OK, Thai Democracy Is Not Perfect - But What's The Alternative?: Opinion

[Fozfromoz]

A few things on the tick sheet need to be completed for democracy:

Government acting for the best interests of the nation

Military answers to the Government of the day, not the other way around

All people have the opportunity to vote (Australia voting is compulsory, other democracies its not so)

Free speech. People need to be educated that things take time, and not to throw the toys out of the sandpit when they dont get their way (airport takovers, city blockades and burnings)

Party in opposition takes the in power government to task on all issues, to keep them honest, and apply the same rules to themselves

Have all transactions open and transparent when dealing with public monies

Fair and honest legal system, with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty

There will be many more, and of course being realistic, these would not all be able to be actioned in quick time

Please do not perpetuate myths about our country. In Australia it is compulsory to attend a polling station (without good reason, or registering for a postal vote). Once you have had your presence registered, there is no compulsion to accept a ballot paper or to fill it in.However, voting is compulsory in Thailand, but it is not enforced. However, if you present yourself at a polling station, destroying or defacing your ballot is an offence.

Oz Mick. I know you are splitting hairs.

Links below

http://www.aec.gov.a....htm#compulsory

You call it splitting hairs, I call it 100% accurate, though considerably different from the view of those too lazy to explain the difference.

Why dont you climb down off your high horse and read the link.

[givenall]

Check the date, check the date Webfact stop it your cracking me up

“Democracy” Dream on,

True democracy with corrupt police, and corrupt politicians, corrupt PM. and the votes are only given to highest better

Edited June 27, 2012 by givenall

[daninthai]

True democracy starts with 100% freedom of speech and no fear of reprisal - no exceptions!

There should never be 100% freedom of speech. Threats against judges and their families, for example, are not acceptable. Generalisations, in general, don't help.

Also, 'democracy' has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can have complete freedom of speech, but be ruled by a dictator. You can have the right to vote for representatives, but not be free to discuss certain issues. Ideally we would have both democracy and freedom of speech, but you can't claim one depends on the other.

[takatukaland]

I don't care what thaksin,yingluck,abisit,prem,nevin,kasit suthep,blabla doing or not doing,

Then why did you target my first post and criticise my original point which is that step one is to remove the tinpot crime-syndicate PTP and step two is to (in future) get a new leader who is steadfastly a law-and-order reformist. Your first attack on my post, which I responded to by extreme courtesy, in order for you to be spared my running rings round you, I am now wearing my Converse and have limbered up. Why do you say initially my post was 'nonsense' because 'if I like them personally or not PTP are elected by majority' etc. and the real problem is other mystery-people being above the law then when I point out that it is exactly PTP that are above the law and changing laws to suit them, and you then say you don't care what PTP are doing.

I'm not a PTP fan,but they are the ruling party right now,but they can't do anything as long the constitution gets no change,,also we don't have a dictatorship in Thailand,PTP is free elected government,and more nonsense is to compare PTP government with 3rd reich,a little bit to much,don't u think?The ones who want to dictate are the elites,they don't want any change at all

[hellodolly]

Well.........maybe if they should actually try...........democracy

Democracy has been tried in the States and even there it failed. Two of the last three presidents had less than a majority of the votes. In a Democracy the majority rules. Did the PT get the majority of the votes?

Simple answer NO

[hellodolly]

True democracy starts with 100% freedom of speech and no fear of reprisal - no exceptions!

There should never be 100% freedom of speech. Threats against judges and their families, for example, are not acceptable. Generalisations, in general, don't help.

Also, 'democracy' has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can have complete freedom of speech, but be ruled by a dictator. You can have the right to vote for representatives, but not be free to discuss certain issues. Ideally we would have both democracy and freedom of speech, but you can't claim one depends on the other.

I see that in the States they are clamping down on freedom of speech on the internet. The idea of freedom of speech is just that a idea. All countries have there limits.

[phiphidon]

Well.........maybe if they should actually try...........democracy

Democracy has been tried in the States and even there it failed. Two of the last three presidents had less than a majority of the votes. In a Democracy the majority rules. Did the PT get the majority of the votes?

Simple answer NO

The PTP got more votes than their nearest opposition therefore they get the chance to form a government. They have. Those are the rules, get over it.

[hellodolly]

Well.........maybe if they should actually try...........democracy

Democracy has been tried in the States and even there it failed. Two of the last three presidents had less than a majority of the votes. In a Democracy the majority rules. Did the PT get the majority of the votes?

Simple answer NO

The PTP got more votes than their nearest opposition therefore they get the chance to form a government. They have. Those are the rules, get over it.

So you claim that rules are democracy.

Get a dictionary.

On the other hand congratulations after 10 months you have finally realized that the PT does not represent the majority of the population. There is hope for you after all.

Edited June 27, 2012 by hellodolly

[ginjag]

Simple reply, a none Thai style of democracy. Most other normal styles would be fine.

[ballpoint]

Though Thai "democracy" turned 80 on Sunday, debate on whether the majority of Thai people are ready for democracy continues.

It's the politicians and power brokers who are not ready for democracy, which is why they continue to treat parliament as a private battleground for their various warlord activities, while not giving a single thought to the citizenry at large.

If The Nation's journalists can't even bring themselves to say that, and instead try to blame things on the 'ignorant' people, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.

"Democracy" was handed back to the Thai people in 1988, following eight years of Prem's leadership, during which time there were two "elections" - the results of which kept him as PM, no matter which party gained the most votes, two coup attempts, and numerous assasination attempts. He stepped down following the 1988 election, which the Chart Thai Party, led by Chatichai Choonhaven "won" with 87 of 357 seats. Given that these were momentous elections, where the people could finally choose for themselves, one would expect a huge turnout. But only 64% voted. Interestingly, very few of the top ranked parties back then are still around today, but a roll call of MP's would sound familiar to present day political followers.

