Sondhi: I'm Ready To Lead New Politics Party

[jasreeve17]

It's one of those potentially dangerous threads, Hammered...

I like agreement, and middle ground, but some posters in these here parts are less, mmm, giving.

On your last post: I've thought, for a couple of years now, that we need elements of the yellows and elements of the reds to unite and protest for democracy; then there's enough folk for change to come - I reckon there's a fair chance it'll happen after the big event we can't discuss... A split army, less nationalism, merging of 'normal folk' that see past the powermongers on all sides and jointly press for democracy. Ah, beautiful.

[hammered]

It's one of those potentially dangerous threads, Hammered...

I like agreement, and middle ground, but some posters in these here parts are less, mmm, giving.

On your last post: I've thought, for a couple of years now, that we need elements of the yellows and elements of the reds to unite and protest for democracy; then there's enough folk for change to come - I reckon there's a fair chance it'll happen after the big event we can't discuss... A split army, less nationalism, merging of 'normal folk' that see past the powermongers on all sides and jointly press for democracy. Ah, beautiful.

My feeling on the uniting of red and yellow is that the leaderships would inhibit it. In reality when looking at membership there will be many who have supported/sympathised with one or other or even both through their histories who could easily find agreement. However, with the leaderships I think it is different unless there is a challenge to the interests of both groups of leaders. That is a possibility but not a certainty. Leaderships by their nature always have alternative agendas too whereas memebers, supporters and sympathisers can be a lot more pragmatic

Theoretically though I agree with the statement.

[Publicus]

2.1 Support for good people to manage the country and blocking of evil people from coming to power so all sectors of society are ensured justice.

The evil wording is silly and blocking seems bizarre but if it were rewritten as

Support for good peopel to manage the country. Fair and enforcable checks and balances on elected representatives. (Constitutional/legal) Protection for minorites

It would be in line with most democracies. It is really about intent. To be honest a probably quickly worded press release from a protesting group of people really needs to be fleshed out in detail if that group becomes a poltical party. Then again the PAD wont be the only or first party in Thailand to actually have no polices if it pans out that way. There are parties in the current parliament without them! However, to fail to more clearly oputline things would imho undermine any position the PAD party may claim that they are something new. Transparency and clarity should be the first things a reforming party aims for.

I agree with much of what you've written above. Samak had no policies, the PPP had few if any policies, the Dems in opposition to MrT had no policies. It's a big problem here that policies are not part of an election platform, and become quite a hindrance when MPs are finally elected. That's why I'd like to see all political parties flesh out their policies (this isn't unique to Thailand, of course).

But, 'good people' just sounds childish (not from you, but the PAD statement). But, worse than that it's the type of wording that comes from fanatics; 'we're good, you're bad', 'we're black, you're white', 'we're sons of God, you're heathen'... These words create division, they are used to create division, and deserve no acceptance in a democratic society or a society that is trying to develop their democracy...

Thus, I'd suggest that it would not be inline with any democracy. I'm not trying to argue with you Hammered, so let's avoid that road.

Im OK with removing good people. I didnt really look at that as it is obvious everyone wants good people. It is just the definition of good varies widely and may actually have littel to do with a text bok definition of good;)

The checks and balances and protection for minorities seem more important and if trying to be positive about the PAD are two areas they could legitimately campaign and do so without any criticism over democratic intent.

I also find it odd that they have never really looked at mechanisms that are perfectly democratic and used in some countries that limit the potential for tyranny of the majority which has been widely debated by democrats over the years. Things like 2/3 to ammend a constitution, supermajorities in a house for votes on certain issues, constittuional changes needing to be passed in every region or say 2/3 of the prvinces as well as with over 50% natioanlly, proprotional representation spring very quickly to mind. Persoanlly I feel the PAD could have a very valuable role in the development of Thai democracy but I just think they always manage to do it so badly and immediately move to extremes rather than looking at the possibilities within the system and perfectly valid ones at that. There was no need to even suggest the 70-30 thing. I know it is not a written in stone thing and just an example but what a bad example.

Yes, this talk of "good people" in government by PAD is a profoundly flawed way to think or believe. In addition to the reasons pointed out above, talk of putting "good" people into the government only exposes the failures of the existing structure and system of government to include its electoral processes.

Aside from the simplistic Manichian world view such thinking reveals, saying all the country needs in government are good people constitutes the admission that the present systems of government and politics are wide open to abuse, to include corruption, fraud, embezzlement, nepotism etc-- in other words, the very kinds of temptations even many "good" people too often have a weakness for once in power.

Among other things, respective systems of politics and government that are predicated on checks and balances, laws that are clear and equally enforced, ethics, professionalsm, and which have at their core the concept and practice of public service would preclude the foolishly perceived need of only the pure and pius to govern or rule.

Who determines who the pure and the pius are anyway? This matter is a foolish if not dangerous path.

If the structure and organization of the government and the political system of Thailand were sound and viable, there wouldn't be any need to seek the ever elusive fool's gold of finding only "good" people to serve. By its mores and traditions, Thai culture just isn't remotely prepared to deal equitably or fairly with the modern world of wealth and power.

Until these institutional principles are recognized and pursued by Thailand, which would require a radical change of its highly personalized socio-political culture, I'm afraid terrible government and politics invariably will continue to wreak havoc on Thai society, politics and government. This view may disappoint some but the view needs to be stated because it has a proven track record in democracies that are both wealthy and successful at self-governance.

The PAD are crawling down a dead end road but shows no signs of realizing or recognizing the fact.

[Plus]

I would wait for PAD's official platform release before going into criticism. A hastily put together and badly translated declaration from last year might be a nice target practice, but only if you have no interest in learning anything from it about their goals.

The very first thing they said is that the current system is hopelessly flawed. It's not a democracy in any meaningful sense - MPs do not represent people, they are working for special interests first and foremost, and no one takes political positions to actually do their jobs. I agree that "good people" is a bad wording, but if by good they mean qualified people who come to honestly do their work, the criteria becomes rather simple.

The appointed MPs is probably the most misunderstood idea of all. People here get fixated on "appointed" part. In fact it's just the temporary solution in the absence of democratic mechanisms to elect representatives from professional and social groups, and that was the main thrust of New Politics proposal - get real representatives from real stakeholders.

Another thing that people miss, hopefully unintentionally, is that the NP was proposed as a starting point for the broad discussion among all interested groups, not as a final solution.

[Bagwan]

I can't help thinking that Somjai in Isan is happy with elected representatives - indeed the more the merrier. Thus, he might muse, that greater instability leading to more elections with more prospective MP's will ensue, followed by more 200 baht bribes and free tee shirts all round.

[Bagwan]

He who is without sin...

He who is without Thaksin.