The Validity Of Thailand's Present Government

[Capealava]

The legally elected President of Honduras Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a Military backed coup recently. The comparison to Thailand Coup and ouster of Thaksin is remarkable. Both were legally elected in a democratic election and booth were ousted by the military that was following the wishes of a older more entrenched conservative power structure.

Whether Thaksin used the government to manipulate circumstances to enhance his wealth is not the question here or even relevant. The question for both Honduras and Thailand was the following of the democratic process.

Honduras is now having new elections similar to the one Thailand held after Thaksin was thrown out. Many other Latin American countries oppose the vote the the grounds of 'the illegal coup"

Argentina and Brazil have said they will not recognise any government installed after the election, arguing that to do so would legitimise the coup which ousted an elected president, and thus set a dangerous precedent.

The main regional grouping, the Organisation of American States, has declined to send an observer mission.

There was no support for "the democratic process" from Asian countries -or from "Asean." None condemned Thailand for the Coup. This reaction is possibly because none of the countries surrounding Thailand are particularly democratic or have a democratic tradition and they reserve the right to a Coup in their own country. The USA and other Western countries expressed exasperation and dismay the yet another Thailand Coup.

There is good and bad in all leaders. Look at the Bush situation in America. He caused untold suffering and made a multitude of decisions to enhance his own agenda and that of his party. yet no Coup. Democracy cannot flourish with threats and possibility of Military Coups.

Abisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal by the standards set by Democratic principals. His insistence on holding on to that position and the power of the political and military behind him will only cause further entrenchment of his opponents.

Thaksin should also realize it is to late for him, his returning to power will never happen. Both sides of the issue should give the right of Free expression. New elections should be called with each side refraining form coercion and manipulating votes. Let the will of the people come truly forth.

Dreaming --perhaps given Thailand's past track record. But it should be admitted that the current Government is illegal, then reconciliation can begin.

[Rinrada]

Would be progress but ....too long now ...loss of Face

[phetaroi]

Dear OP, where I disagree with you is as follows:

"There was no support for "the democratic process" from Asian countries -or from "Asean." None condemned Thailand for the Coup. This reaction is possibly because none of the countries surrounding Thailand are particularly democratic or have a democratic tradition and they reserve the right to a Coup in their own country. The USA and other Western countries expressed exasperation and dismay the yet another Thailand Coup.

There is good and bad in all leaders. Look at the Bush situation in America. He caused untold suffering and made a multitude of decisions to enhance his own agenda and that of his party. yet no Coup. Democracy cannot flourish with threats and possibility of Military Coups.

Abisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal by the standards set by Democratic principals. His insistence on holding on to that position and the power of the political and military behind him will only cause further entrenchment of his opponents."

What I think you (and many others) don't see here is that the whole world is not necessarily on the same moral standard in regard to government and democracy. And note that I am not saying which "moral standard" is ideal. I'm American, and I know that my country's democracy is flawed, as I suspect is the governmental structure of every nation. Each nation has its own somewhat unique combination of flaws.

To assume that all military coups are bad is...well, wrong. For example, the military coup that included the attempted assassination of Hitler? Good or bad? The military coup that eventually led to Idi Amin's exile. Good or bad?

An international politician I really disliked was Mahathir (sp?) from Malaysia. But I did like his stance when he once said, "Every democracy does not have to be American-styled democracy" (paraphrased).

[Ricardo]

Both were legally elected in a democratic election

Which is where the comparison fails, Thaksin was legally-appointed caretaker-PM by the Head of State, at the time of the coup, and wasn't at that point democratically-elected.

Abhisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal

It is just as legal as PM-Samak's or PM-Somchai's were.

It is certainly better than a junta-appointed military-government.

Many farangs may find Thailand's still-emerging democratic system to be imperfect, but it's where we are, and in practice you can only look for progress to come in small steps, which should be welcomed.

[caf]

Dear OP, where I disagree with you is as follows:

"There was no support for "the democratic process" from Asian countries -or from "Asean." None condemned Thailand for the Coup. This reaction is possibly because none of the countries surrounding Thailand are particularly democratic or have a democratic tradition and they reserve the right to a Coup in their own country. The USA and other Western countries expressed exasperation and dismay the yet another Thailand Coup.

There is good and bad in all leaders. Look at the Bush situation in America. He caused untold suffering and made a multitude of decisions to enhance his own agenda and that of his party. yet no Coup. Democracy cannot flourish with threats and possibility of Military Coups.

Abisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal by the standards set by Democratic principals. His insistence on holding on to that position and the power of the political and military behind him will only cause further entrenchment of his opponents."