Chatichai was deposed in the 1991 coup. The ambitions of Suchinda were obvious to all I spoke with at the time, yet, when he allowed elections in March 1992, only 59% of the electorate voted, and the majority of them voted for pro Suchinda, and therefore pro military, parties. Narong Wongwan's Justice Unity Party received the most votes, closely followed by Chavalit's NAP. Following much publicised wrangling, Suchinda was (surprise surprise) offered the PM's post, leading to the events of Black May, where, arguably for the first time in recent history, some of the people said enough is enough, and managed to stop the appointment, but only after bloodshed and the intervention of HM the King.

New elections were held in September 1992, the Justice Unity Party had disbanded in the meantime, its members scattered to various others. Now, finally, the people had the chance to give their mandate. 62% voted. The Democrats gained the most seats, 79 out of 360, and, although gaining more votes in the 1995 elections, came second to the Chart Thai Party, now under Banharn's leadership. His bungling resulted in new elections in 1996. The Democrats got more votes than any other party, but two less seats than the NAP. Turnout was 62%. Chavalit continued the bungling, leading to the Asian economic crisis of 1997, and a rearrangement of coalition partners voted for Chuan of the Democrats as PM in November of that year, supported by the "we don't care who wins, and what their policies are, as long as we're in their coalition" Chart Thai Party.

The next elections, in 2001, were accompanied by a real buzz around the country as Thaksin, seen as being "too rich to be corrupt" had his first chance as leader of his new party, in the first elections held under the 1997 constitution. Was this finally the time when the Thai people could resoundingly make their voices heard at the ballot box? 70% of the electorate voted, maybe economic hardship got some off their bums, but 10% of all votes were invalid. The Democrats actually gained five seats, the NAP shrunk drastically, but the TRT, with the backing, and buying out, of the parties traditionally supported in the North and Northeast, and here we see the real reason for the shrinking and eventual demise of the NAP, got the most of any party by far. TRT won the election, but in the upcountry electorates of Isaan, many of the names on the ballot sheets remained the same. The same names responsible for the policies and conditions in that region that are now railed against by "supporters of Democracy".

In 2005 voter turnout reached over 75% for the first time ever. Only four parties won any seats, but again, many of the MP names remained exactly the same, now appearing under the TRT list. A common misconception here is to compare the Thai parties to Western ones, which (mainly) have a long tradition of values and policies, their members guided by these when joining them, some voters traditionally voting for the same party all their lives and others voting for the party that best matches their concerns at the time. A quick study of the Thai system shows MP's, and whole parties, changing allegience and policy when it suits their (not the country's) interest. The same study shows that many of the rural electorate vote for the same family names, or their proxies, no matter what party name appears next to them, and no matter what policies, if any, they advertise. The same is as true for the South, and its traditionally overwhelming support for the Democrats, as it is for the North, and Northeast, with their traditional support for a group of parties, now mostly bought out by the TRT/PPP/PTP, with a few exceptions like Banharn, who is aligned in their coalition, and Newin, who isn't.

The Thai people have had ten chances to make their voices heard at the ballot box since Prem stepped down. Voter turnout has generally been increasing, with it reaching 79% in 2007, but is still far short of 100, or even 90%. The surnames of the MP's have a familiar ring to them - the Chidchops, Silpa-archas, Yubamrungs, Damapongs, Shinawatras, Thienthongs, and yes, Vejjajivas. If these are the people the populace wants to lead them then so be it, I am on record here as saying let Yingluck blunder on with no intervention, if, however, they break the laws of the land then punish them. Show me one developed "democracy" that allows its ruling party to break the law in order to do whatever it likes. But, if these are the people the populace, or those that can be bothered to actually vote, wants to lead them, then the people themselves must foot some of the blame for the politicians "continu(ing) to treat parliament as a private battleground for their various warlord activities, while not giving a single thought to the citizenry at large". The system hampers all parties, in that they need the support of at least one other region in order to rule. Even Thaksin, with his "one party state" was hamstrung by the regional factions and their need to keep the rural poor in their place. Even in his five years of near absolute power he made no drastic steps, nor even the beginnings, towards a total reform of the education system, or a weaning of farmers from subsidies and handouts. Until the people realise this, and make their voices heard in not just the voting, but also the selection of their MP's, its deja vu all over again for the country.

http://www.idea.int/...?CountryCode=TH

Edited June 27, 2012 by ballpoint

[Gillespie]

Anyone would think the educated elite actively *want* the other 95% to stay poor and ill-informed. Perish the thought, etc.

[garrya]

How can the one proclaim democracy in a country in which the politicians are the least democratic?

[55Jay]

Reds are the best option for the relatively small niche of expats living in Thailand.

Yellows, as the minority, are better and will create a more perfect union. For themselves. They even come right out and say it.

Yellows will pop that expat bubble, like they started to after the 06 coup, and those who extol their democratic virtuosity will quicky change their tune soon as those policies start biting into their arse directly. Baht will strenghten as democracy takes hold, sending more of these democratic-minded expats to sit outside 7-11 with a Chang instead of in a proper pub with a Heniken like they had planned when moving to LOS. You'll hear the howling on TV half way around the world, secretly praying for the return of Thaksin, while lecturing each other on TV about how a proper democracy should be run. In Thailand.

No matter what side you lean toward here on TV, the typical expat ranks right up there with the family dog. Right up there but slightly lower than the typical dumb farmer, peon, peasant, piss ant, yob, terrorist - as they are being referred to by crusading yellow leaning hi-so TV expats lately. I wonder how many of them actually married into the dumb Issan farmer cum bar girl caste.

Enjoy the 3rd world banana republic political SNAFU and be careful what you wish for. Oh well, you always have Cambodia and Vietnam, heard it's much better of there, just like "back home".

[ramrod711]

Authoritarian dictatorship along modified corporativistic lines where the third leg, labour, is excluded entirely from power which is held by the remaining legs, state and business.

This article is crude and uses outdated concepts. The new politics globally are hybrids of earlier types of governance. Previously contrasting theories such as Maoism and capitalism live side by side, this is an obvious example of political hybridism. Thailand currently has a democratic electoral system, but is ruled essentially by dictator due to the fact that once elected the PM is subject to very little regulation or accountabilty, such as is essential in modern democracy. Add to that the maoist propaganda of the PTP government, the agrarian populism stuff, the immense corporate wealth of the PM's family, the mobs versus dissenters a la 3rd Reich, and you already have five contrasting styles amalgamated into one PM, maoist, capitalist, dictator, democrat, fascist.

Blurring of lines in democracies is of course easy to do in developing nations, where the watchdogs either don't exist or are frightened of the people they are watching, and regulations are not applied evenly or at all. So today Thailand is not democracy, more dictatorial oligarchy using a hybrid of earlier contrasting sociopolitical concepts and based on democratic voting.

I'm optimistic long-term, but extremely pessimistic short-term. Thailand can have a modern democracy in the future, with equality, justice and meritocratic values. This will not happen until the current PTP are removed from power, and equally importantly a new democratic leader emerges who has the integrity and courage to be a strong law-and-order PM with serious determination to uproot the corruption and battle the mafias that are holding Thailand back. Will not happen for a long time imo.

Absolutly nonsense,PTP can't do anything as long there are certain people above the law by constitution,constitution needs a change,and then thailand can move on,and just by the way PTP is elected by most of thai people,if u don't like PTP,so be it,but in democratic countries u have to wait till next election to get a new party in power,not really helpful to remove a government by coup whenever u don't like the government,but that's the only way how certain people can keep their power and keep Thailand in stone age

If PTP would do the job they were elected to do (not by a majority of Thai people, by a majority of voters, there is a difference) I don't think we would be seeing all this dissension. Instead, they have spent the entire term trying to bring back Thaksin. He says there is no hurry, he's happy in Dubai, I hope they can put that issue on the back burner and govern responsibly, but I am not optimistic.

[Farang0tang]

Its the lawlessness and disorder pervading throughout the whole of the society, top to bottom.

The laws need to be upheld. No more buying your way out of trouble or into favours. Go straight to jail, (then court, then back to jail).

Thailand, slam the brakes on all this corruption. Its sick!

[bigbamboo]

Democracy works so long as you have checks and balances to make sure those elected to serve the nation do that and don't just serve themselves.

You cannot trust politicians to run the country otherwise.

[OzMick]

Please do not perpetuate myths about our country. In Australia it is compulsory to attend a polling station (without good reason, or registering for a postal vote). Once you have had your presence registered, there is no compulsion to accept a ballot paper or to fill it in.However, voting is compulsory in Thailand, but it is not enforced. However, if you present yourself at a polling station, destroying or defacing your ballot is an offence.

Oz Mick. I know you are splitting hairs.

Links below

http://www.aec.gov.a....htm#compulsory

You call it splitting hairs, I call it 100% accurate, though considerably different from the view of those too lazy to explain the difference.

Why dont you climb down off your high horse and read the link.

I read the link from ground level before replying. Both the AEC and you are being inaccurate in the claim that voting in Australia is compulsory (though attending a polling station is) and gave you the Thai example of how compulsory voting works.To expand the matter further, there is no compulsion in Australia to register to vote. Previously registered in NSW, I lived outside oz for most of a 10 year period. Last year I re-registered in Qld and voted in the state election, but have not been asked my reasons for not voting in the interim, even though I was in Oz while at least 2 elections were held.

[phiphidon]

Well.........maybe if they should actually try...........democracy

Democracy has been tried in the States and even there it failed. Two of the last three presidents had less than a majority of the votes. In a Democracy the majority rules. Did the PT get the majority of the votes?

Simple answer NO

The PTP got more votes than their nearest opposition therefore they get the chance to form a government. They have. Those are the rules, get over it.

So you claim that rules are democracy.

Get a dictionary.

On the other hand congratulations after 10 months you have finally realized that the PT does not represent the majority of the population. There is hope for you after all.

It seems that you have a problem with comprehension as well as writing, where in my post above did I equate rules to democracy? In case you forgot you did ask the question "Did the PT get the majority of the votes?" which I have answered.

I have never said that the PTP represent the majority of the population, but then I don't hold the simplistic rule that therefore the the rest of the population support the democrats, as some people on this forum think. Get over it.

[ratcatcher]

Democracy works so long as you have checks and balances to make sure those elected to serve the nation do that and don't just serve themselves.

You cannot trust politicians to run the country otherwise.

I'd like to rephrase your last sentence. "You cannot trust politicians!"

[mrtoad]

Thai Democracy - yeah right. Democracy is not the aim of DL, it is, as I've said before a Moronocracy at present.

[MEL1]

Did anybody actually dissect the original post on page 1?

OK, democracy's not perfect - but what's the alternative?

Well for a start, that should read, "What are the alternatives?" so immediately the precursor to what is following is already in bias.

It then goes on to say, "Most people know they each have one political voice and it can be exercised through elections as well as street protest. But if some "educated and well-to-do" Thais insist otherwise, the question would then be: What other option does Thailand have?

