Thaksin: 'democracy Is Not My Goal'

[hammered]

It helps to define what democracy is before just jumping on the favoured horse is always right thing that usually goes on on this forum. It helps to define democracy first so that an anlysis can be mad eof the respective sides. It is quite possible that some people may raise certain parts of democracy over others while other people will highlight completely different aspects as crucial. However, is there anyone who really wants full democracy with all it entails in this current little struggle?

[jdinasia]

Actually this is pretty important for the Pro-Thaksinistas to own and look at when they keep crying "Democratically elected!" over and over!

[plachon]

Has anyone realised that this topic is nearly 5 years old?

It was brought up because it shows a long term pattern in Thaksin's though processes.

And it certainly is relevant to todays message.

To say he is the defender of Democracy today,

when he said it was only a means to an end while in office,

puts the lie to the current defense of his crimes and malfeasance.

Maybe he was lying when he said Democracy wasn't his goal!

Trouble with Toxin you have to take every word he ever utters with a large grain of salt, and one is never sure when he is telling the truth or porkies, although on balance, if one plumps for the latter one can be correct more than 50% of the time. By that logic, I think he really meant "Democracy is the goal" and he is it's No. 1 defender!

Funny that bit about not taking a Rolls Royce to visit villages, but a pick-up or good 4x4! Classic Toxin double-speak and one must wonder if he ever gets his Royal pardon or People's Power coup he so desires, whether he'll ship his Rolls from London back to Bangkok for a right royal home coming with the adoring Red Shirts and the handful of Thaksinistas on TV who would no doubt bow down before his Silver Shadow. Hope he remembers to fix the window before then!

[grandpops]

Has anyone realised that this topic is nearly 5 years old?

It was brought up because it shows a long term pattern in Thaksin's though processes.

And it certainly is relevant to todays message.

To say he is the defender of Democracy today,

when he said it was only a means to an end while in office,

puts the lie to the current defense of his crimes and malfeasance.

Whenever the democracy fetishists champion Thaksin or the PPP for their democratic ideals, they might be reminded of this public statement.

So, he doesn't believe in democracy. Puts him in good company with many on this site. Does that now make him ok, now that he and Sondhi have common ground?

Its just different snouts fighting to get in and stay in the trough. No change there, and calling us Thaksin supporters because we distrust the PAD is childish in the extreme.

BTW should we be using playground terms such as Sondi fetishists, PADistas, clappists, smuggists etc?

As for the hilarious pro-thakisinistas from JD, you should really curtail the bile and think about it. Toxin will somebody die reading this wit?

[Plus]

I bet in Thailand there would be more representatives of farmers and small traders than bankers and doctors - thanks to the current conditions.

Wherever they came from, once they're MPs they're also politicians. Chamlong's proposal doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying it's a good system or the best - but your opposition built on semantics are childish.

The selectionprocess wouldn't include any group called 'politicians' (since that would lead to recursive selections). It doesn't matter if You wanna call them 'politicians' or (like they most likely want to) 'representatives' once they Are selected.

It's not childish, wherever they come from once they are MPs (or representatives) they'll end up being politicians both literally and practically. Their inexperience of 'politics' won't stop them from being corrupt and self-interested.

They won't end up being politicians - they would be technocrats in power, answerable to the group that sponsored them, not to any political party.

These days governing the country is a far more complicated job than it was 200 years ago in the US, let alone 2000 years ago in Greece.

The complexity and long term effects of the legislation is far beyond the level of comprehension of an average citizen, and even the most informed one.

The way they run the country now won't be acceptable in any large company - it's a human resource disaster, complete mismatch between jobs and personnel hired to perform them - both on the executive and legislative level.

Political parties that stand between the citizens and the power are the most dictatorial, non-transparent, disfunctional institutions in Thai society. They are the real drug on development.

