Thai Politics Simplified

[jaideeguy]

I've been mistified by the events of the last couple of months.....the Bangkok Post, Nation, educated Thai friends and falangs 'in the know' haven't been able to simplify the situation, until I ran across this article today from The New York Times that all of a sudden makes it easier to understand.

I coppied and pasted it for other's that are confused to read. Any educated comments appreciated, especially English speaking Thais................

News Analysis

Power of the People Fights Democracy in Thai Protests

By SETH MYDANS

Published: September 11, 2008

BANGKOK — It looks a lot like a “people power” revolution, the kind of brave and joyous pro-democracy uprising that has toppled dictators from the Philippines to Serbia.

For more than two weeks, thousands of people have camped on the grounds of the prime minister’s office, cheering and clapping as speakers with microphones have stood on the back of a truck and called for the downfall of the government.

But in fact the protest is more like a counterrevolution by the Thai establishment against the rising electoral power of the mostly rural poor.

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority. The new order the protest proposes would roll back democracy by replacing an elected Parliament with one that is mostly appointed, keeping power in the hands of the country’s royalist, bureaucratic, military elite.

“This is a very weird situation where a reactionary movement is mobilizing people by using conservative ideology mixed with leftist language,” said Prajak Kongkeerati, a leading political scientist at Thammasat University.

In the vision of the protesters, power would run top-down, as it does in the hierarchy of traditional Thai society.

The confrontation reflects a dynamic that is visible throughout the region: an underclass that is growing in power and an entrenched establishment that is pushing back.

The government, for its part, is hardly democratic, pursuing autocratic policies and seeking to neutralize the checks and balances of the Constitution. It is the friendly successor to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006 after a six-year tenure during which he worked to centralize power in his own hands while cracking down on the free press and on independent organizations.

Whichever way the confrontation ends, analysts say, democracy is unlikely to be the winner.

Although Thailand has in recent years been seen as a beacon of democracy in Asia, the system has always been tenuous, plagued by coups and corruption.

Since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, its governments have been unstable and mostly short-lived coalitions, scrapping and replacing their constitutions 17 times. They have been subject to two corrective forces particular to Thailand: repeated intervention by the military and by the monarchy.

“We can say that every government has a policy platform that has an urban bias,” Mr. Prajak, the political scientist, said. “So when elections come, they court the support of the rural vote. But when they are in power, they formulate policy that favors the urban and industrial sector.”

Because of this, he said, “we have an unequal growth between the agricultural sector and the industrial sector.

“This gives us the very high gap in income distribution.”

Mr. Thaksin tapped into this disparity, placing the poor at the center of his governing strategy with populist policies like low-cost health care and debt relief. Poor and rural voters found their voice in voting for him, creating an overwhelming electoral base that gave him and his allies increasing economic and political power that some saw as a challenge to the monarchy.

The People’s Alliance is a self-contradictory mix of royalist elites, generals and business professionals with some liberal democrats, students and trade unionists, united only by their opposition to the pro-Thaksin government.

But at its core, the People’s Alliance would move Thailand away from the basic democratic principle of one person one vote, Mr. Prajak said. “Many Thai elite don’t believe in that,” he said.

The People’s Alliance would return the country to a 20-year-old model of “semi-democracy,” in which the bureaucracy and the military have a role in politics and business professionals share a voice with elected representatives, Mr. Prajak said.

In their resistance to democracy, the protesters are squarely in a political camp that has roots deep in Thai history, said Thongchai Winichakul, a professor of Southeast Asian history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

“The P.A.D. is a variation of the deep-rooted hierarchical society,” he said. “In a nutshell, it’s a kind of distrust of the people.”

He added: “You can find this idea beginning in the late 19th century, when King Chulalongkorn said Thai people do not want democracy, that Thai people trust the king.

“Throughout all the years that kind of idea remained,” Mr. Thongchai said. “People are not ready.”

[Moonrakers]

I've been mistified by the events of the last couple of months.....the Bangkok Post, Nation, educated Thai friends and falangs 'in the know' haven't been able to simplify the situation, until I ran across this article today from The New York Times that all of a sudden makes it easier to understand.

I coppied and pasted it for other's that are confused to read. Any educated comments appreciated, especially English speaking Thais................

