Democracy Means Having To Tolerate 'Red Villages': Thai Editorial

[webfact]

EDITORIAL

Democracy means having to tolerate 'red villages'

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- Supporters of the government have the right to declare their communities as such, but they must respect the views of others, as they often proclaim

It takes two to tango. The proliferation of so-called "red-shirt villages" needs the Democrat Party and others who are alarmed at this development to make it a new political time-bomb. The opposition camp has called for a government investigation into who has been financing the designation of these villages, whose number has been rising fast. It didn't help the situation when a roadside pavilion belonging to a "red village" in Songkhla was burnt down this past week.

Whether or not villagers harbouring and supporting the ideologies of the red shirts should come together and blatantly politicise their communities is debatable. There are the issues of political freedom, the promotion of democracy and increased public participation in politics. These things can be seen as being on the positive side. On the other hand, there are threats of discrimination against those who don't share the red-shirts' political thinking who may happen to reside in those villages. The red shirts proclaim themselves as defenders of the right to think differently, but it's very doubtful if establishing red villages and not allowing any other views will serve that purported value.

Being sceptical is one thing, though. To demonise the red-shirt villages is another. As of now, most red-shirt villages are little more than a declarative sign that defines the villagers as pro-red and "pro-democracy". The residents will vote for the Pheu Thai Party in elections, of course, but there is nothing wrong about that in itself. Some homes have put up photos of Thaksin Shinawatra, but again, that is their right and their political freedom. The bottom-line is that these villagers are Thais and there are so far no activities that endanger national security.

As things stand, red-shirt villages are a political evolution driven by the country's decade-old political crisis. This crisis, as we know, feeds on itself. Failing to recognise red-shirt villages won't make the phenomenon disappear; it could indeed have the opposite effect. Too much concern can lead to mistrust, and too much mistrust can become destructive paranoia.

The number of these villages has been jumping simply because the normally lengthy ceremonious launch has been cut short. Today, village chiefs may just gather people together and get the declarative signs from district red-shirt leaders. The easier the process, the quicker the number rises.

Naturally, the Democrats aren't happy about the introduction of red-shirt villages in Thailand's South, although their number in the traditionally Democrat region can still be counted on two hands. Again, being unhappy about it is one thing; trying to smear it is another. Too many smear campaigns have damaged this country enough. And make no mistake, everyone including the Democrats have been on the receiving end of it.

The red shirts have driven the Pheu Thai Party to power. That they want to symbolise their strength through village signs is within their right. Recognition of these rights is the job of the rest of the country. To make sure that these rights are exercised in a responsible manner is the job of the red shirts themselves. If the line regarding who does what is not clear, mistrust will continue and possibly be amplified.

The issue is not just about being fair or about rights and freedom. Due to Thailand's simmering political conflict, everyone has to be discreet. Red villages are a mixture of ideological evolution and political strategy. While so far harmless, it's a sensitive mix. Divided Thais have learned that silly incidents can make things go terribly wrong. Whether or not the lesson is remembered is very crucial where the issue of red-shirt villages is concerned.

Of course, Thailand would have been much better off without the political "colours". But we all have to cope with reality now, so the only option is to cope with it by being open-minded and responsible. If the red-shirt villages have been born as a result of Thais' collective failure at compromise, at least we can use recognition of them as a new start, a sign that Thais can agree to disagree.

-- The Nation 2012-05-19

[dksharron]

Will there be red shirt post offices? red shirt police stations? red shirt fire stations? red shirt amphurs?

If it were up to the Thaksin clan, most certainly!

[LuckyLew]

Thailand is not a Democracy, never has been, never will be ... IMO

[lungmi]

Drug free, corruption free, democracy free, gay free, katoy free, the liberated villages of the red guards?

[hellodolly]

What a load of nonsense. Take 100 red shirt villages and you will find that 95 of them are a red village because the head man wanted it that way.

Put decent education in the red shirt villages and they will disappear.

[WhizBang]

Democracy means having to tolerate 'red villages'

But it does NOT mean having to put up with harrasment and intimidation.

[Moruya]

At the moment Thailand is not a democracy. It's a mess

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Thaivisa Connect App

[billd766]

So it would be OK for the Democrats to open Yellow Shirts villages in the North East without any hassle or intimidation from the Red Shirts.

Really?

[Skywalker69]

Will there be red shirt post offices? red shirt police stations? red shirt fire stations? red shirt amphurs?

If it were up to the Thaksin clan, most certainly!

Apartheid comes to mind.

[Skywalker69]

What a load of nonsense. Take 100 red shirt villages and you will find that 95 of them are a red village because the head man wanted it that way.

Put decent education in the red shirt villages and they will disappear.

+1 Education should be the "magic" word. Amazing Thailand.

[animatic]

Just coming to a town with a few red leaning members and declaring it 'A Red Village' doesn't make it so, without a shielded from observation, blind vote, by EVERY voter in that town.

Less than that it only means the Red Leadership will add the title to their listof Red Villages, and try to make us believe it is united and a ground swell of rosie red goodness. Erecting a pavilion and saying it is now a RED VILLAGE is naught more than a political ploy. But a potentially dangerous one. Because it can make those who are now feeling they are disenfranchised by the 'arbitrary red designation', to want to rise against them. And yet not able to speak freely because of increasing intimidation, as reported in many supposedly 100% 'red villages'.

This really is setting the stage for a divide and conquer civil war style split of the nation.

And the Red Leaders seem to be trying to do this with wedges in all areas Red in general or not.

Can you trust your neighbors now? Who can you trust? Who can you join with to be safe?

Edited May 19, 2012 by animatic

[Skywalker69]

Just coming to a town with a few red leaning members and declaring it 'A Red Village' doesn't make it so, without a shielded from observation, blind vote, by EVERY voter in that town.

Less than that it only means the Red Leadership will add the title to their listof Red Villages, and try to make us believe it is united and a ground swell of rosie red goodness. Erecting a pavilion and saying it is now a RED VILLAGE is naught more than a political ploy. But a potentially dangerous one. Because it can make those who are now feeling they are disenfranchised by the 'arbitrary red designation', to want to rise against them. And yet not able to speak freely because of increasing intimidation, as reported in many supposedly 100% 'red villages'.

This really is setting the stage for a divide and conquer civil war style split of the nation.

And the Red Leaders seem to be trying to do this with wedges in all areas Red in general or not.

Can you trust your neighbors now? Who can you trust? Who can you join with to be safe?

Its going according to Thaksin´s plan.

[hellodolly]

Thailand is not a Democracy, never has been, never will be ... IMO

It will take it a while but once the red shirts are gone it will have a chance at becoming a honest government. To my knowledge democracy means the most people want the leader. not the richest. Just look at the states for example. They had Bush when Gore had the most votes. Money talks in any country.

Edited May 19, 2012 by hellodolly

[JohnAllan]

Quote: ". . . there are threats of discrimination against those who don't share the red-shirts' political thinking who may happen to reside in those villages. The red shirts proclaim themselves as defenders of the right to think differently, but it's very doubtful if establishing red villages and not allowing any other views will serve that purported value."

"Being sceptical is one thing, though. To demonise the red-shirt villages is another. As of now, most red-shirt villages are little more than a declarative sign that defines the villagers as pro-red and "pro-democracy"."

Two somewhat contradictory statements. The erection of signs is implication enough that the whole village is fully in favour of being declared a colour zone. Unless the instigators canvass every single resident in the proposed village location for their views - something I have no reason to believe has occurred - respect those views, and ensure that each of the residents respects the others' views, discrimination will be the least of the problems that will result.

Villages hosting residents of opposing political views - of which there will be no small number - will be much more likely to see the minority [non-redshirts?] ostracised and worse, intimidated. These villages can lead to nothing but distrust and the opposite of the restoration of harmony that the government claims to be pursuing . . .

Edited May 19, 2012 by JohnAllan

[JohnAllan]

So it would be OK for the Democrats to open Yellow Shirts villages in the North East without any hassle or intimidation from the Red Shirts.