In the West even less acceptable parties are able to put really capable individuals in charge, it doesn't happen in Thailand somehow - politicians are so low here no one wants to work with them. PPP led coalition has put up THREE cavbinets this year, one worse than another, and the Parilament is filled with total morons like that fake degree kungfu panda wannabe Karun.

Thaksin has run this country as his personal fiefdom for six years, and it shows - the system cannot function by itself anymore, hence the call for a total restructuring.

[Samuian]

..........edited......... - it's a human resource disaster, complete mismatch between jobs and personnel hired to perform them - both on the executive and legislative level.

Political parties that stand between the citizens and the power are the most dictatorial, non-transparent, disfunctional institutions in Thai society. They are the real drug on development.

In the West even less acceptable parties are able to put really capable individuals in charge, it doesn't happen in Thailand somehow - politicians are so low here no one wants to work with them. PPP led coalition has put up THREE cavbinets this year, one worse than another, and the Parilament is filled with total morons like that fake degree kungfu panda wannabe Karun.

Thaksin has run this country as his personal fiefdom for six years, and it shows - the system cannot function by itself anymore, hence the call for a total restructuring.

It's the result of cronyism, the result of having people meddle around, vote rigging, faction building,the result is - everyone owes each other, then the bargaining starts and then the posts are passed on to an appointed individual, NOT according to their best abilities but to their wishes but to their standings in the ranking of who did bring in how many votes and: "yes my nephew here, my brother there and an auntie has to manage this and I need a concession for this, a license for that, there is still some mining to be done, some timber to be logged, some resources to be raked in, some harbor built in a desert, see Suvannabhum!

The Hopewell Project in Bkk?

They are all busy with securing their interests, that there is simply no time to deal with pressing issues concerning governing a country!

And this kind of politics, will bring up the worst of corrupt people, ever more will try to come to the top, get most out of the trough!

Edited November 4, 2008 by Samuian

[Smithson]

They won't end up being politicians - they would be technocrats in power, answerable to the group that sponsored them, not to any political party.

Who will sponsor them?

[Plus]

They won't end up being politicians - they would be technocrats in power, answerable to the group that sponsored them, not to any political party.

Who will sponsor them?

Their colleagues, for proffession based constituencies.

I guess if you look for equivalents in the West - it will be various "pressure groups", legitimised, regulated, and with clear limits on their power.

The main psychological block is that representative are assumed to be only representatives of geographical regions - villages and towns, not representatives of occupations or social groups.

These days villages and towns do not have any interest in governing the country on national level but occupational and social groups do, as their stakes are not confined to their immediate vicinity. Rubber tree farmers in Surin and Songkla are thousand miles apart geographically, but they are very much a single unit when it comes to dealing with rubber policies in parliament.

Thai region based representative is a jack of all trades who knows nothing in particular and who took millions in debt from his local businessmen and needs to repay them first and foremost. He serves people who invested in him, not people who elected him. That's the rule - who pays the piper orders the music.

No one goes to parliament to serve the country anymore - the system if fool proof for those kinds of people.

[Smithson]

He serves people who invested in him, not people who elected him. That's the rule - who pays the piper orders the music.

I think you will find this is the case worldwide, politicians are serving those who fund their parties. The trick to 'keeping them honest' is the legal system, the opposition and fear of not being voted back in. New Politics will lessen the roll of the voter, so it is a step backward. PAD have identified the disease, but their cure is worse than the illness.

[Plus]

think you will find this is the case worldwide, politicians are serving those who fund their parties....

And there's undeniable wordlwide rejection of this system. In the US everyone is campaigning for the "change", a break away from traditional politics, to reign in special interests, to stir up the Capitol Hill, to fight for the people etc etc. Even Bush started off with "change" agenda.

Unlike the West where their systems stood up for centuries, Thailand can wipe the slate clean and restart it in any way it deems appropriate wihout major repercussions.