News Analysis

Power of the People Fights Democracy in Thai Protests

By SETH MYDANS

Published: September 11, 2008

BANGKOK — It looks a lot like a "people power" revolution, the kind of brave and joyous pro-democracy uprising that has toppled dictators from the Philippines to Serbia.

For more than two weeks, thousands of people have camped on the grounds of the prime minister's office, cheering and clapping as speakers with microphones have stood on the back of a truck and called for the downfall of the government.

But in fact the protest is more like a counterrevolution by the Thai establishment against the rising electoral power of the mostly rural poor.

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

I stopped reading there.

[DP25]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

[wangsuda]

During this time of political crisis in Thailand, many groups are bandying the word "democracy." Samak is a defender of democracy, the PAD is an alliance for democracy, and various groups (and newspapers) state that Thailand's democracy has been superseded by the current political troubles. Unfortunately, no one seems to know what "democracy" means. Ancient democracy was a governmental system through which everyone voted on everything. Modern democracy is characterized as a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (and we all know how much Thai politicians pay for their votes. Nothing is free in Thai elections). It is also a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges (where drivers of a Mercedes Benz cannot mow over people and be let off without even a slap on the wrist). By the definition of both ancient and modern democracy, Thailand does not have democracy. If I was to nitpick on what form of government Thailand has, and base this judgment on Thailand's performance of "democracy" over the past 75 years, I would call it a "timocracy" (a form of government in which ambition for power and glory motivates the rulers; a form of government in which political power is in direct proportion to property ownership).

[samtam]

Well said wangsuda!

[sabaijai]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

Agreed. I found the article somewhat naive and uninformed.

[citizen33]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

Agreed. I found the article somewhat naive and uninformed.

Sometimes a distant observer can see the wood for the trees, while the perspective of many TV regulars is distorted by their longstanding dislike of Thaksin.

[jaideeguy]

"If I was to nitpick on what form of government Thailand has, and base this judgment on Thailand's performance of "democracy" over the past 75 years, I would call it a "timocracy" (a form of government in which ambition for power and glory motivates the rulers; a form of government in which political power is in direct proportion to property ownership"...............

but, isn't that true of most democracies?? Who controls Amerika??????? the lobiests and corporations that make the laws and wars and $$$$!!!!

[jaideeguy]

The truth is IMHO......Thais like to change their rulers like they change their panties, almost daily because if not changed, they stink.

Too bad Amerika doesn't change their leaders more often.......

ps, I'm an Amerikan and i change my panties daily!!

[wangsuda]

But this thread isn't about America, it's about Thailand. And my comment was about the proper use of words when describing the Thai system of government. Thailand has, on paper, a constitutional monarchy that, in reality, is a timocratic monarchy. And there is nothing wrong with that. Each country is entitled to chose their own form of government.

Who controls Amerika?

You could, through the use of initiative and referendum. By knowing your rights under the Constitution, you can accomplish a lot.

[onlooker]

Bear in mind PPP did win 70 seats more than the Democrats and this was with the military leaders and the establishment trying to stop them - so hardly a level playing field. The Democrats were supposed to win but, as usual, managed to screw it up.

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

If I was to nitpick on what form of government Thailand has, and base this judgment on Thailand's performance of "democracy" over the past 75 years, I would call it a "timocracy" (a form of government in which ambition for power and glory motivates the rulers; a form of government in which political power is in direct proportion to property ownership).

Spot on Wangsuda! The PPP and PAD are only interested in their own power. They don't give a sh!t about the people. Personally. I would be in favor of a return to an absolute monarchy. A benevolent monarch is preferable to any of the corrupt pseudo-democracies in SEA.

[Merlin]

Personally. I would be in favor of a return to an absolute monarchy. A benevolent monarch is preferable to any of the corrupt pseudo-democracies in SEA.

yes, I agree.

The trouble is, it won't be easy to get rid of those that have weaseled their way into what power they have now.

It would be like asking directions from a redneck:

"oh, you can't get there from here..." [Jeff Foxworthy]

[Pierrot]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

Agreed. I found the article somewhat naive and uninformed.

Honestly, the press all over the world more or less agrees with this analysis.

Naive ? Uninformed ? It's not because you really want something that it will become a reality. Otherwise I would be Warren Buffett and happily married with Marilyn Monroe.

