable popularist policies rather than genuine attempts to create long term sustainable competitive advantage in industry, health, education and the well being of the Thai people and the Thai economy

- don't like that we have had almost the same rural political clans in power since 1992; factions that show no allegiance to any political ideology, but merely to maximising their own personal benefits and aligning themselves with the political powers that are willing to give them the largest skim

- don't like that known criminals and criminal families such as alleged drug dealer Watana Asavahame, alledged casino boss Chalerm Yoobumrung, alledged vote buyer and organiser of multiple riots Newin Chidchob have remained major political forces under successive governments and continue to be able to intimidate their electorates to continue voting for them with no effective check in balance since democratic process does not exist in their electorates with no serious oposition figure willing to stand against them

When the Economist starts becoming more Charlemagne and a little less Fox Channel, I might start reading anything they write about Thailand and stop laughing while doing so.

Edited September 5, 2008 by steveromagnino

[PeaceBlondie]

I am too lazy to look up the quote attributed to Churchill: "Democracy may be the worst form of government, but it is better than all other forms." With what do you choose to replace it: totalitarianism? A malignant monarchy? Rule by the rich and powerful, with no regard to the lower classes? Rule by philosopher-kings? Burmese-style ruthless rule by degenerate generals?

You need not be formally educated to vote intelligently. You do need to be informed of the truth. Few people here are informed. Surely not I.

I suggest that Thailand learn from the West's mistakes with democracy, or from its own mistakes.

[stingray]

I think it's just a matter of who will fill up his pocked next.

[Wrong Turn]

Several hundred years from now, history will define democracy in the 20th and early 21st century as "tyranny imposed by manipulating poor and uneducated voters."

It takes a certain 'boldness' of imagination to come up with such wild statements... Usually of the 'induced' kind.

Tyranny, democracy, oligarchy, mon...., etc., has always been about manipulating the poor and uneducated voters.

And, a hundred years from now, it will be practiced.

[GuestHouse]

The point missed by the OP is that the problems being faced by the current Thai government are a direct result of the poor in Thailand having democratically elected a government that is (like it's predecessor TRK) poised to shift the balance of power in Thai society.

It is a direct failure of an assumed understanding of how the Poor in Thailand would vote (shock horror they got it wrong) that has lead to the demonstrations and it is the demonstrations themselves that are an attempt to remove a legitimately elected government - and therefore by definition an attempt to install a tyrant. Democracy has let the poor out of their place, it is the attempt of tyranny to put them back again.

There is a lesson to learn - A popular uprising and targeted strikes (this is all being choreographed) can bring down a government - It is a lesson that might just come in handy at some time in the future - Certainly returning that Genii to it's lamp is no easy task - One that in Thailand will almost certainly result in bloodshed, though perhaps not on this particular occasion.

The lessons are not for the west, they are all for Thailand and the odds are that many of us will get to see these lessons being learned - perhaps a 'tragedy' is a more apt description than a 'lesson'.

I also think that while it is natural that Western TV members, myself included, will view these happenings with Western eyes, caution needs to be at hand when applying the language and thinking of Western Class Conflicts - For very many reasons, the causes and resolutions of conflict in Thai society are widely different than those in British or other societies.

[GuestHouse]

If you want to find an Asian example for the future of Western society then don't look at Thailand - do what Tony Blair did and look at Singapore - The Surveillance Society - Citizens replaced by 'ID Card Holders' to be digitally scanned, records in a database, monitored and taxed.

A society where the 'Delete Button' is the ultimate sanction against the 'ID Card Holder'.

Aldous Huxely saw it coming - Get ready to live it, starting when you next update your passport.

[Wrong Turn]

I also think that while it is natural that Western TV members, myself included, will view these happenings with Western eyes, caution needs to be at hand when applying the language and thinking of Western Class Conflicts - For very many reasons, the causes and resolutions of conflict in Thai society are widely different than those in British or other societies.

Great post and great points.

If I may ask, GH: as a westerner who do you think is in the right, if anyone/party is at the moment?

Of course you don't have to ask. Perhaps you don't favor one or more sides.

I am only asking because I don't know what is the better option, and do not know what is "fair."

Is one vote per one person, fair?

[jackyseymour]

Several hundred years from now, history will define democracy in the 20th and early 21st century as "tyranny imposed by manipulating poor and uneducated voters."