In the West "new politics" proposal would be impssible to implement because they have "traditions", so, as you pointed, they have to resort to "tricks to keep them honest" - it's not supposed to be that way in the first place.

It's granted that disillusion with democracy in the west hasn't manifested itself in taking over White House or Downing Street but in voter apathy, which is just as dangerous, in the long run.

Or consider this argument - the Americans might be proud that they got rid of Bush via legitimate means, but, honestly, what if they had their own PAD to stop him from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? They, the dead Iraqis, are the ones who paid for this "triumph of democracy", which is simply a legal removal of a maniac from power.

Is it an acceptable cost of this "democracy"?

And it's not only dead Iraqis - repercussions of Bush' rule go far beyond that as he set a course for the whole world to follow - Russians, Chinese, Al Qaeda - they all took note.

[Smithson]

think you will find this is the case worldwide, politicians are serving those who fund their parties....

And there's undeniable wordlwide rejection of this system. In the US everyone is campaigning for the "change", a break away from traditional politics, to reign in special interests, to stir up the Capitol Hill, to fight for the people etc etc. Even Bush started off with "change" agenda.

Yes, 'change' is always a campaign strategy, but nothing radical like reducing the power of the voter. The emphasis is normally on power to the ppl and accountability to voters.

Unlike the West where their systems stood up for centuries, Thailand can wipe the slate clean and restart it in any way it deems appropriate wihout major repercussions.

How many constitutions has Thailand had? They have wiped the slate clean many times and there has been severe repercussions including massacres.

In the West "new politics" proposal would be impssible to implement because they have "traditions", so, as you pointed, they have to resort to "tricks to keep them honest" - it's not supposed to be that way in the first place.

Please don't quote me out of context, 'keeping them honest' is about checks and balances, an important part of democracy.

Or consider this argument - the Americans might be proud that they got rid of Bush via legitimate means, but, honestly, what if they had their own PAD to stop him from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? They, the dead Iraqis, are the ones who paid for this "triumph of democracy", which is simply a legal removal of a maniac from power.

Is it an acceptable cost of this "democracy"?

Bush has not been removed by the vote, he's not allowed to stand for a third term. The voted him for a second term after the invasion, so obviously (and unfortunately) they don't consider him a maniac. What happened in Iraq is a sad reflection on the US, it is no 'triumph of democracy'.

And it's not only dead Iraqis - repercussions of Bush' rule go far beyond that as he set a course for the whole world to follow - Russians, Chinese, Al Qaeda - they all took note.

You've lost me here, I don't think Al Quaeda is that interested in following a US political system.

[Plus]

Yes, 'change' is always a campaign strategy, but nothing radical like reducing the power of the voter.

Errr, "new politics" is about increasing the power of the voter - cutting politicians in the employ of shady business out of the equation. Right now the power of the voter is nil, zilch, nothing.

You can say "but Thai electorate can vote bad politicians out" - to which I can only point to the fact that it has never, ever happened before, and is not going to happen in the future. Politicians act with absolute impunity because together with patronage system they have a complete lock on electoral process. This fact is widely acknowledged even by ardent anti-PAD commentators.

PAD came up with new politics only because the traditional ways do not work in this country. Same old creeps come back like fuc_king zombies again and again and again and again.

'keeping them honest' is about checks and balances, an important part of democracy.

I know, but you used the word "trick", too - completly unaware that there should be no special tricks required for people to do their jobs. Politicians, just like everyone else, should have intrinsic motivation to perfrom their duties, and be satisfied with due rewards. Find me any other profession where you have to trick people so that they don't steal. Even prostitutes do not normally run away with your wallet but simply take the agreed fee.

>>

You right, Bush hasn't been voted out, the US simply allowed him to inflict as much damage as he wanted, luckly most of it was on some arabs half way around the world, who really cares.

Radical groups, like Al Qaeda, has exploited US policies to the tilt - you don't really need to brainwash people that the US is a great Satan - just sit back and watch. HRW watch has made a great point about global threat to human rights - it comes from the West hypocrisy, not so much from terrorism itself.

Anyway, my point was that the argument that in the US people do not occupy government house if they are dissatisfied with the government is not very convincing - while they played by the rules, so much innocent blood had been spilled that it rendered the whole idea of having rules meaningless.

[animatic]

think you will find this is the case worldwide, politicians are serving those who fund their parties....

And there's undeniable wordlwide rejection of this system. In the US everyone is campaigning for the "change", a break away from traditional politics, to reign in special interests, to stir up the Capitol Hill, to fight for the people etc etc. Even Bush started off with "change" agenda.

Unlike the West where their systems stood up for centuries, Thailand can wipe the slate clean and restart it in any way it deems appropriate wihout major repercussions.

In the West "new politics" proposal would be impssible to implement because they have "traditions", so, as you pointed, they have to resort to "tricks to keep them honest" - it's not supposed to be that way in the first place.

It's granted that disillusion with democracy in the west hasn't manifested itself in taking over White House or Downing Street but in voter apathy, which is just as dangerous, in the long run.

Or consider this argument - the Americans might be proud that they got rid of Bush via legitimate means, but, honestly, what if they had their own PAD to stop him from slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? They, the dead Iraqis, are the ones who paid for this "triumph of democracy", which is simply a legal removal of a maniac from power.

Is it an acceptable cost of this "democracy"?

And it's not only dead Iraqis - repercussions of Bush' rule go far beyond that as he set a course for the whole world to follow - Russians, Chinese, Al Qaeda - they all took note.

Surprise there are MANY groups like PAD in the USA, more than you can count on both hands and feet.

The did their best to tget Bush out, but it wasn't enough.

The opposite side of that coin tried for almost 10 years to get Clinton out,

to the point of a failed impeachment over lieing about a affair.

Ken Starr did a Kangaro Court special prosecuter bit for the WHOLE of the Clinton presidency,

and STILL there was nothing to really get him on....

Women who's sons died in Iraq are camping outside of Bush ranch

to make the point that they think the ware was bullshit and their children died in vain.

You make it seem that none of the protest groups in the US ever go off the reservation,

never get in tiffs with cops, never get really pissed off and ramp up the rhetoric beyond the

rational for a spell than the dial it back

and that they never propose changes that CAN'T be put into action,

but make people think of ideas that CAN be.

Yeah we can be proud to say we got rid of Bush,

but not Bush only his policies through

Mc`Cain n barely Able.

Bush is out because of a law from FDR's time limiting terms no other reason.

If it were Thaksin, he would be trying to buy a change of that law to let him stay in.

[Plus]

Well, surely Bush had his share of protests, and you can be proud of your compatriots standing up to him.

The end result is still the same - they couldn't stop him and he got away.

Let's hope that John MacClain doesn't win elections tomorrow, lots of people might get cold feet when the time comes to vote for a black guy with Hussein as a middle name. Pshycologically lots of people wouldn't admit it in pulbic, when asked by pollsters, for example.

If MacClain wins, it would be a great argument that democracy really is the worst system and just about anything else can be made to work better.

[TAWP]

McCain, and I would argue that his economic policies are far better than Obamas (lesser of two evils)...but now we are going off-topic.

I would propose that democracy is the worst system due to the voter having a tendency to vote politicians into office that turn it into pseudo-democracy. Democracy in name. The voters are democracy's worst enemy.

[animatic]

The problem with democracy is that people like Karl Rove,

have figured out how to 'play the populace'.

Play to the prejudices , pet peeves and fears.

Thaksin also did that with a more narrow audience quotient of needs.

If Democracy is to be the goal, we can have it easily.

But what is the END GOAL OF DEMOCRACY?

Are we getting close to that?

Are the PEOPLE being served properly by the way 'Democracy the concept' works here?

If not what is to be done?