By the way, the coalition (will it last, that's an other question) in power got the majority of the votes. If you don't agree, please read above paragraph.

Edited September 14, 2008 by Pierrot

[Andrew Hicks]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

Agreed. I found the article somewhat naive and uninformed.

Honestly, the press all over the world more or less agrees with this analysis.

Naive ? Uninformed ? It's not because you really want something that it will become a reality. Otherwise I would be Warren Buffett and happily married with Marilyn Monroe.

By the way, the coalition (will it last, that's an other question) in power got the majority of the votes. If you don't agree, please read above paragraph.

The PAD has been short on policies but has recently come clean and said that it wants an appointed government, not one elected by the rural masses. They are vulnerable to vote buying and so elect representatives who are only interested in recovering the money spent on votes and not promoting the interests of the poor farmers.

The PAD do think the people should have some votes though and suggest they should elect 30% of MPs.

In other words they are ducking the issue of reforming elective democracy and abolishing it instead, thus returning power to the old urban power interests.

That is the broad picture the foreign press has to describe in a few paragraphs.

Thaksin and Samak were hardly fine proponents of popular democracy but at least they were chosen by an electoral majority.

I too have written about all this on my blog but cannot of course give you the URL.

Andrew Hicks

[Pierrot]

In other words they are ducking the issue of reforming elective democracy and abolishing it instead, thus returning power to the old urban power interests.

That is the broad picture the foreign press has to describe in a few paragraphs.

Thaksin and Samak were hardly fine proponents of popular democracy but at least they were chosen by an electoral majority.

I too have written about all this on my blog but cannot of course give you the URL.

Andrew Hicks

I don't believe "urban" is the right word. Traditional Thai society is divided in two; the ruling class and the "rural idiots" as my dear friend Steve call them. The problem is we have an army with generals and soldiers but nobody in between. Then the "middle men" had to be imported. To cut a long story short, we have now a conflict between the people who believe they have an "historic" right to run this country, who have always act as referees and get handsomely rewarded for that, and the people who effectively run the country and are tired of the inefficiency of the old system.

As far as the western press is concerned, the new comers have a good understanding of the “democracy” game, with all its flaws, but play by the rules. On the other hand, the other side hasn’t realized yet the world has changed and still dreams of a return to a past that doesn’t exist anymore.

I may agree with some that the “democrats’ may be a more honest bunch that the Taksin crowd but as long as they refuse to play the “democracy” game, they don’t deserve to be in charge of this country.

[Los78]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

THe party has the majority of votes. So with the help of a coallition they are a majority. Same system in most other muliti party democracy. Dont they teach you that at school?

[Los78]

In other words they are ducking the issue of reforming elective democracy and abolishing it instead, thus returning power to the old urban power interests.

That is the broad picture the foreign press has to describe in a few paragraphs.

Thaksin and Samak were hardly fine proponents of popular democracy but at least they were chosen by an electoral majority.

I too have written about all this on my blog but cannot of course give you the URL.

Andrew Hicks

I don't believe "urban" is the right word. Traditional Thai society is divided in two; the ruling class and the "rural idiots" as my dear friend Steve call them. The problem is we have an army with generals and soldiers but nobody in between. Then the "middle men" had to be imported. To cut a long story short, we have now a conflict between the people who believe they have an "historic" right to run this country, who have always act as referees and get handsomely rewarded for that, and the people who effectively run the country and are tired of the inefficiency of the old system.

As far as the western press is concerned, the new comers have a good understanding of the "democracy" game, with all its flaws, but play by the rules. On the other hand, the other side hasn't realized yet the world has changed and still dreams of a return to a past that doesn't exist anymore.

I may agree with some that the "democrats' may be a more honest bunch that the Taksin crowd but as long as they refuse to play the "democracy" game, they don't deserve to be in charge of this country.

Yes exactly. And that goes for any political group PAD.

[retiredusn]

Not being from Thailand and only enjoy a one year visa at a time I believe that it is in NO way my place to comment on which party is right or wrong, but only to keep my thoughts to myself. And strongly believe where-ever you are from is where you should be thinking of your own goverment.

Have a nice day in your country of visit.

[Samuian]

But in fact the protest is more like a counterrevolution by the Thai establishment against the rising electoral power of the mostly rural poor.