What we need is a realistic alternative to democracy. Thailand has an excellent chance hear to be a beacon to the world right now, by abandoning democracy and putting something better in its place. Much like the American revolution 200+ years ago, it is time for another great experiment. The West will suffer this same fate as Thailand eventually as the deindustrial age ensues tracking down the energy depletion curve. As per capita income decreases, there simply is no ability to look beyond immediate survival needs. The human brain's discount function guarantees that all will be abandoned for immediate needs, and the future will be sacraficed in the process. It is at this point when the poor can be manipulated to give their votes to tyrants, as has currently happened in Thailand. If it can happen in Thailand today, it can happen in the West years from now when incomes have collapsed.

The only thing that saves countries like the US right now from this fate is that poor people don't vote as a rule. As the middle class who is used to voting becomes the poor who vote out of force of habit, you can expect a similar situation to arise.

I applaud the PAD for recognizing that democracy as it is implemented today is a sham, and we need a replacement system that is workable for the future.

Comments? (Hoping for a lively discussion..)

And how will they contact the Angels from Heaven, the Paragons of Virtue, free from vice, who will make up the members of the House of Unelected Masters, whose sincerity for the wellbeing of their underlings, will never have to be doubted? No. Didn't think so.

[gregb]

gregb , your post is nothing but a crock of delusional madness , the sort of rubbish put together by people who imagine themselves to be brave new revolutionaries but who are in fact dysfunctional loners with skin conditions stuck in sticky bedsits in wolverhampton or walsall.

Well, I have to admit, the vitriol here isn't quite as bad as I was expecting, however may I suggest it is the cultural narratives and myths we have been raised with, rather than any individual, that is dysfunctional and delusional.

While this may be difficult, try to step back and see what is really there. Democracy today as a form of government is broken, and needs to be reformed. Some of the ideas are not necessarily bad, but they won't work in practice during the coming era of energy depletion. Communism (as implemented) as a form of government was also a laudable goal, but it didn't work either and for the most part has been abandoned. Democracy will follow the same path eventually.

BTW, the original intent of the framers of the US Constitution was that it would be a republic, NOT a democracy. There is a big difference. And there is alot of value in studying history and understanding this point.

We do have a problem here, and one point of this thread was to hope to find some of the more interesting ideas people may have about ways to fix the problems. Granted, I intentionally chose a rather provocative way to begin it. I will defend the statement to any of you who care to discuss.

[GuestHouse]

If I may ask, GH: as a westerner who do you think is in the right, if anyone/party is at the moment?

My (western) opinion is let the democratically elected government run its term of office and then go back to the electorate to see who should run the country.

These demonstrations and strikes are being orchestrated as a direct challenge to the process of democratic elections - That is the path to tyranny and it is the Thais who ought to be learning the lessons of the West on that front.

I'd recommend they start with Augustus.

[Samuian]

PAD arent interested in helping anyone other then themselves and they dont have the brains to form some wonderful Utopian alternative, unless a dictatorship is the dream.

Poor people do vote in LOS thats what seems to be the problem, why do you need a education to be able to have the intelligence to know which party is best for you?

As for poor people in the US not voting, there are only almost identical liberal parties that bow to corporations to choose from, so from that point of view it hardly makes a difference if they vote or not.

To be not as patronizing and a bit fair, replace "brains" with "dreams", PLEASE!

It is a misconception that it has to do with being "poor", it's again the centuries old "patronage system" it is EXPECTED from "the guys" to pay up, to show their generosity, how much they "care" about their "subordinates" if he is " a nice guy", big spender, "khun jai dee" he is in... nobody "votes" it is done for them - also generosity! They don't have to feel "bothered".

Their vote would make a difference, but they keep falling prey to the age old patronage system, it's not Taksin or Samak, it's the people like the "Pu Yai Baan", the "Kemnan" the village and county chiefs, they listen to in the first place and they in turn support their supporters... a new pick up truck, road illumination, name it may move worlds!

It's TiT - live, as is!

Edited September 5, 2008 by Samuian

[Wrong Turn]

If I may ask, GH: as a westerner who do you think is in the right, if anyone/party is at the moment?

My (western) opinion is let the democratically elected government run its term of office and then go back to the electorate to see who should run the country.