What I think you (and many others) don't see here is that the whole world is not necessarily on the same moral standard in regard to government and democracy. And note that I am not saying which "moral standard" is ideal. I'm American, and I know that my country's democracy is flawed, as I suspect is the governmental structure of every nation. Each nation has its own somewhat unique combination of flaws.

To assume that all military coups are bad is...well, wrong. For example, the military coup that included the attempted assassination of Hitler? Good or bad? The military coup that eventually led to Idi Amin's exile. Good or bad?

An international politician I really disliked was Mahathir (sp?) from Malaysia. But I did like his stance when he once said, "Every democracy does not have to be American-styled democracy" (paraphrased).

You make some good points: hitler, idi amin. And no democracy is perfect. And Thais will have their own version of democracy, changing elected pms by whatever means until they get the right one

[zaphodbeeblebrox]

While there may be some limited superficial similarities between the ouster of Thaksin and the ouster of Zelaya, there are absolutely no similarities between Abhisit and Micheletti. Micheletti was a fierce opponent of Zelaya, has gone to great lengths to justify Zelaya's ouster before the international community, and has appointed torture/death squad specialist, Nelson Mejia, as Director-General of Immigration to quelch any pro-Zalaya sentiment. Abhisit is the 3rd PM to follow Thaksin and played no role in his ouster. In fact, Abhisit's two predecessors were related to and/or allied with Thaksin and did almost nothing to help or hinder Thaksin's return to Thailand.

[Ricardo]

Abhisit is the 3rd PM to follow Thaksin and played no role in his ouster.

Or indeed 4th, if you count PM-Sorayud, who was appointed rather than elected, like the other three.

[tig28]

Ricardo

Which is where the comparison fails, Thaksin was legally-appointed caretaker-PM by the Head of State, at the time of the coup, and wasn't at that point democratically-elected.

Ricardo is correct --- he was a "caretaker" PM ------- one who had overwhelmingly won the most recent election - after winning first in 2001.... then again in 2005. It was becoming habitual!!

He was a "caretaker" PM due to the unprecedented action of a very high power ... who On 26 April 2006 summonsed the heads of the three senior courts of Thailand to Hua Hin, and gave them directions ------ then within days the Constitutional Court amazingly annulled an election in which Thaksin's party had yet again won a clear majority!

The government of this "caretaker" PM was ousted by a coup only weeks before scheduled national elections !!

This last fact alone speaks volumes about the opposition.

[Samuian]

Both were legally elected in a democratic election

Which is where the comparison fails, Thaksin was legally-appointed caretaker-PM by the Head of State, at the time of the coup, and wasn't at that point democratically-elected.

Abhisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal

It is just as legal as PM-Samak's or PM-Somchai's were.

It is certainly better than a junta-appointed military-government.

Many farangs may find Thailand's still-emerging democratic system to be imperfect, but it's where we are, and in practice you can only look for progress to come in small steps, which should be welcomed.

I second that!

[thaihome]

Ricardo is correct --- he was a "caretaker" PM ------- one who had overwhelmingly won the most recent election - after winning first in 2001.... then again in 2005. It was becoming habitual!!

He was a "caretaker" PM due to the unprecedented action of a very high power ... who On 26 April 2006 summonsed the heads of the three senior courts of Thailand to Hua Hin, and gave them directions ------ then within days the Constitutional Court amazingly annulled an election in which Thaksin's party had yet again won a clear majority!

The government of this "caretaker" PM was ousted by a coup only weeks before scheduled national elections !!

This last fact alone speaks volumes about the opposition.

You left out the part where the major opposition parties boycotted the election and the fact that many TRT MPs ran unopposed but could not get 20% of the vote. In many other cases, small political parties were created and bankrolled by the TRT in order to have some opposition and therefore not have to get at least 20% in order to be valid.

In fact, the there was no majority of legally elected TRT MP’s.

TH

[tig28]

Ricardo is correct --- he was a "caretaker" PM ------- one who had overwhelmingly won the most recent election - after winning first in 2001.... then again in 2005. It was becoming habitual!!

He was a "caretaker" PM due to the unprecedented action of a very high power ... who On 26 April 2006 summonsed the heads of the three senior courts of Thailand to Hua Hin, and gave them directions ------ then within days the Constitutional Court amazingly annulled an election in which Thaksin's party had yet again won a clear majority!

The government of this "caretaker" PM was ousted by a coup only weeks before scheduled national elections !!

This last fact alone speaks volumes about the opposition.

You left out the part where the major opposition parties boycotted the election and the fact that many TRT MPs ran unopposed but could not get 20% of the vote. In many other cases, small political parties were created and bankrolled by the TRT in order to have some opposition and therefore not have to get at least 20% in order to be valid.