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

I stopped reading there.

Same, same, I stopped here too.... simply not true! PR in the works?

[PREM-R]

There is nothing democratic about PAD. They are not a political party, they turned a legitimate protest into anarchy by attacking the TV station and invading the government properties. They advocate allowing only 30% of members of parliament to be elected by the people, the rest to be appointed (by them?). The truth is that Thailand has dishonesty, self-interest and corruption in its DNA, you can change the faces, you can change the names of the players but they are all cursed by their own agenda's which do not include making the life of the average Thai better.

[Pierrot]

... only to keep my thoughts to myself. ..

Agreed, it would be a good idea

Just joking. A lot of us are somehow, directly or indirectly, linked to Thailand. It’s clear for my wife that we will retire in Thailand, therefore it will the place where I’m going to finish my days. You will excuse me if I’m a bit concerned of what happened there …

[wangsuda]

There is nothing democratic about PAD. They are not a political party, they turned a legitimate protest into anarchy by attacking the TV station and invading the government properties. They advocate allowing only 30% of members of parliament to be elected by the people, the rest to be appointed (by them?). The truth is that Thailand has dishonesty, self-interest and corruption in its DNA, you can change the faces, you can change the names of the players but they are all cursed by their own agenda's which do not include making the life of the average Thai better.

EXACTLY! You can also change your first line to read, "There is nothing democratic about Thai politics." When you examine the definition of "democratic," and "democracy," you fill fin that Thailand (like many other nations) does not have this. There is nothing democratic in Thai government or in Thai voting policies. It's that simple.

[steveromagnino]

I don't believe "urban" is the right word. Traditional Thai society is divided in two; the ruling class and the "rural idiots" as my dear friend Steve call them. The problem is we have an army with generals and soldiers but nobody in between.

Please don't misquote me.

I call the people they elect rural idiots/gangster party.

I in no way consider all the people in the rural electorates to be idiots OR gangsters.

But I stand by my comment that the people these voters choose to elect, based on my personal dealings with them, a family member's opportunity to become a TRT MP, several consulting projects to aspects of both sides of the house - that almost without exception the MPs from the rural areas tend to fall into those categories - rural idiots (i.e. just a local twit of some sort) or some sort of gangster.

Banharn is a good example of the first - no education, inept, twit.

Chalerm or Wattana Awavahame is a good example for the second.

BTW in your analysis, the people in the middle are the educated middle class, mostly based in Bangkok but increasingly a few in the urban areas throughout Thailand.

These are the long suffering group, since they pay the taxes which funds all the popularist stuff, but don't get to participate in the skim of running governments.

PAD and this group are NOT the same thing.

[dumball]

... only to keep my thoughts to myself. ..

Agreed, it would be a good idea

Just joking. A lot of us are somehow, directly or indirectly, linked to Thailand. It's clear for my wife that we will retire in Thailand, therefore it will the place where I'm going to finish my days. You will excuse me if I'm a bit concerned of what happened there …

Perfectly good thinking , the major problem here is , for all your comments , suggestions , ideas , statistics etc , you will never be able to do anything constructive about it , today , tomorrow or the day after . You can get your knickers in a knot with each other as much and as often as you wish , but nothing will come of it . IMHO , better to spend your time in a more productive manner " What is the most appropriate way for us to live with these frustating idiots that hold the riens of power so we can live a 'Normal ' life here in Thailand where we are only considered as GUESTS .

[Groongthep]

The government the protest seeks to bring down, whatever its faults, was democratically elected with a huge majority.

It's amazing how the foreign press keeps on repeating this. How exactly is 36% of the vote a huge majority? It's almost like they're being deliberately misleading.

Agreed. I found the article somewhat naive and uninformed.

Honestly, the press all over the world more or less agrees with this analysis.

Naive ? Uninformed ? It's not because you really want something that it will become a reality. Otherwise I would be Warren Buffett and happily married with Marilyn Monroe.

By the way, the coalition (will it last, that's an other question) in power got the majority of the votes. If you don't agree, please read above paragraph.

Pierrot is right. In it's September 4 edition the respected British magazine The Economist describes the political situation in Thailand very similarly to the New York Times article quoted above. Economist Leader on Thai Politics

I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that the NY Times referred to the 36% share of the vote won by PPP last year as a huge majority but it still was a 20% greater vote count than the 30% that the Democrats won. An election victory of twenty percent while maybe not huge is still significant enough to be classified as a landslide victory.

