Do Thais Understand Democracy?

[likewise]

Couple of days ago I was talking to one of my Thai neighbours, an educated man with some good insights into his own people.

I had to agree with his point that the majority of Thais are not ready for democracy and that they don't understand the concept of it.

They think they only have rights, but forget that there are also some basic duties and responsibilities to abide by in a democracy.

According to my neighbour they would be much better off with a socialistic system where it's clearly pointed out what their rights and duties are.

He also mentioned that the majority of his fellow patriots are quite ignorant and selfish with little respect towards others or towards their country.

I agreed with his point, what do you think?

Edited March 12, 2010 by likewise

[Moonrakers]

Even some of the politicians don't seem to understand democracy.

[TAWP]

I would say most westerners don't either...

[givenall]

Even some of the politicians don't seem to understand democracy.

Politician do understand the democracy but they don’t want it since this way when you are in government you can make load of bath and use the system to become filthy rich like Thaksin

[Jingthing]

Successful democracy dictates an educated, participating electorate. No, Thailand doesn't have that. Mad mobs don't count. I think many Thais think that mad mobs are democracy.

[hammered]

You better define what you mean by democracy first. There are a few varieties.

[tigerfish]

sounds to me like the ops neighbour would do a much better job of running this country, than all of the other lot put together.

[likewise]

I wouldn't mind seeing him as PM .

But the question was : Is the Thai population ready for democracy? Most of us who have been here 5+ years will know the answer do that.

[Moonrakers]

Maybe they need a different kind of democracy.

Take Singapore, many say that a single party government cannot be a real democracy but all you have to do is go there once to see that it works and it works well.

Maybe having one party in Thailand will put an end to all the division.

[likewise]

Yes the example of Singapore is good and Thailand would do itself a favor following in their footsteps.

Thais and this includes their PM's are not able of holding meaningful and open discussions which is needed to run a country.

They are is too much "face" and "rubbing each other's back" policies involved which makes it nearly impossible to debate "hot" topics and come to solutions which can make several parties happy.

[isanbirder]

Simple... give them a proper education system, and they'll learn how to work a democratic system. Yes, Singapore has done a good job, multiracial and all. But until they have education worth the name, there'll be no democracy here.

[PhilHarries]

Let's face it who really cares about democracy? The government of the day will always be unpopular no matter who is in power. We have democracy in the west but, taking the UK, barely 30% of the population eligible to vote bother doing so. So from that we are just the same as the Thais, content as long as we have a job, a home and food in our belly and a government to complain about.

Asians, in general, don't suit democracy. They don't understand it, don't follow it and and don't believe in it.

What suits the majority of Asian people is having a hard man in control. They like that and respect him for it. Hence when Thaksin ordered the execution of anyone involved in the drug trade they thought that was a good thing as drugs are bad things. The only people who objected were the victims, who "chose" to remain silent, and their families, who are irrelevant as they are tarred by the same brush.

Democracy, in principle, respects the rights of the individual. Thais, and most others in the region, respect their own personal rights and to hel_l with anybody else. Just stand by the roadside and watch them and you'll see it.

[likewise]

Let's face it who really cares about democracy? The government of the day will always be unpopular no matter who is in power. We have democracy in the west but, taking the UK, barely 30% of the population eligible to vote bother doing so. So from that we are just the same as the Thais, content as long as we have a job, a home and food in our belly and a government to complain about.

Asians, in general, don't suit democracy. They don't understand it, don't follow it and and don't believe in it.

What suits the majority of Asian people is having a hard man in control. They like that and respect him for it. Hence when Thaksin ordered the execution of anyone involved in the drug trade they thought that was a good thing as drugs are bad things. The only people who objected were the victims, who "chose" to remain silent, and their families, who are irrelevant as they are tarred by the same brush.

Democracy, in principle, respects the rights of the individual. Thais, and most others in the region, respect their own personal rights and to hel_l with anybody else. Just stand by the roadside and watch them and you'll see it.

Fully agree here.

If now their government would understand that their people are not ready that would be a step in the right direction.

As you pointed out and as I mentioned in the first post, they need socialism and someone who points out what they can or cannot do.

[Loz]

Let's face it who really cares about democracy? The government of the day will always be unpopular no matter who is in power. We have democracy in the west but, taking the UK, barely 30% of the population eligible to vote bother doing so. So from that we are just the same as the Thais, content as long as we have a job, a home and food in our belly and a government to complain about.

Asians, in general, don't suit democracy. They don't understand it, don't follow it and and don't believe in it.

What suits the majority of Asian people is having a hard man in control. They like that and respect him for it. Hence when Thaksin ordered the execution of anyone involved in the drug trade they thought that was a good thing as drugs are bad things. The only people who objected were the victims, who "chose" to remain silent, and their families, who are irrelevant as they are tarred by the same brush.

Democracy, in principle, respects the rights of the individual. Thais, and most others in the region, respect their own personal rights and to hel_l with anybody else. Just stand by the roadside and watch them and you'll see it.

Fully agree here.

If now their government would understand that their people are not ready that would be a step in the right direction.

As you pointed out and as I mentioned in the first post, they need socialism and someone who points out what they can or cannot do.

THey have one, but he's feeling a little under the weather.

You'd probably want to consider his part in a socialist regim before assuming it would suit Thailand I think

Not even gonna pretend I have a clue what the answer is. But I have seen anything looking like it, yet

Edited March 12, 2010 by Loz

[IMA_FARANG]

Just a short reply from me.

Probably some Thais don't understand Democracy...whatever that is.

In the U.S. where I was born, in my opinion Democracy is now about big-money two party politics.

The two party system, and it's effects, is killing democracy (with a small d, please notice) in the U.S.

The system was supposedly built on a supposedly educated group of coommon everday people, who would make enlightened choices for the good of their country independent of financial or political reasons for their choice.

For you Americans on here, does that sound like the democracy we have now? Just try to talk to the average voter in the U.S. and you can barely go 5 minutes before they get angry and start cursing the government, whatever their political "side" is.

And why should their just be two "sides" to every political arguement. anyhow.

Oh well, enough of my rant.

As for Thailand I remember about 15 years ago the Bangkok Post published a letter from an Issan village head who had placed an advertisement in a Thai newspaper. He offered to sell his villagers votes.

Don't you understand what Democracy means, the letter to the Bangkok Post asked?

Somehow, this village leader actually saw the letter. He responded that he knew very well what Democracy was. For 3 or 4 elections repersentatives for one party or the other had come to his village, wanting him to pledge his votes to them. He had aslways said the same thing, our vilage needs a health clinic. Tell your candidate when he is elected, try to get us or health clinic. Everyone had promised that, but once they were eleceted, and off to Bangkok, they seemed to forget about a health clinic for the vilage. So now he was putting an ad in the Thai newspaper. He would use the money he got for the votes to hire a nurse or doctor for the health clinic the village was building.

So what do you think? Did that village headman know about Democracy or not? Personally, I think he knew more about the actual working Democracy than most of the politicians.

Winston Churchill once said, when asked after WWII if Democracy was now safe in England, "Well I certainly hpoe so. After all that's why we fought the war isn't it. But a five minute conversation with the average voter might leave you wondering,"

That was just after he was voted out of office, for a Labour government I believe.

[doggie888888]

Some posters alluded to Singapore as a success story without full democracy. The success was primarily due to that country's good fortune in having one Lee Kuan Yew, whose vision, drive and integrity guided the country throughoutmost of its history post independence. However, even he has acknowledged inherent weaknesses in their system...he mercilessly dismantled many of the checks and balances on the Executive, such that towards the end of his term, he tried to reviatalise some accountability on the PM's office (eg: by empowering the office of the President with some reserve powers, preveiously purely ceremonial, to ensure successive PMs would not have the free reign that LKY had had). Quite easily Singapore could have ended up with a despot like Marcos raping and pillaging the country instead of the "benevolent" dictator that was Lee Kuan Yew. Unless you are certain of having a steady stream of benevolent dictators in your country, whose primary aim is the betterment of country and citizens, you better not hope for a Singapore style Constitution or system because there is simply not enough accountability imposed on the Executive government.

[elcent]

Couple of days ago I was talking to one of my Thai neighbours, an educated man with some good insights into his own people.

I had to agree with his point that the majority of Thais are not ready for democracy and that they don't understand the concept of it.

They think they only have rights, but forget that there are also some basic duties and responsibilities to abide by in a democracy.

According to my neighbour they would be much better off with a socialistic system where it's clearly pointed out what their rights and duties are.

He also mentioned that the majority of his fellow patriots are quite ignorant and selfish with little respect towards others or towards their country.

I agreed with his point, what do you think?

we have heard that every day/24 hours, for many months even years now. To much of an ASTV watcher (yellow cake)

Seems as if your neighbor has problems with it.

[tangcoral]

For you Americans on here, does that sound like the democracy we have now? Just try to talk to the average voter in the U.S. and you can barely go 5 minutes before they get angry and start cursing the government, whatever their political "side" is.

And why should their just be two "sides" to every political arguement. anyhow.

Just curious, are there any countries with citizens that dont hate their govt?

Isn't it always majority rules?

[Moonrakers]

Some posters alluded to Singapore as a success story without full democracy. The success was primarily due to that country's good fortune in having one Lee Kuan Yew, whose vision, drive and integrity guided the country throughoutmost of its history post independence. However, even he has acknowledged inherent weaknesses in their system...he mercilessly dismantled many of the checks and balances on the Executive, such that towards the end of his term, he tried to reviatalise some accountability on the PM's office (eg: by empowering the office of the President with some reserve powers, preveiously purely ceremonial, to ensure successive PMs would not have the free reign that LKY had had). Quite easily Singapore could have ended up with a despot like Marcos raping and pillaging the country instead of the "benevolent" dictator that was Lee Kuan Yew. Unless you are certain of having a steady stream of benevolent dictators in your country, whose primary aim is the betterment of country and citizens, you better not hope for a Singapore style Constitution or system because there is simply not enough accountability imposed on the Executive government.

You could well be right.

When I mentioned Singapore I wasn't trying to suggest that Thailand should try to mirror the Singapore model. I was just trying to point out that different democracy models might suit different countries. Thailand just has to find it's own because it is clear that western style democracy is like fitting a square peg into a round hole.

PhilHarries might have an even better suggestion though. Why does it even have to be democracy? As long as whatever system it is works for the people, then that must be a good thing.

[Tejas]

PhilHarries might have an even better suggestion though. Why does it even have to be democracy? As long as whatever system it is works for the people, then that must be a good thing.

Why democracy indeed. Surely we can figure out a better system......democracy is usually more like autocracy worldwide.

On a different note, call me "crazy," but I think this is very similar to an economic war between rural elites and urban elites.

The reds are rural. The yellows are urban. There is big money involved.

In my own country we had a similar struggle between the urban-north and rural-south.......it was called the Civil War.

It was horrific........but it did finally decide which way the country would go in terms of economic development: rural or urban.

Urban won. [That war was not about slavery anymore than the Iraq war was about freedom.......it was an economic struggle between rural and urban elites.]

Sometimes I think Thailand is looking like the USA in 1860.

Some are saying it is about democracy, getting rid of a dictator, etc.

To me it is about who controls the pie: rural or urban elites.

[phetaroi]

...

On a different note, call me "crazy," but I think this is very similar to an economic war between rural elites and urban elites.

The reds are rural. The yellows are urban. There is big money involved.

In my own country we had a similar struggle between the urban-north and rural-south.......it was called the Civil War.

It was horrific........but it did finally decide which way the country would go in terms of economic development: rural or urban.

Urban won. [That war was not about slavery anymore than the Iraq war was about freedom.......it was an economic struggle between rural and urban elites.]

...

While I think you're initially correct -- at least that a large part of this struggle is between rural versus urban (although saying it is an economic war oversimplifies the exact nature), I disagree completely with your analysis of the American Civil War. You have fallen prey to the rewriting of history that often tries to paint the American Civil War as merely a clash between economic factors. In reality, the urban manufacturing base of the north meshed quite well with the rural agricultural base in the south. They actually complemented each other and facilitated national expansion. For example, the northern industrialists loved building railroads into the deep south to ship goods...both ways.