In fact, the there was no majority of legally elected TRT MP's.

TH

You left out the part of why there was a "boycott".

After failing dismally in the elections of 2001 and again in 2005 ..... and facing electoral humiliation yet again ... the Democrats chose to "boycott" the next pending disaster. What a joke !!

The real wishes of the Thai electorate were clearly indicated in the next election ( December 2007) which resulted in PPP being (I think) just 14 seats short of an outright majority.

This occurred despite every possible road-block being placed in front of the PPP -- by the Junta.

[Ricardo]

You left out the part of why there was a "boycott".

After failing dismally in the elections of 2001 and again in 2005 ..... and facing electoral humiliation yet again ... the Democrats chose to "boycott" the next pending disaster. What a joke !!

The real wishes of the Thai electorate were clearly indicated in the next election ( December 2007) which resulted in PPP being (I think) just 14 seats short of an outright majority.

This occurred despite every possible road-block being placed in front of the PPP -- by the Junta.

Why was there a boycott ?

Because most parties other-than TRT felt that a fair election was not possible, it was all being rigged by Thaksin & TRT, "Democracy is not my objective", which point was confirmed later by the Electoral Commission, who annulled it.

And the PPP got about 40% of the popular vote, in the December-2007 election, solid but hardly an overwhelming or majority vote. Which suggests that "the real wishes of the Thai electorate" were continuing to switch away from Thaksin's original coalition-party of 2001.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Ricardo

[tig28]

((quotes removed - lopburi3))

Of course Thaksin did almost all in his power to maintain control!! But his actions paled into insignificance when compared to the actions taken by the Junta to "rig" the 2007 election. The desperate realised that if the Thaksin side won yet again that they were at grave risk.

After the 2007 election the PPP were just 14 seats (I think) short of an outright majority. Imagine what their majority might have been without:

1 --- 26 of the 76 provinces being under martial law.(no prize for guessing which provinces)

2 --- CNS (council for national security) conducting an illegal "dirty tricks" campaign to destroy the PPP.

3 --- Most PPP leaders banned from politics --- despite committing no offence.

4 --- Certain military leaders ordering troops to vote against the PPP.

5 --- ISOC troops pressuring and threatening voters to vote against the PPP.

6 --- Many houses of PPP supporters "raided" by the army on election eve.

7 --- Murdering of PPP canvassers --- 3 in total. (1 Democrat canvasser was also sadly murdered)

etc. etc .....

[Ricardo]

Perhaps the PPP should have boycotted the election ?

Or perhaps, like me, they were just happy to see the return of elections ?

[Stumbo]

Government is purely about getting hold of it, legitimacy has nothing to do with it, different countries have different paths to this road to riches. Some require a coup, others corrupt bureaucrats to manipulate the votes, others selling your soul to a well known corrupt banking street, others to bribing welfare recipiants with more free money, others to arrange timely deaths for opponents.

Only fools outside of government believe it is to serve the people, those in it now it is about, power, money, status, and serving yourself, what ever the price required will be paid without flinching. They are all vile.

[geriatrickid]

I don't think the situation is comparable. Correct me if I am wrong but,

- The Honduran president faced a term limit as stated in the constitution. The president tried to circumvent that law.

- The supreme court of Honduras, supported by a majority of elected representatives, said, no, please cease and desist.

- The Honduran president said, no, I'm going to do it. The courts said he was in contempt and could not remain in office.

- The Honduras legislature acted quickly to hold elections and a new president was decided by way of an open election.

- The Honduran military stayed out of the political and judicial struggle and followed the instructions of the officials that the courts said were in power legally.

- If anything, the Honduran supreme court acted to protect democracy by saying to a politician, respect the constitution.

How is this in any way comparable to what happened in Thailand? The interference by other regional powers was more for their respective political consumption than anything else.

[tig28]

Or perhaps, like me, they were just happy to see the return of elections ?

[kikoman]

Dear OP, where I disagree with you is as follows:

"There was no support for "the democratic process" from Asian countries -or from "Asean." None condemned Thailand for the Coup. This reaction is possibly because none of the countries surrounding Thailand are particularly democratic or have a democratic tradition and they reserve the right to a Coup in their own country. The USA and other Western countries expressed exasperation and dismay the yet another Thailand Coup.

There is good and bad in all leaders. Look at the Bush situation in America. He caused untold suffering and made a multitude of decisions to enhance his own agenda and that of his party. yet no Coup. Democracy cannot flourish with threats and possibility of Military Coups.

Abisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal by the standards set by Democratic principals. His insistence on holding on to that position and the power of the political and military behind him will only cause further entrenchment of his opponents."