What I found particularly interesting in the Economist leader was this excerpt: (speaking of Samak)... "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. 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."

Edited September 14, 2008 by Groongthep

[Wrong Turn]

During this time of political crisis in Thailand, many groups are bandying the word "democracy." Samak is a defender of democracy, the PAD is an alliance for democracy, and various groups (and newspapers) state that Thailand's democracy has been superseded by the current political troubles. Unfortunately, no one seems to know what "democracy" means. Ancient democracy was a governmental system through which everyone voted on everything. Modern democracy is characterized as a government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system (and we all know how much Thai politicians pay for their votes. Nothing is free in Thai elections). It is also a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges (where drivers of a Mercedes Benz cannot mow over people and be let off without even a slap on the wrist). By the definition of both ancient and modern democracy, Thailand does not have democracy. If I was to nitpick on what form of government Thailand has, and base this judgment on Thailand's performance of "democracy" over the past 75 years, I would call it a "timocracy" (a form of government in which ambition for power and glory motivates the rulers; a form of government in which political power is in direct proportion to property ownership).

Great post.

I also think that the western concept of "democracy" is not beneficial to all societies, depending on how the votes are structured (e.g. one-vote per one-person, which is part of the cause of the polarization.)

I prefer representative democracy but there are negatives to it.

[steveromagnino]

I feel that it is indeed unfortunate that the NY Times referred to the 36% share of the vote won by PPP last year as a huge majority but it still was a 20% greater vote count than the 30% that the Democrats won. An election victory of twenty percent while maybe not huge is still significant enough to be classified as a landslide victory.

Actually, IIRC the Dems and the PPP got almost the exact same amount of the popular vote, with the Dems actually receiving slightly more in a similar to Bush vs. Gore popular vote vs. vote allocation to the seats issue.

So no, not some massive majority especially when we consider the promise of ChartThai to form a coatition with the Dems prior to the election and then a jump ship as typical of Banharn's style post election.

The Economist and all these other papers plus many of the posters here see this as either Thai people are PPP or they are PAD, and no one goes out and asks the more educated people who actually pay the taxes or in fact many of the farmers and so forth, who they really like.

If they did that, I bet many would not like either group and yet cannot see a way democratically to have governments where the king deal makers are not guys like Sanoh, et al.

In this regard, much of the western media seem unable to grasp the reality of the situation.

And lest anyone say how can so many be so wrong, I reference Enron, the glowing glorious energy company that for so many years could do not a single thing wrong worldwide; every journalist (including Economist) loved everything that they did. And yet it was mostly built on PR, bluff and bull.

As my old Latin teacher said, even monkeys fall from trees. The Economist, Goldman Sachs etc painted themselves into a corner quite early on when they professed much love for the Thaksinomics especially since there is no real economic philosophy involved. And much of the rest of the world in media terms are so pro democracy these days they also see the entire world in terms of us and them. Easy, just like boxing. But rather wrong.

The right system for Thailand IMHO is a pure democracy, as it works now, but with genuine penalties for conflicts of interest, corruption, vote buying and independent oversight of the budget and budget allocation process; removing the ability of MPs to shift state work to their own personal empires; purchase PTT shares and so forth. The entire country should be run on a full house non partisan developed 10 year rolling budget and oversight for many activities shifted out of direct govt control to the Bank of Thailand (a process matched in USA/UK/NZ incidentally, where the bank is actually somewhat independent from the finance ministry); the judiciary is completely independent and there is MASSIVE punishment for the likes of Thaksin, Kamnan Poh, Samak, Yongyuth type large scale corruption - I am thinking executions, stoning, that sort of thing.

Ideally the lobby system would be eliminated as per NZ in the 84 Labour Young Turks/National govt years.

Rural people would thus get to vote for who they wanted, but there would be controls to stop the state sponsored vote buying non sustainable policy party fest approach of politics. With less incentives, the jao por types would gradually die out. Major punishment solves the issue of breaking the law.

I don't think any of this is even remotely new. But how to get there, especially over the bodies of the local king makers like Sanoh.....that is the issue.