The fuel of the American Civil War was people to fight. Union forces officially totaled 2,778,304. The number of soldiers in the Confederate forces are in dispute, although it appears that a number of around 750,000 may be in the ballpark. That's a total of around 3.5 million soldiers...620,00 of whom died, let alone military injuries (many of them life-changing) and civilian casualties. I can soldiers back then going into battle saying, "I am risking my life to end slavery" or "I am risking my life to protect the rights of the people in my state". I cannot imagine many of the common people facing death in battle saying, "I am risking my life because I believe in my urban lifestyle" (or, as the case may be, "rural lifestyle").

I think it is fair to say that the people who live in the Bangkok area are more satisfied with their lifestyle than the people in rural areas. Therefore, Bangkokians are more likely to support the status quo. The rurals are not as satisfied with their lifestyle, therefore they are more likely to support change.

[thaibeachlovers]

For you Americans on here, does that sound like the democracy we have now? Just try to talk to the average voter in the U.S. and you can barely go 5 minutes before they get angry and start cursing the government, whatever their political "side" is.

And why should their just be two "sides" to every political arguement. anyhow.

Just curious, are there any countries with citizens that dont hate their govt?

Isn't it always majority rules?

You're joking right?

Most western governments were elected with less than 50 % of the eligible voters selecting them.

[dobadoy]

democracy is a buzzword...you haven't got anything that truly represents the will of the people anywhere in the world, unless you think the will of the people means nothing more than picking between A or B once every 5 years...not, methinks, what the ancient Greeks had in mind.

As someone already mentioned one-party state politics can work - Singapore, China, - it just needs mechanisms to remove the rule of the individual and nepotism, as indeed does Thailand

[Naam]

"Do Thais Understand Democracy? Are they ready for it?"

do you understand democracy and are you ready for it?

[elcent]

There's no need to understand democracy. When the constitution is alright and one is obligated to it (especially universal human rights) and can use anything within it we'll see different opinions arising out of it. It's a constant learning process. Democracy is not only for within the borders of a country but it also effects and influences neighboring countries and continents, either positive or negative, - the cradle of the best and the worst. And this why we need democratic laws to uphold the mutual process of learning.

People who state that democracy is not for Asians don't accept the basic rights and obligations for fellow brothers and sisters for selfish reasons.

America has one of the worst democracies now, they didn't cope with the progress and learning curve at hand and refused to adjust (capital punishment s one of it's mistakes). This is also why we'll see FEMA concentration camps in action soon.

[mizzi39]

Democracy: 51% of the population dictating policy for the other 49%. Probably the worst form of government there is, but even well educated people seem to equate democracy with "freedom" which is misleading to say the least.

[oldthaihand]

I would say most westerners don't either...

Second that.

[Lancelot]

I think most Thais understand food on the tabel, decent lodging, fair government institutions and social justice. If a governement delivers those basic needs, then I doubt if ordinary Thais would quibble whether said government was democratic, authoritarian, constitutional republic or even totalitarian.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Lancelot

[PhilHarries]

You're joking right?

Most western governments were elected with less than 50 % of the eligible voters selecting them.

Correct and with less than 50% of the eligible voters actually voting this leads on to the question; if so few people care enough to actually go out and vote in an election why bother with democracy?

In a democracy no matter who you vote for the government always wins and in today's 15 minute sound bite celebrity culture yesterday's hero is today's villain.

Going back to the comments about the rural classes versus the urbanites it is to be hoped that Thailand doesn't try to emulate it's neighbour in that particular conflict. Unlikely in the extreme as Thailand in the 21st century is a world away from Cambodia in the '60s and '70s. But the two sides have to realise that they both need each other and that the democracy of concensus is the only way to avoid conflict and bloodshed.

But we're all not so different. We heap praise on policies that benefit us personally and scorn on those that don't. Scratch the surface of society and not far down you'll see the colours of anarchy.

[OOTAI]

So far I haven't seen anyone have an attempt at defining "democracy" so I'll have a crack at it.

The definition I like the best is " A social condition of equality and respect for the individual within the community".

Are we ready for that? I say we because if you live in Thailand then you are part of that community, are we all equal?

The problem I see in Thailand is that nobody seems to understand their roles.

Elected Government - makes the laws supposedly for the good of all the community

Judiciary - interpret the laws made by the elected Government

Police - enforce the laws made by the elected Government

Military - protect the community and preserve the right of the elected Government to make the laws

Please feel free to disagree as its the debating of conflicting interests that establishes the acceptable norm for the community.