What I think you (and many others) don't see here is that the whole world is not necessarily on the same moral standard in regard to government and democracy. And note that I am not saying which "moral standard" is ideal. I'm American, and I know that my country's democracy is flawed, as I suspect is the governmental structure of every nation. Each nation has its own somewhat unique combination of flaws.

To assume that all military coups are bad is...well, wrong. For example, the military coup that included the attempted assassination of Hitler? Good or bad? The military coup that eventually led to Idi Amin's exile. Good or bad?

An international politician I really disliked was Mahathir (sp?) from Malaysia. But I did like his stance when he once said, "Every democracy does not have to be American-styled democracy" (paraphrased).

I agreed with your statement that "every Democracy does not have to be like an American -styled Democracy"

Illegal Government by who's Standards?

Looking at Honduras, Zelaya was trying to extend his term in power, bypassing the Honduras Constitution law on one term in office.

Honduras Supreme Court ( The highest legal institution in the land) interpreted Honduras law that Zelaya's referendum was illegal!

The Army was ordered to oust Zelaya from office for Ignoring the Supreme Courts orders to cancel a referendum on changing the Honduras Constitution.

The Honduras Congress voted on the day after Zelaya was forced out of power, that the action was right.

You must remember that Zelaya's Liberal party dominates the Honduran Congress.

The US-brokered pact for a Unity Government, Signed by the Honduran Government and Zelaya, That the decision of Zelaya's return to fulfill his present term in office decision was left to a vote by Congress.

The results of that Congressional vote was 111 to 14, against Zelaya's return.

Have you ever heard of Democracy's - Balance of power.

South American Governments have elected Leftist governments, and those governments are against any type of pro-Right governments.

The Central American Governments back the decision by the people of Honduras ,as well as the US as the wishes of the population in Honduras to chart its own destiny!

Military Coup I think not! The working of the Honduras Democracy in action, Yes!

[kikoman]

Dear OP, where I disagree with you is as follows:

"There was no support for "the democratic process" from Asian countries -or from "Asean." None condemned Thailand for the Coup. This reaction is possibly because none of the countries surrounding Thailand are particularly democratic or have a democratic tradition and they reserve the right to a Coup in their own country. The USA and other Western countries expressed exasperation and dismay the yet another Thailand Coup.

There is good and bad in all leaders. Look at the Bush situation in America. He caused untold suffering and made a multitude of decisions to enhance his own agenda and that of his party. yet no Coup. Democracy cannot flourish with threats and possibility of Military Coups.

Abisit I assume is a good man, and may actually be a good PM, but his government is illegal by the standards set by Democratic principals. His insistence on holding on to that position and the power of the political and military behind him will only cause further entrenchment of his opponents."

What I think you (and many others) don't see here is that the whole world is not necessarily on the same moral standard in regard to government and democracy. And note that I am not saying which "moral standard" is ideal. I'm American, and I know that my country's democracy is flawed, as I suspect is the governmental structure of every nation. Each nation has its own somewhat unique combination of flaws.

To assume that all military coups are bad is...well, wrong. For example, the military coup that included the attempted assassination of Hitler? Good or bad? The military coup that eventually led to Idi Amin's exile. Good or bad?

An international politician I really disliked was Mahathir (sp?) from Malaysia. But I did like his stance when he once said, "Every democracy does not have to be American-styled democracy" (paraphrased).

I agreed with your statement that "every Democracy does not have to be like an American -styled Democracy"

Illegal Government by who's Standards?

Looking at Honduras, Zelaya was trying to extend his term in power, bypassing the Honduras Constitution law on one term in office.

Honduras Supreme Court ( The highest legal institution in the land) interpreted Honduras law that Zelaya's referendum was illegal!

The Army was ordered to oust Zelaya from office for Ignoring the Supreme Courts orders to cancel a referendum on changing the Honduras Constitution.

The Honduras Congress voted on the day after Zelaya was forced out of power, that the action was right.

You must remember that Zelaya's Liberal party dominates the Honduran Congress.

The US-brokered pact for a Unity Government, Signed by the Honduran Government and Zelaya, That the decision of Zelaya's return to fulfill his present term in office decision was left to a vote by Congress.

The results of that Congressional vote was 111 to 14, against Zelaya's return.

Have you ever heard of Democracy's - Balance of power.

South American Governments have elected Leftist governments, and those governments are against any type of pro-Right governments.

The Central American Governments back the decision by the people of Honduras ,as well as the US as the wishes of the population in Honduras to chart its own destiny!

Military Coup I think not! The working of the Honduras Democracy in action, Yes!

Sorry I made a Mistake it Should have been" have you ever heard of Democracy's- Check and Balances"

Not Balance of Power!

Cheers: