Do Thais Understand Democracy?

[mark45y]

Many things make a democracy possible. Without them a democracy is impossible. One of the most important things in a democracy is freedom of the press. Perhaps it is the most important aspect of a democracy because without it an informed electorate is impossible. Any discussion about democracy or government in Thailand is impossible because one cannot really discuss the issues. I have many friends who are educated and well informed yellow shirts. They have told me that Thailand is not ready for freedom of the press. It is that kind of attitude that makes any democratic changes in education or governance impossible. After freedom of the press a country needs a rule of law that applies to all equally. To have a rule of law one needs a constitution. To guarantee those rights.

About the only thing one can meaningfully say in a discussion about democracy in Thailand is; we can’t have a meaningful discussion about democracy in Thailand because it is not legal to have a meaningful discussion about democracy in Thailand.

The best Thailand can hope for is a benevolent dictator. Very few of those around. Normally power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[elcent]

Democracyis derived from creek and means "Rule of the people" which began 508BC, about the time of Lord Buddha, and when you don't have all this within a reasonable framework it will turn into anything than democracy. This why we need to apply universal governing human rights included as the main center and we have to adjust to the learning curve with consideration of such.

[oldthaihand]

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.

Yes, just like people the world over.

Thais aren't so different from other people. Though, in general they certainly are exceptional in certain respects. (e.g. hospitality, jai dee, etc...)

[Pakboong]

With rice at 7 baht a kilo, these people do not have anywhere to fall. they are as close to the bottom as they can get. Any form of change will be welcomed.

[PhilHarries]

What kind of democracy do people want?

The two party kind where anybody can stand for election under any banner but only the established two party's candidates ever have a chance at being part of government?

or,

The multi party kind where there is a myriad of small single interest, mainly, parties that swarm around like angry bees after an election wheeling, dealing and haggling over who sides with who and what they get out of it?

Either way you can guarantee that any politician will tell you what you want to hear until he's elected and then do exactly as he pleases until the next time when he wheels out the excuses and yet more empty promises.

Never forget that a politician's prime objective is to get elected, nothing to do with serving the people but just to get into parliament by whatever means it takes.

[likewise]

Thanks to all posters for their views on this topic.

-Freedom of press as one poster pointed out is indeed a must but still not allowed in Thailand.

-another poster mentioned a benevolent dictator, this might be a good thing for Thais.

-and indeed as Philharris said : quote : Never forget that a politician's prime objective is to get elected, nothing to do with serving the people but just to get into parliament by whatever means it takes.

Thais should have a revolution that starts with the people's own ideas to express their discomforts and ideas to their government and not because yellow or red bigshots tell them it's time to revolt.

Then again most Thais know that a revolution started by Mr nobody Somchai will not go far and could be dangerous to their livelihood.

When I ask any of my Thai friends if they are happy with the way things are going the answers I get vary from : There is nothing we can do about it we are just normal people going to work everyday.

Or, the better off amongst them seem not to care as long as their personal wealth isn't endangered.

Simply put, Thailand has a long way to go with many obstacles to surpass before it can be called a democratic country as we know it.

[TAWP]

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.

Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what is for dinner.

The actual and full quote, for ref:

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."

James Bovard, "Conclusion" (p. 333) of his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994) ISBN 0312123337

Also fun:

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No", said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd", said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did", said Ford. "It is."

"So", said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them", said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes", said Ford with a shrug, "of course".

"But", said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.

* Adams, Douglas (1984). So long, and thanks for all the fish. Chapter 36

Edited March 13, 2010 by TAWP

[whiterussian]

With rice at 7 baht a kilo, these people do not have anywhere to fall. they are as close to the bottom as they can get. Any form of change will be welcomed.

Spot on, the farangs that think white collar work in BK, and the tourist trade benefits anyone but a tiny few are I think deluded.

The lack of rain this year isnt going to help either!

Who controls the rice price anyway? - and why isnt there even irrigation and storage in the north?

[Hyponeros]

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.

Good point. I am not sure if this IS the definition of Democracy but this is what Democracy is trying to achieve.