If we can't get there via Democracy directly at the moment,

can we GET THERE in another manner, for a time.

If Democracy is used as a tool to go someplace unintended by the populace,

what recourses should they be allowed to correct things?

If the constitution is rewritten every 3 years to favor one group,

then the recourse bar is ALSO being shifted to fit THEIR needs not the peoples.

Where do the informed, yet disenfranchised by corruption, dissenters go for recourse?

And when can they go there?

And in Thailand, what if one populace segment sees the danger,

and another is blinded to it. Be that by Machaivellian design,

or by lack of understanding of things outside of their daily lives.

Should the ones that see, sit idly by indefinitely? Or take more direct actions?

This lack of understanding isn't to be interpreted as stupidity or lack of intelligence at all.

But by stifled information transmission, or by inexperience in certain societal functions.

Or just plain not having as clue about an issue.

Would the typical rice farmer know a corporate debencher from a government IMF floating bond?

Not likely, so he wouldn't know he is being dicked around.

I still don't understand these "Rice Pledging Schemes."

Schemes seems the PERFECT word for it, following SCAMS.

Would the average rice farmer see that loaning 4 billion to Myanmar

that turns right around and goes into Thaksin's comany is like

him opening the country's bank account and putting some of it into his own?

Sure he sells some cell towers to them,

but since we know Myanmar defaults on most loans,

this is essentially Thaksin getting paid to give Myanmar, Thai farmers money...

Boil it down; nothing more nothing less. And he does it while PM.

Do you think the average Issan worker is experienced enough to grasp the niceties and object.

Certainly some would, if it is explained, and likely many others not.

Some will just NOT BELIEVE their savior could do it, it MUST be a lie.

WHY... not cause they are stupid,

but because it's too far removed from what their lives mean. Lack of experience.

This NOT an anti-democratic rant. I just went to great lengths and expense to vote.

But I also went to great lengths to understand the issues at hand too.

Democracy DEMANDS an informed and thinking electorate

or it becomes a rubber stamp for charlatans.

I would be unhappy if some arch-conservative twit decided

to counter act my vote with info based on billious lies and inuendo and smears....

But likely this is what will happen. I already know that

I am balanced vs someone best described like that.

Edited November 4, 2008 by animatic

[Smithson]

Yes, 'change' is always a campaign strategy, but nothing radical like reducing the power of the voter.

Errr, "new politics" is about increasing the power of the voter - cutting politicians in the employ of shady business out of the equation. Right now the power of the voter is nil, zilch, nothing.

So exactly what is 'new politics'? Can you define it? You seem to be saying it's politics without politicians - think about it, it doesn't make sense.

I know, but you used the word "trick", too - completly unaware that there should be no special tricks required for people to do their jobs.

The term 'trick' is used in a different context to what you're suggesting.

Politicians, just like everyone else, should have intrinsic motivation to perfrom their duties, and be satisfied with due rewards. Find me any other profession where you have to trick people so that they don't steal. Even prostitutes do not normally run away with your wallet but simply take the agreed fee.

Politicians, like everyone else, need to be watched. Around the world employees clock on and are watched by CCTV etc. Theft in the workplace is common. What professions in Thailand are free from corruption?

Check and balances are an important part of government. Thaksin was able to get around the checks and balances. The idea (trick?) is to strengthen accountability. Corruption is rife at all levels of Thai society, not just the political level. This is the real problem.

[Plus]

Prevention is better than treatment. Much of political corruptioin can be prevented by putting a better system in place. Current set up attracts only crooks, and no matter how hard you watch over them, they will always find ways to steal.

The "trick" is not employ crooks in the first place - hence new politics. It's not the only possible solution, btw. Separating local and national politics altogether would work great, too.

But to me the idea of redrawing consituencies to occupation/social group base rather than geography sounds sexy. It challenges our most basic understanding of what the country is, brings it close to the modern, flat world reality.

[jackspratt]

But to me the idea of redrawing consituencies to occupation/social group base rather than geography sounds sexy. It challenges our most basic understanding of what the country is, brings it close to the modern, flat world reality.

Hopefully you will remain lonely in your flat world.

There is nothing sexy about disenfranchising people - which however you want to describe it, the PAD proposal would achieve. A country run by unaccountable technocrats - give me a break.

As piss poor as Thailand's current form of democracy is, it is better solved by evolution, and the gradual acceptance of the rule of law.

[Plus]

There is nothing sexy about disenfranchising people

Where did you get this "disenfranchising people" idea?

NO ONE will lose the right to vote, some people would even get to vote twice if there's a mixed 30-70 system.

You can say it's unfair - everybody should have equal right to vote.

Two things - first, people are not equal, some always have more power than others. Even in the US they seek endorsement from various powerful and respected people. Second - everybody will have the right to increase his voting power - just become a prominent member in several fields, so that you get to vote for representatives from those fields in their internal elections.

The main bone of contention, the final appointment by a commitee, is immaterial, it's just a stop gap measure until they set strict rules for profession based constituencies that can be applied all across the society.

[Smithson]

There is nothing sexy about disenfranchising people

Where did you get this "disenfranchising people" idea?

NO ONE will lose the right to vote, some people would even get to vote twice if there's a mixed 30-70 system.

You can say it's unfair - everybody should have equal right to vote.

Two things - first, people are not equal, some always have more power than others. Even in the US they seek endorsement from various powerful and respected people. Second - everybody will have the right to increase his voting power - just become a prominent member in several fields, so that you get to vote for representatives from those fields in their internal elections.

The main bone of contention, the final appointment by a commitee, is immaterial, it's just a stop gap measure until they set strict rules for profession based constituencies that can be applied all across the society.

Still waiting for you to define 'new politics', although some worrying things are emerging, such as the idea of some ppl voting twice by becoming a prominent member from several fields. Sounds elitist to me. What are these prominent fields? Can you mention any professional fields in Thailand that are corruption free?

Edited November 6, 2008 by Smithson

[younghusband]

There is nothing sexy about disenfranchising people

Where did you get this "disenfranchising people" idea?

NO ONE will lose the right to vote, some people would even get to vote twice if there's a mixed 30-70 system.

You can say it's unfair - everybody should have equal right to vote.

Two things - first, people are not equal, some always have more power than others. Even in the US they seek endorsement from various powerful and respected people. Second - everybody will have the right to increase his voting power - just become a prominent member in several fields, so that you get to vote for representatives from those fields in their internal elections.

The main bone of contention, the final appointment by a commitee, is immaterial, it's just a stop gap measure until they set strict rules for profession based constituencies that can be applied all across the society.

You remind me of the guy who used to walk up and down Oxford Street with a huge banner proclaiming the benefits of fresh air.

I am really losing interest in the details of New Politics (actaually as Chis Baker has pointed out old old politics) because even its adherents seem to have only the haziest idea how to define it, or retreat rapidly if parts of it come under scrutiny (oh, it's just a discussion, brainstorming session etc etc).You definition seems to imply that the more qualified, however defined, would have several votes so this in fact does diminish the influence of the ordinary Thai.

Having followed as best I can your arguments over several months I'm bound to say they are highly unlikely to reach fruition without some cataclysmic and probably bloody act of repression, and even then the shelf life will be limited.The trouble is that many protagonists in Thai politics- admittedly on all sides -simply don't understand historical context and relevance, the ant wandering over the tapestry if you like.Given the intellectual incoherence of Thai New Politics it's difficult to be very precise in deconstructing it but it's quite clear that the arguments are very close to those used in nineteenth century Europe by opponents of the extended franchise -not just by reactionaries sometimes liberals as well.

Trying to be constructive if the objectives are to eliminate political corruption and restrain the tyranny of the majority, there are better ways of doing it.My fear is that New Politics is however being driven by more sinister motives than these two laudable objectives.

[Plus]

Smithson, I've written a few dozen posts on "new politics", why are you asking me for definition? Just want to start over? Again?

Why is it a worrying thing that people with more influence in the society legitimately get more voice in governing?

You can PRETEND that everyone has an equal voice under the current system, but you will only be fooling yourself.

Thaksin realised that kamnans have far greater voice than regular farmers, for example, and exploited their influence to the tilt. One kamnan - twenty extra votes. Thaksin bags the victory, idealists keep singing their hymns.

Under new politics it won't work that way - no one would be able to exert undue influence - your special position will only get you a chance for one extra vote for a candidate from your professional constituency.

If you are a prominent gay rights campaigner and a top notch, widely respected doctor at the same time, and you worked really hard to get there, and your peers think you fully deserve your high status - why not legitimately give you an extra vote each for gay and medical doctors groups? Why pretend that your opinion in running the country matters as much as some Somchai's who spends his days drinking and gambling while his wife toils in a factory, and who takes money for his vote from anyone who offers it?

People should be duly rewarded for their efforts, those who deserve more power, should get more power. Everyone has the right to become an "influential" person in their field butnot everyone uses it. Want an extra vote - convince your peers that you deserve it.

Why is that so worrying?

[Plus]

Chis Baker has pointed out old old politics

Good point - but Thailand hasn't had that experience yet. It's like rasing a baby - you have to go through the same old routine, from breastfeeding to bottles to solid food and so on.

Yes, it has been tried before, so what? It doesn't mean that you can stuff the baby with beer right away 'cos that's the logical conclusion of the growing process.

Demand for new politics is not something superimposed by mysterious elites silently guiding the country on the path to democracy. It's a bottom up, grass roots idea, a reaction to current developments, not a photocopied lesson from "Democracy for dummies, Chapter 5".

There aren't any alternative proposals, btw. I haven't seen "proportional House" idea popular on thaivisa anywhere in Thai society yet.

The only "alternative" is to keep doing the same, failed thing over and over and over again and expect different results.

And if the results are not different and still unsatisfactory, delcare it a new benchmark for democracy.

[younghusband]

People should be duly rewarded for their efforts, those who deserve more power, should get more power. Everyone has the right to become an "influential" person in their field butnot everyone uses it. Want an extra vote - convince your peers that you deserve it.

Why is that so worrying?

It's worrying if I may interject, because it is reactionary and demeaning of humanity.

Life is never fair and advantages will always accrue to those with excellent education, good genes, good looks etc.Electoral democracy doesn't need to be distorted in the way you envisage to ensure the dice roll in favour of the "haves".In Thailand where the odds are weighed in life's struggle against the majority, you want to handicap them further by denying an equal suffrage.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes -who will watch over those who decide on these things anyway, "royalist intellectuals"?

[Plus]

Life is never fair and advantages will always accrue to those with excellent education, good genes, good looks etc.

Why not legitimise and regulate these advantages? Why do you think it's better for them to exercise their power behind the doors, make secret deals, bankroll certain candidates and demand returns of favours?

"Equal suffrage" is meaningless as long as this shady practices are allowed to flourish. At this point the completely dominate political scene, btw. Individual votes don't matter at all - parties buy MPs wholesale, whole factions in one go. Loyalty of two-three core leaders of something like Isaan Pattana equals several million votes.

There's your "equal suffrage" arithmetics.

The Emperor has no clothes.

I mean Thailand's "democracy" is all a sham, a facade, with no substance left whatsoever.

[Smithson]

Smithson, I've written a few dozen posts on "new politics", why are you asking me for definition? Just want to start over? Again?

You've made vague references, as Chris Baker and others have pointed out, nobody has defined it.

Why is it a worrying thing that people with more influence in the society legitimately get more voice in governing?

Sounds like your defining elitism to me. Who are these people?

You can PRETEND that everyone has an equal voice under the current system, but you will only be fooling yourself.

Nobody is pretending anything, the idea is to move to a situation where everyone's voice is more equal. Not legitimize inequality.

Under new politics it won't work that way - no one would be able to exert undue influence - your special position will only get you a chance for one extra vote for a candidate from your professional constituency.

What are the professions? Is there a list?

If you are a prominent gay rights campaigner and a top notch, widely respected doctor at the same time, and you worked really hard to get there, and your peers think you fully deserve your high status - why not legitimately give you an extra vote each for gay and medical doctors groups?

So there will be a constituency for gays, where they can elect there leader? Will this require ppl to the register as gay so they can vote in this group?

Why pretend that your opinion in running the country matters as much as some Somchai's who spends his days drinking and gambling while his wife toils in a factory, and who takes money for his vote from anyone who offers it?

All sectors of Thai society have shown they can be bribed. Whether it be Somchai in the village or elected senators. In many countries ppl with little education have formed groups such as trade unions, which have made a very positive contribution.

People should be duly rewarded for their efforts, those who deserve more power, should get more power.

Once again, you are defining elitism.

Everyone has the right to become an "influential" person in their field but not everyone uses it. Want an extra vote - convince your peers that you deserve it.

Why is that so worrying?

The term 'influential person' is very worrying.

[Plus]

.. the idea is to move to a situation where everyone's voice is more equal.

That's a utopia - people's weight in the society is NEVER equal, never has been and never will be.

Even if you successfully restrict them to one man one vote, they will ALWAYS find ways to exert more power.

It's the natural order of things, but without "new politics" it will always be illegal here.

In the US they acknoweldge this inequality and put strict regulations on lobbying and campaign contributions, not pretend that they don't exist or don't matter in their democratic society.

I think if they had a legal way of putting "special interests" in Congress, in public view, instead of trying to catch them in the dark, they'd go for it.

[younghusband]

Why not legitimise and regulate these advantages? Why do you think it's better for them to exercise their power behind the doors, make secret deals, bankroll certain candidates and demand returns of favours?

It's been tried in a general way before and was called "eugenics", popular in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.The idea, based on a flawed understanding of genetics, was that human progress would be advanced by capitalising on "good genes" whether in a "superior race" or social class.Typically the former emphasis was more prevalent in the US and the latter in the UK.Those who were deemed to be non-contributors to society (basically anybody below the respectable working class, ie in your terms Somchai and his wife in the factory) were encouraged not to be reproduce or to drastically limit their offspring.The more extreme proponents advocated physical elimination of the weak minded, criminals and deviants etc.Oddly enough the theory was popular in liberal circles and was not considered particularly reactionary, just a scientific way of "regulating advantages" to use your rather creepy expression.

Of course the science behind it was screwy.When the Nazis took it over it was forever consigned to history's dustbin.Actually even before the science of genetics had become better understood, and eugenics had lost all serious support from the scientific community.

[Smithson]

.. the idea is to move to a situation where everyone's voice is more equal.

That's a utopia - people's weight in the society is NEVER equal, never has been and never will be.

Nothing is perfect, nonetheless ppl will still strive to improve things which is good. There are many countries that have achieved much great equality than Thailand (I'm not talking about the US).

Even if you successfully restrict them to one man one vote, they will ALWAYS find ways to exert more power.

It's the natural order of things, but without "new politics" it will always be illegal here.

So we institutionalize inequality?

In the US they acknoweldge this inequality and put strict regulations on lobbying and campaign contributions, not pretend that they don't exist or don't matter in their democratic society.

I think if they had a legal way of putting "special interests" in Congress, in public view, instead of trying to catch them in the dark, they'd go for it.

Despite proclaiming itself as a champion of democracy, the US is a very poor example. Scandinavia, Switzerland and parts of Europe are much better.