These demonstrations and strikes are being orchestrated as a direct challenge to the process of democratic elections - That is the path to tyranny and it is the Thais who ought to be learning the lessons of the West on that front.

I'd recommend they start with Augustus.

Thanks for the insight, GH.

It seems that there is obiously a division in LOS. And by the recent events since the coup in 2006, it seems that this division will continue.

[steveromagnino]

The point missed by the OP is that the problems being faced by the current Thai government are a direct result of the poor in Thailand having democratically elected a government that is (like it's predecessor TRK) poised to shift the balance of power in Thai society.

It is a direct failure of an assumed understanding of how the Poor in Thailand would vote (shock horror they got it wrong) that has lead to the demonstrations and it is the demonstrations themselves that are an attempt to remove a legitimately elected government - and therefore by definition an attempt to install a tyrant. Democracy has let the poor out of their place, it is the attempt of tyranny to put them back again.

THe ironic thing with this is people believe there is some massive shift, that suddenly the rural poor are choosing a new type of MP to represent them.

The reality is for most rural areas, the same political clan is in power now that was in power in the Baharn govt, the Chavalit govt, the Chuan govt and the TRT and PPP govts. The faces are the same, or if banned, the last name is the same and the face is the wife/husband/child or the previous MP.

How can this possibly be any sort of change when the rural poor are voting exactly the same way as they did before?

The only real difference is that the ways in which the factions are brought together and funded to form a government has changed, and the amount of skim needed to keep each faction happy (thanks to the extra layer of administration cost) has increased. In addition, the ability to use marketing and government money as incentives to get the rural poor and the city folk to vote one way or another has increased, while the actual direct handing out of cash is still very popular but arguably has decreased.

The problem is the elected government are attempting to circumvent the law; using the doctrine of 'well they were the elected majority' was the approach TRT took in completely reducing the free press to free coffee and AIS SIM cards for favoured members of the press with law suits and ruin for the ones who didn't tow the line. Ditto for the Muslim lawyer, the entire southern 3 provinces and every independent non elected body.

The question arises, if they cheated should PPP or any other parties be allowed to stay? Their answer....let's change the rules. Why? Because we were the elected majority.

Samak has entirely brought this on himself; had he even shown the slightest talent at being a PM, we would be in the first year euphoria of TRT again....instead..... he has shown himself to be totally incapable of governing. State of Emergency, what a joke.

Of course, all PPP supporters like to remind all that this is a Bush style us and them; there is in fact a sizeable group (me included) that consider a middle 3rd path to be key to solving the current issues.

It Charoen wanted to become PM tomorrow, he could easily do so, as the cost per MP in the ruling majority at the moment is (my estimate based on gut feel and past experience) in the realm of 60-100m baht per person.

Therefore, with an investment of something like 18 billion baht, I can be PM. And I don't have to care less what a single rural person thinks, I will just use the exact mechanic that TRT/PPP do now; invest that in becoming govt, and then milk that amount back through a variety of policies and means thereafter.

It is like a casino paying out jackpots.

All I would then have to do is ensure i could not be elected out, so I give away free stuff and more importantly keep my MPs happy; I remove all ability to be judged by any independent bodies (NGOs, media, comissions) and put my own guys into the army and police just in case.

How this is in any way more or less reflective of what the poor want who knows; they just keep voting for the same people, and they get paid to protest a bit and hit some people with sticks from time to time.

Edited September 5, 2008 by steveromagnino

[Denim]

Dear gregb, you don't know me but please could you send me some of the stuff you've been smoking as I have been unable to find anything locally. It must be good gear to induce you to believe that the west has anything whatsoever to learn from Thai politics except how to play musical chairs around the trough.

[thaihome]

The point missed by the OP is that the problems being faced by the current Thai government are a direct result of the poor in Thailand having democratically elected a government that is (like it's predecessor TRK) poised to shift the balance of power in Thai society.

It is a direct failure of an assumed understanding of how the Poor in Thailand would vote (shock horror they got it wrong) that has lead to the demonstrations and it is the demonstrations themselves that are an attempt to remove a legitimately elected government - and therefore by definition an attempt to install a tyrant. Democracy has let the poor out of their place, it is the attempt of tyranny to put them back again.

THe ironic thing with this is people believe there is some massive shift, that suddenly the rural poor are choosing a new type of MP to represent them.

The reality is for most rural areas, the same political clan is in power now that was in power in the Baharn govt, the Chavalit govt, the Chuan govt and the TRT and PPP govts. The faces are the same, or if banned, the last name is the same and the face is the wife/husband/child or the previous MP.

How can this possibly be any sort of change when the rural poor are voting exactly the same way as they did before?

The only real difference is that the ways in which the factions are brought together and funded to form a government has changed, and the amount of skim needed to keep each faction happy (thanks to the extra layer of administration cost) has increased. In addition, the ability to use marketing and government money as incentives to get the rural poor and the city folk to vote one way or another has increased, while the actual direct handing out of cash is still very popular but arguably has decreased.

The problem is the elected government are attempting to circumvent the law; using the doctrine of 'well they were the elected majority' was the approach TRT took in completely reducing the free press to free coffee and AIS SIM cards for favoured members of the press with law suits and ruin for the ones who didn't tow the line. Ditto for the Muslim lawyer, the entire southern 3 provinces and every independent non elected body.

The question arises, if they cheated should PPP or any other parties be allowed to stay? Their answer....let's change the rules. Why? Because we were the elected majority.

Samak has entirely brought this on himself; had he even shown the slightest talent at being a PM, we would be in the first year euphoria of TRT again....instead..... he has shown himself to be totally incapable of governing. State of Emergency, what a joke.

Of course, all PPP supporters like to remind all that this is a Bush style us and them; there is in fact a sizeable group (me included) that consider a middle 3rd path to be key to solving the current issues.

It Charoen wanted to become PM tomorrow, he could easily do so, as the cost per MP in the ruling majority at the moment is (my estimate based on gut feel and past experience) in the realm of 60-100m baht per person.

Therefore, with an investment of something like 18 billion baht, I can be PM. And I don't have to care less what a single rural person thinks, I will just use the exact mechanic that TRT/PPP do now; invest that in becoming govt, and then milk that amount back through a variety of policies and means thereafter.

It is like a casino paying out jackpots.

All I would then have to do is ensure i could not be elected out, so I give away free stuff and more importantly keep my MPs happy; I remove all ability to be judged by any independent bodies (NGOs, media, comissions) and put my own guys into the army and police just in case.

How this is in any way more or less reflective of what the poor want who knows; they just keep voting for the same people, and they get paid to protest a bit and hit some people with sticks from time to time.

Steve,

This post and your others are truely great posts. You are really good at explaining the true issues. My mother-in-law (and everyone else in the district) have voted like Sanoh have told them to for the past 20 year and will continue to do so forever. I think their vote is meaningless and that is not democracy.

TH

Edited September 5, 2008 by thaihome

[steveromagnino]

Steve,

This post and your others are truely great posts. You are really good at explaining the true issues. My mother-in-law (and everyone else in the district) have voted like Sanoh have told them to for the past 20 year and will continue to do so forever. I think their vote is meaningless and that is not democracy.

TH

thank you TH, but not sure how wise it really is; it always sounds almost good in my head though :-)

Sanoh is the classic example of a TRT politician who got disillusioned when the amount of payment for his loyalty reduced by more and more. As most people are aware, he was a member of all previous governments IIRC since the Anant non elected govt of 1992, and is widely considered to be a guy you have to have to keep in power.

For every supporter of TRT and PPP who claims that the rural poor are choosing a new way and the PAD/coup was trying to stop them.... you can look at Sanoh and know that in fact, for the Sa Kaew area where he hails from, not only are there major difficulties to stand against him (and alledgedly he is willing to take physical action against opponents who would dare put up a serious challenge, plus he has the support of the Phoo Yai bahn and so forth as well as some major employers as well as the ability to know who voted for him and who voted against him it is said), but also this is a guy who bends with the wind, so you never really know what you are voting for when you elect him in.

One minute he is a genuine capitalist with the Dems, deregulating the finance industry, allowing foreign businesses to come in, skimming a bit on the way.....the next he is a sometime protectionist with TRT supporting only FTAs and deregulation that don't actually affect him.

If it is indeed true that he holds interests in the casinos across the border as is alleged (alongside fine upstanding citizens such as Wattana Asavahame, an MP banned from travelling to USA as the result of drug trafficking in the past) then you can bet the big push for casinos in Pattaya was probably NOT to his liking unless he was up for a slice; more likely he would have been pushed out by rival faction of the Khunpluem family also known as teh group led by Kamnan Poh; another guaranteed election winner everytime this time in Chonburi.

It would take someone very very brave to front up with a serious challenge that started to cut into either of these people's business interests; ditto for the various other factions that make up the bulk of the PPP and PPP coalition partner parties (and for the most part made up large chunks of the various other governments pre TRT).

If the so called BKK Elite (who I have never met sadly) represent the old power that are apparently bent on some sort of fuedal system, then these factions represent a pseudo fuedal lord who acts under the pretense of democracy.

The real interesting age for Thailand is when we move beyond this, as we have started to do in Bangkok and also a few other areas, where these old name families start getting voted out and instead we start to see genuine responsible government. And one of the only ways to ensure that are checks and balances; the very things that the current government are trying to remove.

What we do not need is non elected officials!!

The pain comes first, the joy comes later.

[aries27]

This is very interesting, very educational for me.

I come from the Philippines (PH). In 1986, we overthrew Marcos government in what we called "People Power" revolution.. Hmmm, just getting updated with Thai politics, but it is well reported in our local media. So now I learn that PPP stands for People Power Party (is this the official name or just the translation to English?)

Anyway, we had another one of those so called "people power stuffs"... yellow clad street protesters in 2001 to topple Estrada. So this is really a very interesting thing to witness as I can relate.

But what is most interesting? Getting the views of "farangs" (thanks to Thaivisa) because I never got a chance to know how the foreigners in Manila (as those "revolutions" only happened in Manila anyway..hardly affecting the provinces) felt at that time. I heard most just packed their bags and left. It seems farangs in LOS feel more attached to Thailand? No one seems to be talking about leaving for good or moving back home? Though moving to neighboring countries like Vietnam or Cambodia seems preferable?

I don't know how things will sort out in Thailand. Maybe it is time for LOS to have its own brand of "democracy"? PH style is very much patterned after the US (which is not such a good example to begin with ...) but in a way, we have managed to come up with something that is Philippine version but seems to be working. We have a very vocal press and people are "noisier" than most Asians. But it seems to be working anyway.. I think. We were often criticized by other Asian leaders for this but this is how we are, more opinionated and more open to expressing ourselves.

This is very educational. I can't offer a good analysis like most of you as I only know LOS as a tourist a few months ago. I can only wish the TVisa people in LOS more safety and peace of mind. It is not likely you will be affected directly like got shot at except if there is real revolution and if that happens (knock on wood), most of you will probably be out of the country anyway. But if you are involved in the tourism industry, no doubt you will be affected. To what extent? Depends on how fast this can be resolved, and how much damage control can be done on how it is portrayed on news overseas.

I do not know what the sentiments of the Thais are. Is tourism (and the money it brings) that important that they are willing to set aside this goal just to keep "peace" in the land and make tourists reassured?

Without assuming that LOS will go the way PH, I would just like to add that we were not really thinking about tourism or the foreigners in our midst when we just wanted to boot out the current administration at that time (which the people, mostly middle class and elite) viewed as abusive.

Maybe, farangs and tourists can analyze, complain, cheer or sneer, but this is something only the Thais will have to decide on their own.

Yes, frustrating. Like watching the US election campaign. You hear the lies, the mudslinging and the way many voters lapped it up. You know one way or another, what happens in the US and the outcome will affect the world, but you know you are powerless to make your voice counted. Same-same feelings maybe?

Praying and hoping that things will not be violent at least.

Reason for edit: spellcheck

Edited September 5, 2008 by aries27

[Gravelrash]

Several hundred years from now, history will define democracy in the 20th and early 21st century as "tyranny imposed by manipulating poor and uneducated voters."

What we need is a realistic alternative to democracy. Thailand has an excellent chance hear to be a beacon to the world right now, by abandoning democracy and putting something better in its place. Much like the American revolution 200+ years ago, it is time for another great experiment. The West will suffer this same fate as Thailand eventually as the deindustrial age ensues tracking down the energy depletion curve. As per capita income decreases, there simply is no ability to look beyond immediate survival needs. The human brain's discount function guarantees that all will be abandoned for immediate needs, and the future will be sacraficed in the process. It is at this point when the poor can be manipulated to give their votes to tyrants, as has currently happened in Thailand. If it can happen in Thailand today, it can happen in the West years from now when incomes have collapsed.

The only thing that saves countries like the US right now from this fate is that poor people don't vote as a rule. As the middle class who is used to voting becomes the poor who vote out of force of habit, you can expect a similar situation to arise.

I applaud the PAD for recognizing that democracy as it is implemented today is a sham, and we need a replacement system that is workable for the future.

Comments? (Hoping for a lively discussion..)

Keep away from those gold topped mushrooms...they are hallucinogenic.

Both the communists and the Nazis thought they had a better system too...and it was, for those in the permanent positions of power. Same thing going on here now.

If democracy offers nothing else, at least it cycles the crooks out of power without lots of people having to be shot first.

[steveromagnino]

If democracy offers nothing else, at least it cycles the crooks out of power without lots of people having to be shot first.

Actually, a lot more people shot in the TRT era than the year of the coup.

Say hello to my leetle personal vendetta says mister jao por, as he gets to eliminate all the naughty guys not on his payroll without any due process.

I bury you cok-a-roaches says PM as he slaughters a few Muslims for no real reason in the South of Thailand, causing civil unrest and unbalancing 3 provinces, the repuccussions of which still are being felt even now 3-4 years later.

Taksin Montana we call him. No need to cycle him out of power, he can just use some proxies until his cash runs out.

[Gravelrash]

Thailand

Worse than a coup

Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin's government and the sad signs that Mr Samak's is no better. The PAD's leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but "new politics"—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too "ill-educated" to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.

Well thought out and written summary of the current situation and the resolve that Thailand needs to find within itself.

I normally enjoy the Economist, but this is a bit of a strawman article, given that the Dems govt prior to Thaksin already had cheap healthcare, and all parties in the last election promised both cheap healthcare and credit.

It also of course fails to point out that both schemes were mired in corruption and totally non sustainable. It doesn't mention the miriad of rather undemocratic things that TRT/both the PPP coalition and the TRT governments engaged in - removing almost all checks and balances e.g. NCCC, NTC, influencing all non elected appointments, buying the supposedly non partisan senate, massive media intimidation.

And of course, it doesn't mention that PPP was NOT elected by the majority of voters; the current coalition indeed was elected by the majority.

If they held another election again, it is quite possible that PPP would not be able to form a coalition; after all theoretically there could have been a non PPP government had all smaller parties not joined with PPP, they did not have an absolute majority as this article would imply.

The Economist sees this as a PAD vs. elected majority argument. I think it is better to describe this as a PAD minority vs. PPP minority vs. the rest of us majority many of which who:

- don't like that the only major action from the PPP coalition to date has been to try to ammend laws to protect themselves from their own cheating endeavours in the last election, and to reinstate the former PM by manipulating a constitution that was voted for by the majority of Thais in the referendum held on that subject

- don't like that the PAD are trying to claim royal/popular backing and trying to eliminate true democratic process (incidentally one likely outcome of which would be the dissolution of PPP and other parties for many of their transgressions in the last election) with an unelected majority

- don't like that Samak has chosen to issue a state of emergency which was not required, and has proven that he does not know how to run a country

- don't like that both the PAD and the UDP/PPP are paying people now to form mobs (fact: several of my friends have been earning a nice income just by wandering around with the right coloured shirts)

- don't like that for the last 8 years we have had successive governments that have failed the electorate with non sustainable popularist policies rather than genuine attempts to create long term sustainable competitive advantage in industry, health, education and the well being of the Thai people and the Thai economy

- don't like that we have had almost the same rural political clans in power since 1992; factions that show no allegiance to any political ideology, but merely to maximising their own personal benefits and aligning themselves with the political powers that are willing to give them the largest skim

- don't like that known criminals and criminal families such as alleged drug dealer Watana Asavahame, alledged casino boss Chalerm Yoobumrung, alledged vote buyer and organiser of multiple riots Newin Chidchob have remained major political forces under successive governments and continue to be able to intimidate their electorates to continue voting for them with no effective check in balance since democratic process does not exist in their electorates with no serious oposition figure willing to stand against them

When the Economist starts becoming more Charlemagne and a little less Fox Channel, I might start reading anything they write about Thailand and stop laughing while doing so.

Well at least somebody agrees with the OP.