Now let's see what is going on in Thailand:

Elected Government - makes as much money as they can for them and their families

Judiciary - helps the government to get rid of the people they don't like, protect the rich so they can kill, steal and abuse, put the poor in prison for the reason they are poor.

Police - use the laws to increase their own revenue

Military - do what they want, protect their own business and don't care about the government orders.

So we are far from Democracy!

To the question if Thais understand democracy? Those who would benefit from it don't understand because they were not educated to and because they were brain-washed since they are children to believe that Democracy doesn't work in Thailand. And those who would lose a lot in a Democracy understand it very well and make sure the poor people don't understand it.

A system like in Singapore would not work in Thailand because the politicians here are too selfish and don't care about the people and the country. They might say they do but their actions prove the opposite!

You see that Thailand is far from being a Democracy when the Government threatens legal immigrant worker to put them in prison if they go to the protest!

[eggomaniac]

So your neighbor, and you, don't think a socialist system has anything to do with democracy? hmmm .... then nyet , not ready yet.

If your OP was a typo and you meant dictatorship? then... don't they sort have that already?

[eggomaniac]

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.

Funny you should say that. The Joseph Solution, which I have been proposing to Thai academics for a few months, includes a 'no party' system, all political parties would be outlawed. Do not confuse this with the communist one party democracy, yes communism is a democracy, they hold elections.

Part of the Joseph Solution is based on parts of the longest lasting and most succesful democracy in World history, the 6 Nations, Iriquois Federation.

It's little known that Benjamin Franklin used some parts of the 6 Nations structure in drawing up the American way. He even had them in councils to help put it altogether.

He, BF, is mostly regarded as a political genius, but he would have really been a genius if he adopted the whole architecture, which included NO political parties. He allowed one form of lords to be replaced by another, political parties. If anyone says it would be undemocratic to not allow political parties, well they are biggest anchors to true democracy one can imagine.

[on an IQ test most people would match democracy with good and monarchy with bad, BUT there have been some very good monarchies and some very bad democracies,

Hitler, Stalin, Rwanda, the Bush royal family, to name a few]

I am still trying to get The Joseph Solution and The Joseph Plan through the right doors and on the right tables. If it happens, Thailand would see a stable, fairly elected government by the end of the year, with diminished corruption. The Reds and the Yellows would be both happy, as well as the Mute majority.

I cannot, fully, discuss The Joseph Solution here, because one of the major elements, the part that ensures it stays on the proper tracks is not allowed to be discussed in the Forum.

[likewise]

Interesting. Will do some research on your Joseph solution. Never heard of it to be honest.

[eurasianthai]

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

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Sir Winston Churchill

Edited March 14, 2010 by eurasianthai

[mca]

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.

While also sticking a bloke in prison for over 20 years without charge or trial I believe under their own ISA laws.

Singapore. Myanmar with good PR and shopping.

[notime]

Democracy is the best idea we have for an advanced system of social order and development. There are many obstacles and many pre-conditions for democracy to work. Like a rule of the law guaranteeing personal liberties and equality that is respected by individuals and institutions. Like the freedom of media and information. Like Westminster system of separation of powers between elect-able parliament for making laws, executive government for implementing them and independent judiciary for applying the law. The army must be controlled by the state and only serve the purpose of defense of the country form external aggression. The system of education must deliver understanding and willingness of the population to govern itself (civil society). There must be free elections and equal access to media by government and the opposition with in turn requires legislation for the provision of equal funding/air-time.

The perfect democracy doesn’t exist anywhere with different countries being somewhere on the scale between 0 and 10. For me North Korea scores 1 and Switzerland scores 9. But this doesn’t mean that the idea is not worth struggling for or that other systems are better. Just look at the standard of living in these two countries.

Many of the democratic ideas didn't take root in Thai society yet. I would say that Thailand is still very much a feudal country and as such is not based on equal rights. It hasn't produced an educated working class or sophisticated elites to achieve a better democracy. But Thais enjoy a high degree of personal freedom and although the Thai system may work in some strange ways it works better than in neighboring countries that embraced more or less socialist ideas and despotic governments. I hope that Thailand can achieve greater democracy through non-violent ways and better education and it doesn’t slide towards socialist regime as “benevolent dictators” are hard to come by if at all.

[jdinasia]

Even people from the UK don't understand parliamentary democracy .. why would you expect Thais to understand it?

[waza]

Thailand has democracy, one person one vote and the freedom to vote for who they like. Seems to me the populus are protesting over the capitalist system as they want a fair distribution of the countries wealth. However, like most people around the world they equate the two systems as being one.

[HAL9000]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.

- US Declaration of Independence

This debate about being "ready" for democracy was made in Abraham Lincoln's day:

The meaning of the Declaration was a recurring topic in the famed debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Douglas argued that "all men are created equal" in the Declaration referred to white men only. The purpose of the Declaration, he said, had simply been to justify the independence of the United States, and not to proclaim the equality of any "inferior or degraded race".[171] Lincoln, however, thought that the language of the Declaration was deliberately universal, setting a high moral standard for which the American republic should aspire. "I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere", he said.

- Wikipedia - Lincoln and the Declaration

Though this originally was a problem in racism, the arguments have died slowly due to cultural and educational factors which are still being deployed in this argument against Thai democracy.

Though another poster here was unclear in his reference to a "Joseph Solution", a relevant one was in Napoleon's contingency of placing his brother, Joseph, as the King of Italy when he changed France from a Republic to an Empire in 1802.

In discussing whether Italy was ready for democracy, Peter Hicks writes of Napoleon,

he was not a priori against Italian independence, but that time and support will be required; that he was concerned that the people be in agreement with the change of political system and constitution

- How Napoleon Became 'King of Italy'

This parallels today's debate about democracy for Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Italy, both need time and support, but WMD fiasco and continuing Taliban insurgency notwithstanding, both countries today are better off as nascent democracies than they were before.

Edited March 14, 2010 by jkolak

[elkangorito]

Why don't we talk about this AFTER all the shenanigans in BKK have settled down a tad? It'll be more relevant then.

[manarak]

Europe's democracies now reached a mature state.

A democratic system is fine while there are real problems to be tackled, like defense, national healthcare, education, build roads and infrastructure, etc.

But once a democracy has matured, more and more stupid topics are being debated and stupid laws made, which cost more and more or the taxpayer's money.

There is no "national project" to work for.

Something that must not be said in a democracy is that the flaw with democracy is the premise that all people are equals and therefore 1 man = 1 vote.

A western european democracy is a political system in which politicians without visions work hard to convince the most gullible part of the population to vote for them. At the end, those 51% most gullible invest their politicians with power to rule over them and the 49% rest.

At the end, it all boils down to the richer giving more money to the poorer for doing nothing. Yet, the social inequalities are gowing, go figure...

The amount of voters who understand nothing about geopolitics or economy is freightening. They will give their votes to who looks better on TV or promises the most freebies to them. 5% more minimum revenue for staying home and doing nothing? wow, you got my vote !!

disgusting.

I hope Thailand can avoid that decadence.

Edited March 14, 2010 by manarak

[duckleberry]

Great thread with some excellent well-considered posts.

democracy (1) - a system of government which allows the citizens, through their elected representatives, a degree of control in directing the destinies of both themselves and their children.

democracy (2) - a cheeky little trick played by the fat cats to deceive the worker ants that they, the worker ants, can control and direct the destinies of both themselves and their children. The fat cats do this by utilising the powers of deception inherent in "politics", a sleight of hand designed to prevent the worker ants from seeing what the fat cats are really up to. (NB. "Politicians" should be approached only with extreme caution - prolonged contact can prove injurious to health, even fatal.)

One benign, benevolent dictator has got to be better than a million more pigs at the trough, so quality of leaders, not quantity.

A box at the bottom of all ballot papers for "none of the above" might help the cause.

But the removal of the fat cats would do most to deliver the kind of system many of us here would like to see - and that scenario almost doesn't bear thinking about!

And education of the electorate to a sufficient standard that they understand all these machinations is a must. In the UK we're turning out kids who don't know where milk and eggs come from.

Could Thailand cope with democracy (1)? Sure, given the education thing, and so too could the rest of the planet.

Should Thailand even flirt with democracy (2)? Naw! It'd only end in tears!

FWIW

[jaideeguy]

Having stayed in the Philippines before Marcos, during Marcos and after Marcos......it was obvious that the Philipinos were not ready for democracy. The economy was stronger, people had jobs, it was cleaner and safer and infrastructure was expanding under Marcos. Now, with democracy, the place is a crumbling, dangerous, chaotic mess.......some people need a 'STRONGMAN' to keep order.

Maybe the same can be said for Thailand???

Edited March 15, 2010 by jaideeguy

[Spee]

Great thread with some excellent well-considered posts.

Well-considered? ....... Yes, perhaps.

Excellent? ......... Only if you are consider a lot of seriously misguided individual opinions of democracy to be excellent.

Great thread? ....... I'd call it interesting, but not great because some of the opinions are truly scary.

America is today so far removed from the principles on which it was founded, that the situation is scarier still. If people consider present day UK or Europe to be the highest evolution of modern democracy, that is even scarier.

America was founded as a democratic republic with very tight restrictions on the central government, among them the separation of powers and limited enumerated authority. The lines of separation of powers has long been clouded and is trying to become more so every day. The central government has drastically overstepped the bounds of enumerated authority.

When it comes down to basics, America was founded on the principles of unalienable rights, in context meaning rights granted by God, rights that a government cannot take away. Sure, there were mistakes along the way, such as slavery, but these have been corrected.

Among these rights are rights to own and control one's property, the right to speak freely, the right to peacefully assemble, the right to worship, the right to choose the kind of work that they want to perform, and so on. Some of these rights have been drastically eroded in western democracies over the last 60-70 years. Chief among these eroded rights is the right to one's property, and for most people, their primary property are their earned wages. When a central government takes 40-60% or more of one's property through taxation to give that money to others as the government sees fit, then right to property is fundamentally and drastically altered.

For those who think people want a benevolent dictatorship, all you have to do is look at Burma and North Korea. I'm sure all those people who are in the inner circles of the dictators, do believe them to be benevolent. I'm equally sure that all of those outside the inner circles do not.

I would speculate that if one was to undertake a survey of a broad cross-section of the worlds' peoples, including those in Thailand, they would be content to the basic rights that are stated above. The only way to guarantee that people have these basic rights is to restrict the power of the central government. A government that has the ability to take these basic rights away, has the ability to do far worse, as Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR and Mao's China have demonstrated by killing tens of millions of their own citizens.

Most people in the world want few things, but these few things are at the core of a peaceful and civil society and central to basic unalienable human rights. These basically surround the ability to provide for one's family, including work to put food on the table, a roof overhead and clothes on the back. I will guarantee you that things are this way in Thailand or anywhere else in the world.

[manarak]

I think the greatest flaw of democracy is 1 man = 1 vote.

Voters should have to qualify for voting as they did in ancient Greek city-states and in the Roman Empire (which are both our references for democracy).

I'd be happy to see the voters filtered:

- by educational level (must have successfully finished school in the top 66% of marks)

- if no education, an intelligence test proving above average intelligence

- by ownership (if one owns land or buildings)

- by occupation (if one is independent worker, sole proprietor, etc.)

And there should be criteria disqualifying people from voting:

- anyone who has been sentenced to a real domestic prison sentence (i.e. was or would be physically imprisoned in this country)

- anyone who currently is on the receiving side of national welfare, receiving compensation from government for unemployment, disability, receives government pension, etc. (because these voters are strongly biased, the more the country has economical problems, the more power these voters have, which effectively prevents solving the problem)

And finally, any petition bearing the signatures of more than 0.25% of all voters should be submitted automatically for referendum at any competence level (i.e. city council, region, nationwide), with constitutional obligation for government to take action within 3 months of results or be removed.

Disclaimer:

Probably the above is not well thought-out and may be unfair in some cases I haven't thought about, but it explains the general direction of my thoughts in that matter.

Edited March 15, 2010 by manarak

[dobadoy]

Most people in the world want few things, ....

A simplistic and inaccurate understanding of human psychology.

Start with Maslow's 'hierarchy of needs' as an entry point into the complexity of human needs, consider that once basic sufficiency is met the majority of people want not just to survive but also to thrive, that it is a basic human emotion to long for that which you do not have and, if most people want few things, perhaps you could explain the global phenomenon of consumerism?

Edited March 16, 2010 by dobadoy

[Spee]

.... that it is a basic human emotion to long for that which you do not have and, if most people want few things, perhaps you could explain the global phenomenon of consumerism?

I thought I did. In order for there to be consumers, there first has to be producers which need to employ workers to make their products. Having basic desires of shelter, food and clothing makes one a consumer, assuming there are producers out there to make these things.

I agree completely with your point that once people have the basics of shelter, food and clothing, and the abililty and opportunity to seek new horizons, of course they will want more things, such as the new car to allow them to drive to a higher paying job rather than walking to the lower paying job.

Where nations run into problems is when governments get in the way to disrupt or exert control over production, and then steal workers property (read wages) for the purposes of redistributing them to serve political motives. The net result is that excessive government stifles both production and consumption. As a result, a large percentage of the world's population has difficulty obtaining or leads their lives without the basics of work, wages, shelter, food and clothing.

Democracy, whether in Thailand or anywhere else, is so much more than one man - one vote and majority rule. At the core of a stable democracy is limited government which does not interfere with peoples' inalienable rights and opportunity to live their life as they see fit. I would submit that most people in Thailand understand and want these rights and opportunities.

Simplistic? Perhaps.

Inaccurate? Not a chance.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Spee

[FM505]

.... that it is a basic human emotion to long for that which you do not have and, if most people want few things, perhaps you could explain the global phenomenon of consumerism?

I thought I did. In order for there to be consumers, there first has to be producers which need to employ workers to make their products. Having basic desires of shelter, food and clothing makes one a consumer, assuming there are producers out there to make these things.

I agree completely with your point that once people have the basics of shelter, food and clothing, and the abililty and opportunity to seek new horizons, of course they will want more things, such as the new car to allow them to drive to a higher paying job rather than walking to the lower paying job.

Where nations run into problems is when governments get in the way to disrupt or exert control over production, and then steal workers property (read wages) for the purposes of redistributing them to serve political motives. The net result is that excessive government stifles both production and consumption. As a result, a large percentage of the world's population has difficulty obtaining or leads their lives without the basics of work, wages, shelter, food and clothing.

Democracy, whether in Thailand or anywhere else, is so much more than one man - one vote and majority rule. At the core of a stable democracy is limited government which does not interfere with peoples' inalienable rights and opportunity to live their life as they see fit. I would submit that most people in Thailand understand and want these rights and opportunities.

Simplistic? Perhaps.

Inaccurate? Not a chance.

Bingo...!

Defending the rights of an individual is the core of self governing ideas... grand theme in a theoretical sense... heavy lifting in practical terms... along with lots of paperwork.

Human beings have an innate sense of freedom. Denying this fact is cruel if not evil... thus the intent behind 'socialist' philosophies and all of the other hollow notions (read 'tripe') euphemistically described as liberal, progressive, communist, benevolent dictates, et. al. are advanced purely through deceit and financed most definitely with other peoples money with an end goal of controlling behavior and production.

When given the opportunity and supported/defended with integrity, people will make the right decisions for their lives and the lives of those around them.

Who would deny them a chance to learn and earn more?

Edited March 16, 2010 by FM505

[PhilHarries]

Last week sometime, I think, someone wrote a good letter to the BP saying the single biggest barrier to democracy in Thailand is the requirement that you must have a degree in order to become an MP.

I think the red shirts would fare a lot better if they dropped their millstone, Thaksin, and campaigned for this, amongst other direct social issues, however they'd be dropped by their paymasters pdq if they did.

At least in the UK anybody who can stump up the money for the deposit can stand for election and frequently do. That they seldom get elected shows how deeply entrenched the party system is.

[bifftastic]

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.

Very good point, the same can be said about the UK, not quite rural vs urban but more about social class. Moving from an elitist, inheritance-based system to a more meritocratic one, all tied in, in both examples I think, to the industrialisation taking place at the time.

A power struggle with elites in charge of both factions. It happened a few times in the 'development' of our current version of democracy.

[bifftastic]

double post sorry

Edited March 16, 2010 by bifftastic