The other option is to try to reinstate a political system" - is this encouraging street protests? That is non-indicative of democracy, or an alternative proforma option, in fact I'd go further to say it is incredibly negative..... almost red-blooded.

I state again that this is asking for opinion, and why not 'OPINIONS'?

And then re-emphasised a paragraph or two later come the words, "Learning to become a truly democratic society can't simply be taught in schools; people must exercise and fight for their rights and democracy, be it on the street or at polling stations."

On the street again? Where are the options requested in the headline, as opposed to option? Intended brainwashing?

As for the words "democracy can't be taught in schools"........ hum? I have words that would beg to differ, but can't publish them...

Can't be taught in schools hey? And yet the prose is followed with, "A recent poll by the National Institute of Development Administration revealed that most Bangkok respondents long for members of Parliament who are "moral, ethical and educated".

So where are these moral, ethical and educated future personnel going to come from? The next genertion of Minister's thugs of children?

And then the closing words, of this BURNING ISSUE, "Eighty years on, a political system that thrives on inequality, no matter what it is euphemistically called, will continue to be resisted by people who recognise it for what it truly is."

It is not resisted by those who clearly do not recognise it for what it is, or what it is worth..... as their votes are still queued up to be bought for a few measley hundred baht at the booth...... the booth of voting honesty, that is.

-mel.

[Skywalker69]

Authoritarian dictatorship along modified corporativistic lines where the third leg, labour, is excluded entirely from power which is held by the remaining legs, state and business.

This article is crude and uses outdated concepts. The new politics globally are hybrids of earlier types of governance. Previously contrasting theories such as Maoism and capitalism live side by side, this is an obvious example of political hybridism. Thailand currently has a democratic electoral system, but is ruled essentially by dictator due to the fact that once elected the PM is subject to very little regulation or accountabilty, such as is essential in modern democracy. Add to that the maoist propaganda of the PTP government, the agrarian populism stuff, the immense corporate wealth of the PM's family, the mobs versus dissenters a la 3rd Reich, and you already have five contrasting styles amalgamated into one PM, maoist, capitalist, dictator, democrat, fascist.

Blurring of lines in democracies is of course easy to do in developing nations, where the watchdogs either don't exist or are frightened of the people they are watching, and regulations are not applied evenly or at all. So today Thailand is not democracy, more dictatorial oligarchy using a hybrid of earlier contrasting sociopolitical concepts and based on democratic voting.

I'm optimistic long-term, but extremely pessimistic short-term. Thailand can have a modern democracy in the future, with equality, justice and meritocratic values. This will not happen until the current PTP are removed from power, and equally importantly a new democratic leader emerges who has the integrity and courage to be a strong law-and-order PM with serious determination to uproot the corruption and battle the mafias that are holding Thailand back. Will not happen for a long time imo.

Once again an exellent post from you, Yunla.

[Skywalker69]

I don't care what thaksin,yingluck,abisit,prem,nevin,kasit suthep,blabla doing or not doing,

Then why did you target my first post and criticise my original point which is that step one is to remove the tinpot crime-syndicate PTP and step two is to (in future) get a new leader who is steadfastly a law-and-order reformist. Your first attack on my post, which I responded to by extreme courtesy, in order for you to be spared my running rings round you, I am now wearing my Converse and have limbered up. Why do you say initially my post was 'nonsense' because 'if I like them personally or not PTP are elected by majority' etc. and the real problem is other mystery-people being above the law then when I point out that it is exactly PTP that are above the law and changing laws to suit them, and you then say you don't care what PTP are doing.

It´s called trolling.

[JohnAllan]

The article asks whether many members of the middle class and elite, who support one military coup after the other, including those who supported the latest putsch in 2006, really understand what democracy is all about?

As many people who were neither middle class nor of the elite class physically demonstrated their support for the 2006 coup, I think it safe to say that they did understand what Thaksin was all about, seeing in his paranoid megalomania the spectre of ever increasing state control exercised by an autocratic plutocrat.

And the PTP government has more than its fair share of Redshirt MPs who demonstrate similar traits, though with less of the plutocratic constituent.

[kerryk]

Though Thai "democracy" turned 80 on Sunday, debate on whether the majority of Thai people are ready for democracy continues.

It's the politicians and power brokers who are not ready for democracy, which is why they continue to treat parliament as a private battleground for their various warlord activities, while not giving a single thought to the citizenry at large.

If The Nation's journalists can't even bring themselves to say that, and instead try to blame things on the 'ignorant' people, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.

"Democracy" was handed back to the Thai people in 1988, following eight years of Prem's leadership, during which time there were two "elections" - the results of which kept him as PM, no matter which party gained the most votes, two coup attempts, and numerous assasination attempts. He stepped down following the 1988 election, which the Chart Thai Party, led by Chatichai Choonhaven "won" with 87 of 357 seats. Given that these were momentous elections, where the people could finally choose for themselves, one would expect a huge turnout. But only 64% voted. Interestingly, very few of the top ranked parties back then are still around today, but a roll call of MP's would sound familiar to present day political followers.

Chatichai was deposed in the 1991 coup. The ambitions of Suchinda were obvious to all I spoke with at the time, yet, when he allowed elections in March 1992, only 59% of the electorate voted, and the majority of them voted for pro Suchinda, and therefore pro military, parties. Narong Wongwan's Justice Unity Party received the most votes, closely followed by Chavalit's NAP. Following much publicised wrangling, Suchinda was (surprise surprise) offered the PM's post, leading to the events of Black May, where, arguably for the first time in recent history, some of the people said enough is enough, and managed to stop the appointment, but only after bloodshed and the intervention of HM the King.

New elections were held in September 1992, the Justice Unity Party had disbanded in the meantime, its members scattered to various others. Now, finally, the people had the chance to give their mandate. 62% voted. The Democrats gained the most seats, 79 out of 360, and, although gaining more votes in the 1995 elections, came second to the Chart Thai Party, now under Banharn's leadership. His bungling resulted in new elections in 1996. The Democrats got more votes than any other party, but two less seats than the NAP. Turnout was 62%. Chavalit continued the bungling, leading to the Asian economic crisis of 1997, and a rearrangement of coalition partners voted for Chuan of the Democrats as PM in November of that year, supported by the "we don't care who wins, and what their policies are, as long as we're in their coalition" Chart Thai Party.

The next elections, in 2001, were accompanied by a real buzz around the country as Thaksin, seen as being "too rich to be corrupt" had his first chance as leader of his new party, in the first elections held under the 1997 constitution. Was this finally the time when the Thai people could resoundingly make their voices heard at the ballot box? 70% of the electorate voted, maybe economic hardship got some off their bums, but 10% of all votes were invalid. The Democrats actually gained five seats, the NAP shrunk drastically, but the TRT, with the backing, and buying out, of the parties traditionally supported in the North and Northeast, and here we see the real reason for the shrinking and eventual demise of the NAP, got the most of any party by far. TRT won the election, but in the upcountry electorates of Isaan, many of the names on the ballot sheets remained the same. The same names responsible for the policies and conditions in that region that are now railed against by "supporters of Democracy".

In 2005 voter turnout reached over 75% for the first time ever. Only four parties won any seats, but again, many of the MP names remained exactly the same, now appearing under the TRT list. A common misconception here is to compare the Thai parties to Western ones, which (mainly) have a long tradition of values and policies, their members guided by these when joining them, some voters traditionally voting for the same party all their lives and others voting for the party that best matches their concerns at the time. A quick study of the Thai system shows MP's, and whole parties, changing allegience and policy when it suits their (not the country's) interest. The same study shows that many of the rural electorate vote for the same family names, or their proxies, no matter what party name appears next to them, and no matter what policies, if any, they advertise. The same is as true for the South, and its traditionally overwhelming support for the Democrats, as it is for the North, and Northeast, with their traditional support for a group of parties, now mostly bought out by the TRT/PPP/PTP, with a few exceptions like Banharn, who is aligned in their coalition, and Newin, who isn't.

The Thai people have had ten chances to make their voices heard at the ballot box since Prem stepped down. Voter turnout has generally been increasing, with it reaching 79% in 2007, but is still far short of 100, or even 90%. The surnames of the MP's have a familiar ring to them - the Chidchops, Silpa-archas, Yubamrungs, Damapongs, Shinawatras, Thienthongs, and yes, Vejjajivas. If these are the people the populace wants to lead them then so be it, I am on record here as saying let Yingluck blunder on with no intervention, if, however, they break the laws of the land then punish them. Show me one developed "democracy" that allows its ruling party to break the law in order to do whatever it likes. But, if these are the people the populace, or those that can be bothered to actually vote, wants to lead them, then the people themselves must foot some of the blame for the politicians "continu(ing) to treat parliament as a private battleground for their various warlord activities, while not giving a single thought to the citizenry at large". The system hampers all parties, in that they need the support of at least one other region in order to rule. Even Thaksin, with his "one party state" was hamstrung by the regional factions and their need to keep the rural poor in their place. Even in his five years of near absolute power he made no drastic steps, nor even the beginnings, towards a total reform of the education system, or a weaning of farmers from subsidies and handouts. Until the people realise this, and make their voices heard in not just the voting, but also the selection of their MP's, its deja vu all over again for the country.

http://www.idea.int/...?CountryCode=TH

Are you saying that the MP's have been the same for the last 10 years?

[whybother]

The PTP got more votes than their nearest opposition therefore they get the chance to form a government. They have. Those are the rules, get over it.

The majority of seats means that they got to form government.

More votes than any other party is irrelevant.

[ballpoint]

"Democracy" was handed back to the Thai people in 1988, following eight years of Prem's leadership, during which time there were two "elections" - the results of which kept him as PM, no matter which party gained the most votes, two coup attempts, and numerous assasination attempts. He stepped down following the 1988 election, which the Chart Thai Party, led by Chatichai Choonhaven "won" with 87 of 357 seats. Given that these were momentous elections, where the people could finally choose for themselves, one would expect a huge turnout. But only 64% voted. Interestingly, very few of the top ranked parties back then are still around today, but a roll call of MP's would sound familiar to present day political followers.

Chatichai was deposed in the 1991 coup. The ambitions of Suchinda were obvious to all I spoke with at the time, yet, when he allowed elections in March 1992, only 59% of the electorate voted, and the majority of them voted for pro Suchinda, and therefore pro military, parties. Narong Wongwan's Justice Unity Party received the most votes, closely followed by Chavalit's NAP. Following much publicised wrangling, Suchinda was (surprise surprise) offered the PM's post, leading to the events of Black May, where, arguably for the first time in recent history, some of the people said enough is enough, and managed to stop the appointment, but only after bloodshed and the intervention of HM the King.

New elections were held in September 1992, the Justice Unity Party had disbanded in the meantime, its members scattered to various others. Now, finally, the people had the chance to give their mandate. 62% voted. The Democrats gained the most seats, 79 out of 360, and, although gaining more votes in the 1995 elections, came second to the Chart Thai Party, now under Banharn's leadership. His bungling resulted in new elections in 1996. The Democrats got more votes than any other party, but two less seats than the NAP. Turnout was 62%. Chavalit continued the bungling, leading to the Asian economic crisis of 1997, and a rearrangement of coalition partners voted for Chuan of the Democrats as PM in November of that year, supported by the "we don't care who wins, and what their policies are, as long as we're in their coalition" Chart Thai Party.

The next elections, in 2001, were accompanied by a real buzz around the country as Thaksin, seen as being "too rich to be corrupt" had his first chance as leader of his new party, in the first elections held under the 1997 constitution. Was this finally the time when the Thai people could resoundingly make their voices heard at the ballot box? 70% of the electorate voted, maybe economic hardship got some off their bums, but 10% of all votes were invalid. The Democrats actually gained five seats, the NAP shrunk drastically, but the TRT, with the backing, and buying out, of the parties traditionally supported in the North and Northeast, and here we see the real reason for the shrinking and eventual demise of the NAP, got the most of any party by far. TRT won the election, but in the upcountry electorates of Isaan, many of the names on the ballot sheets remained the same. The same names responsible for the policies and conditions in that region that are now railed against by "supporters of Democracy".

In 2005 voter turnout reached over 75% for the first time ever. Only four parties won any seats, but again, many of the MP names remained exactly the same, now appearing under the TRT list. A common misconception here is to compare the Thai parties to Western ones, which (mainly) have a long tradition of values and policies, their members guided by these when joining them, some voters traditionally voting for the same party all their lives and others voting for the party that best matches their concerns at the time. A quick study of the Thai system shows MP's, and whole parties, changing allegience and policy when it suits their (not the country's) interest. The same study shows that many of the rural electorate vote for the same family names, or their proxies, no matter what party name appears next to them, and no matter what policies, if any, they advertise. The same is as true for the South, and its traditionally overwhelming support for the Democrats, as it is for the North, and Northeast, with their traditional support for a group of parties, now mostly bought out by the TRT/PPP/PTP, with a few exceptions like Banharn, who is aligned in their coalition, and Newin, who isn't.

The Thai people have had ten chances to make their voices heard at the ballot box since Prem stepped down. Voter turnout has generally been increasing, with it reaching 79% in 2007, but is still far short of 100, or even 90%. The surnames of the MP's have a familiar ring to them - the Chidchops, Silpa-archas, Yubamrungs, Damapongs, Shinawatras, Thienthongs, and yes, Vejjajivas. If these are the people the populace wants to lead them then so be it, I am on record here as saying let Yingluck blunder on with no intervention, if, however, they break the laws of the land then punish them. Show me one developed "democracy" that allows its ruling party to break the law in order to do whatever it likes. But, if these are the people the populace, or those that can be bothered to actually vote, wants to lead them, then the people themselves must foot some of the blame for the politicians "continu(ing) to treat parliament as a private battleground for their various warlord activities, while not giving a single thought to the citizenry at large". The system hampers all parties, in that they need the support of at least one other region in order to rule. Even Thaksin, with his "one party state" was hamstrung by the regional factions and their need to keep the rural poor in their place. Even in his five years of near absolute power he made no drastic steps, nor even the beginnings, towards a total reform of the education system, or a weaning of farmers from subsidies and handouts. Until the people realise this, and make their voices heard in not just the voting, but also the selection of their MP's, its deja vu all over again for the country.

http://www.idea.int/...?CountryCode=TH

Are you saying that the MP's have been the same for the last 10 years?

Of course they aren't all the same. Some have retired, although that doesn't stop them from still being heavily involved, ala Chavalit. Some were banned, but the influx of sons, daughters, sisters and wives keep them at the controls, albeit one step back, some lost the support of the local power brokers and some were voted out of office. But many have been around for the last 20 years and more, changing parties and allegiances for their own personal benefit, or being "bought" by another party in order to bring it their votes. If you were to look at the list of MP's back in the 1995 election, for example, you'd see many of the same names as in Paliament now, even though some of their parties no longer exist. Only one such example is Newin Chidchop, who's CV prior to him being banned reads:

MP Buriram, Solidarity Party (1986)

• PM’s Office Secretary (1986, 1988)

• MP Buriram, Therd Thai Party (1988)

• Commerce Ministry Secretary (1991)

• MP Buriram, Samakkhi Tham Party (1992)

• MP Buriram, Chart Thai Party (1992, 1995)

• Deputy Finance Minister (1995)

• MP Buriram, Solidarity Party (1996)

• Deputy Agriculture and Coop. Minister (1997)

• MP Buriram, Chart Thai (2001)

• Deputy Commerce Minister (2002)

• Joined Thai Rak Thai Party (2004)

• Deputy Minister of Agriculture (2005)

• PM’s Office Minister (2005)

http://www.th4u.com/newin_chidchob.htm

of course, he now leads the Bhum Jai Thai Party.

An interesting comment on those 1995 elections may be found in a survey from 1996 by Australian academic David Murray, the preview of which is available free at http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2645404?uid=3739136&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=47699106407897 where he states "The lead-up to the elections was characterized by parties buying politicians and candidates buying votes" a situation which is all too familiar in most, if not all, other elections. Why would a party buy a rival politician? Because that rival politician has a set of voters who will vote for him/her no matter which party they belong to. The preview also has some similar comments to mine above regarding the people voting for a pro military party following the coup, and the telling statement (following the withdrawal of the military from politics at that time) "...leaving the politicians themselves to resolve the differences between conservative rural politicians, with a captive patronage-chained electorate and liberal reformist urban groups." The differences have never been resolved, the rural politicians continue to have a mainly "patronage-chained electorate" and they jealously guard their territory while keeping the chains securely bound through handouts, loans and poor education.

[dionys]

OK, democracy's not perfect - but what's the alternative?

If I understand it correctly the question is: OK, democracy's not perfect - but what's the alternative?

Somehow the question is a bit confusing. Is Pravit Rojanaphruk questioning democracy as a form of a government in general or is he questioning the present Thai governing system? If he’s questioning the Thai governing system [and I think he is] than the first thing he needs to establish is if the existing system really qualifies for that title.

Democracy definitions:

1. Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people. Collectively, the people, are regarded as the source of government

2. Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.

To help Rojanaphruk to review the existing system qualifications below are some quotes presented by different individuals

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.

Abraham Lincoln

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Winston Churchill

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

Winston Churchill

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?

Mahatma Gandhi

The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart.

Mahatma Gandhi

Nothing can be more abhorrent to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in prison because he is unpopular. This is really the test of civilization.

Winston Churchill

Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.

Oscar Wilde

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

Ronald Reagan

Israel was not created in order to disappear - Israel will endure and flourish. It is the child of hope and the home of the brave. It can neither be broken by adversity nor demoralized by success. It carries the shield of democracy and it honors the sword of freedom.

John F. Kennedy

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.

John F. Kennedy

Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.

Ronald Reagan

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.

Aristotle

Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.

Aristotle

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.

Aristotle

Democracy arises out of the notion that those who are equal in any respect are equal in all respects; because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal.

Aristotle

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy.

Ron Paul

Democracy... is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder; and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.

Plato

Democracy passes into despotism.

Plato

An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.

Voltaire

Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty.

Plato

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy.

Plato

The ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination.

Voltaire

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Democracy is the road to socialism.

Karl Marx

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

John Adams

Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid.

Bob Dylan

On account of being a democracy and run by the people, we are the only nation in the world that has to keep a government four years, no matter what it does.

Will Rogers

Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

George Bernard Shaw

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw

And now if Pravit is sure that the democracy definitions and the majority of statements would indeed be applicable, to the existing Thai system then the question of “OK, democracy's not perfect - but what's the alternative?” could be revisited. Until then dear Pravit keep thinking about it. Really thinking

Edited June 27, 2012 by dionys

[jackr]

Thailand can have a modern democracy in the future, with equality, justice and meritocratic values. This will not happen until the current PTP are removed from power, and equally importantly a new democratic leader emerges who has the integrity and courage to be a strong law-and-order PM with serious determination to uproot the corruption and battle the mafias that are holding Thailand back. Will not happen for a long time imo.

'Face' needs to take a backseat, too, but I don't ever see that happening in this neck of the woods; well, for at least a 100 years when the Thai gene pool is diluted enough by luck krungs. By that time, humans will hopefully have been eradicated and the chickens given a go.

[kerryk]

"Democracy" was handed back to the Thai people in 1988, following eight years of Prem's leadership, during which time there were two "elections" - the results of which kept him as PM, no matter which party gained the most votes, two coup attempts, and numerous assasination attempts. He stepped down following the 1988 election, which the Chart Thai Party, led by Chatichai Choonhaven "won" with 87 of 357 seats. Given that these were momentous elections, where the people could finally choose for themselves, one would expect a huge turnout. But only 64% voted. Interestingly, very few of the top ranked parties back then are still around today, but a roll call of MP's would sound familiar to present day political followers.

Chatichai was deposed in the 1991 coup. The ambitions of Suchinda were obvious to all I spoke with at the time, yet, when he allowed elections in March 1992, only 59% of the electorate voted, and the majority of them voted for pro Suchinda, and therefore pro military, parties. Narong Wongwan's Justice Unity Party received the most votes, closely followed by Chavalit's NAP. Following much publicised wrangling, Suchinda was (surprise surprise) offered the PM's post, leading to the events of Black May, where, arguably for the first time in recent history, some of the people said enough is enough, and managed to stop the appointment, but only after bloodshed and the intervention of HM the King.

New elections were held in September 1992, the Justice Unity Party had disbanded in the meantime, its members scattered to various others. Now, finally, the people had the chance to give their mandate. 62% voted. The Democrats gained the most seats, 79 out of 360, and, although gaining more votes in the 1995 elections, came second to the Chart Thai Party, now under Banharn's leadership. His bungling resulted in new elections in 1996. The Democrats got more votes than any other party, but two less seats than the NAP. Turnout was 62%. Chavalit continued the bungling, leading to the Asian economic crisis of 1997, and a rearrangement of coalition partners voted for Chuan of the Democrats as PM in November of that year, supported by the "we don't care who wins, and what their policies are, as long as we're in their coalition" Chart Thai Party.

The next elections, in 2001, were accompanied by a real buzz around the country as Thaksin, seen as being "too rich to be corrupt" had his first chance as leader of his new party, in the first elections held under the 1997 constitution. Was this finally the time when the Thai people could resoundingly make their voices heard at the ballot box? 70% of the electorate voted, maybe economic hardship got some off their bums, but 10% of all votes were invalid. The Democrats actually gained five seats, the NAP shrunk drastically, but the TRT, with the backing, and buying out, of the parties traditionally supported in the North and Northeast, and here we see the real reason for the shrinking and eventual demise of the NAP, got the most of any party by far. TRT won the election, but in the upcountry electorates of Isaan, many of the names on the ballot sheets remained the same. The same names responsible for the policies and conditions in that region that are now railed against by "supporters of Democracy".

In 2005 voter turnout reached over 75% for the first time ever. Only four parties won any seats, but again, many of the MP names remained exactly the same, now appearing under the TRT list. A common misconception here is to compare the Thai parties to Western ones, which (mainly) have a long tradition of values and policies, their members guided by these when joining them, some voters traditionally voting for the same party all their lives and others voting for the party that best matches their concerns at the time. A quick study of the Thai system shows MP's, and whole parties, changing allegience and policy when it suits their (not the country's) interest. The same study shows that many of the rural electorate vote for the same family names, or their proxies, no matter what party name appears next to them, and no matter what policies, if any, they advertise. The same is as true for the South, and its traditionally overwhelming support for the Democrats, as it is for the North, and Northeast, with their traditional support for a group of parties, now mostly bought out by the TRT/PPP/PTP, with a few exceptions like Banharn, who is aligned in their coalition, and Newin, who isn't.

The Thai people have had ten chances to make their voices heard at the ballot box since Prem stepped down. Voter turnout has generally been increasing, with it reaching 79% in 2007, but is still far short of 100, or even 90%. The surnames of the MP's have a familiar ring to them - the Chidchops, Silpa-archas, Yubamrungs, Damapongs, Shinawatras, Thienthongs, and yes, Vejjajivas. If these are the people the populace wants to lead them then so be it, I am on record here as saying let Yingluck blunder on with no intervention, if, however, they break the laws of the land then punish them. Show me one developed "democracy" that allows its ruling party to break the law in order to do whatever it likes. But, if these are the people the populace, or those that can be bothered to actually vote, wants to lead them, then the people themselves must foot some of the blame for the politicians "continu(ing) to treat parliament as a private battleground for their various warlord activities, while not giving a single thought to the citizenry at large". The system hampers all parties, in that they need the support of at least one other region in order to rule. Even Thaksin, with his "one party state" was hamstrung by the regional factions and their need to keep the rural poor in their place. Even in his five years of near absolute power he made no drastic steps, nor even the beginnings, towards a total reform of the education system, or a weaning of farmers from subsidies and handouts. Until the people realise this, and make their voices heard in not just the voting, but also the selection of their MP's, its deja vu all over again for the country.

http://www.idea.int/...?CountryCode=TH

Are you saying that the MP's have been the same for the last 10 years?

Of course they aren't all the same. Some have retired, although that doesn't stop them from still being heavily involved, ala Chavalit. Some were banned, but the influx of sons, daughters, sisters and wives keep them at the controls, albeit one step back, some lost the support of the local power brokers and some were voted out of office. But many have been around for the last 20 years and more, changing parties and allegiances for their own personal benefit, or being "bought" by another party in order to bring it their votes. If you were to look at the list of MP's back in the 1995 election, for example, you'd see many of the same names as in Paliament now, even though some of their parties no longer exist. Only one such example is Newin Chidchop, who's CV prior to him being banned reads:

MP Buriram, Solidarity Party (1986)

• PM’s Office Secretary (1986, 1988)

• MP Buriram, Therd Thai Party (1988)

• Commerce Ministry Secretary (1991)

• MP Buriram, Samakkhi Tham Party (1992)

• MP Buriram, Chart Thai Party (1992, 1995)

• Deputy Finance Minister (1995)

• MP Buriram, Solidarity Party (1996)

• Deputy Agriculture and Coop. Minister (1997)

• MP Buriram, Chart Thai (2001)

• Deputy Commerce Minister (2002)

• Joined Thai Rak Thai Party (2004)

• Deputy Minister of Agriculture (2005)

• PM’s Office Minister (2005)

http://www.th4u.com/newin_chidchob.htm

of course, he now leads the Bhum Jai Thai Party.

An interesting comment on those 1995 elections may be found in a survey from 1996 by Australian academic David Murray, the preview of which is available free at http://www.jstor.org...=47699106407897 where he states "The lead-up to the elections was characterized by parties buying politicians and candidates buying votes" a situation which is all too familiar in most, if not all, other elections. Why would a party buy a rival politician? Because that rival politician has a set of voters who will vote for him/her no matter which party they belong to. The preview also has some similar comments to mine above regarding the people voting for a pro military party following the coup, and the telling statement (following the withdrawal of the military from politics at that time) "...leaving the politicians themselves to resolve the differences between conservative rural politicians, with a captive patronage-chained electorate and liberal reformist urban groups." The differences have never been resolved, the rural politicians continue to have a mainly "patronage-chained electorate" and they jealously guard their territory while keeping the chains securely bound through handouts, loans and poor education.

I think you have actually hit the crux of the issue. All the parties in Thailand are the same because all the MP's are the same. It doesn't make any difference who is in control, the same families will be in control. If anyone comes close to challenging the real control there is another coup.

Yunia, one of the posters makes the point, “Thailand can have a modern democracy in the future, with equality, justice and meritocratic values. This will not happen until the current PTP are removed from power, and equally importantly a new democratic leader emerges who has the integrity and courage to be a strong law-and-order PM with serious determination to uproot the corruption and battle the mafias that are holding Thailand back. Will not happen for a long time imo.” I think she is correct but it serves no purpose whining about the current government. It is no different than the past government.

Why would people argue here on Thai Visa about democracies. One of the posters put up a bunch of quotes about democracies and another debates the fine points of majority rule and coalition forming. Nonsense. Everybody knows what we are talking about except Thais and European fascists still longing for a different result from WW II.

I have tried talking to educated Thais about democracy and it is impossible. They can't get out of the forest. They can't see the world while Thaksin is still in it.

One can pound and pound and they still come up with ridiculous statements like poor people don't read good newspapers and don't deserve freedom of the press and the other foolish stuff along that line.

So to all the whingers; stop it. Nothing is going to change. The same group of people have been in charge since the 1930's.

If you think you can change something try starting with your village head man. Tell him to get an education and see how far you get! Or tell him to turn down the loud speaker in the morning.

I mean really! All you big educated Farangs should be able to control one drunken uneducated rice farmer eh?