Really?

Are they planning to?

[hellodolly]

Quote: ". . . there are threats of discrimination against those who don't share the red-shirts' political thinking who may happen to reside in those villages. The red shirts proclaim themselves as defenders of the right to think differently, but it's very doubtful if establishing red villages and not allowing any other views will serve that purported value."

"Being sceptical is one thing, though. To demonise the red-shirt villages is another. As of now, most red-shirt villages are little more than a declarative sign that defines the villagers as pro-red and "pro-democracy"."

Two somewhat contradictory statements. The erection of signs is implication enough that the whole village is fully in favour of being declared a colour zone. Unless the instigators canvass every single resident in the proposed village location for their views - something I have no reason to believe has occurred - respect those views, and ensure that each of the residents respects the others' views, discrimination will be the least of the problems that will result.

Villages hosting residents of opposing political views - of which there will be no small number - will be much more likely to see the minority [non-redshirts?] ostracised and worse, intimidated. These villages can lead to nothing but distrust and the opposite of the restoration of harmony that the government claims to be pursuing . . .

I guess what you are saying that the red shirt tactics to disrupt the Tha Government are now being used to disrupt harmony in villages.

Just goes to show how low they can go.

[OzMick]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."? - Winston Churchill

[Mitker]

Definitely don't agree.

A village is an administrative entity established to manage the issues affecting all its citizens.

Labeling it as "red" by its leaders (and therefore pretending the whole village has a "red" political conviction) is a gross hijacking of the political conviction of its individual inhabitants who would happen not to share it.

It is simply unacceptable in any country that doesn't consider the Rwandan Way as a role model. But unfortunately it fits perfectly the red shirt view we witness for a few years now.

[Crushdepth]

Do the people actually living in these villages get a say in it?

[gand]

'Red Shirt' re-education camps?

[gand]

Sieg Heil Thaksin

[OzMick]

You have to wonder if the vote is a secret ballot, or an open show of hands with a dozen thugs at the back.

[pastitche]

What a load of nonsense. Take 100 red shirt villages and you will find that 95 of them are a red village because the head man wanted it that way.

Put decent education in the red shirt villages and they will disappear.

You can of course substantiate both of your statements?

[pastitche]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."? - Winston Churchill

Yes, he too had a contempt shared by many on here, for the less educated working class.

[hellodolly]

What a load of nonsense. Take 100 red shirt villages and you will find that 95 of them are a red village because the head man wanted it that way.

Put decent education in the red shirt villages and they will disappear.

You can of course substantiate both of your statements?

The very fact that the government refuses to but decent education in the villages substantiates it.

[khunken]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."? - Winston Churchill

Yes, he too had a contempt shared by many on here, for the less educated working class.

Do you have a source for this? Just like you asked the previous poster.

I can't speak for others but I have great respect for the working class no matter what their education. I do have great contempt for anyone or group who manipulates them & for those who seem to think that 'democracy' is intimidating your opponents (or even those who sit on the fence) which is what red-shirt villages are all about.

[OzMick]

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute talk with the average voter."? - Winston Churchill

Yes, he too had a contempt shared by many on here, for the less educated working class.

What has class to do with it? In most western societies there are opportunities for education for the working man if desired, with the internet even more so. I CHOSE to be working class, a very well paid shift-worker, because it suited me.

IMHO Churchill was referring to the recognised weakness of democracy, that the uneducated, ill-informed and plain stupid (epitomised as the village idiot) gets the same voting rights as a "professor of political science". And it becomes a real problem when the former hugely outnumber the latter. But it is not "politically correct" to say that.

Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time. E.B. White

[gand]

"Democracy Means Having To Tolerate 'Red Villages'" but will the red shirts tolerate democracy?

[dksharron]

Democracy means having to tolerate 'red villages'

Actually, no it doesn't. Democracy means that no individual in any village must belong to any group. They can belong to any group or party or have any line of thought that they want, and the point of Red Villages is so that each individual cannot have any other views besides the Red ones.