Parties Now At Core Of Ideological Battle: Thailand

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT

Parties now at core of ideological battle

Kornchanok Raksaseri,

Pravit Rojanaphruk,

Somroutai Sapsomboon

The Nation

Pheu Thai leader Yongyuth Wichaidit, far left, and party secretary-general Sunee Luangwichit join Democrat Korn Chatikavanij, second right, at Nation Multimedia Group

Demonising opponents has replaced political debate; protests seen growing shorter, more violent

BANGKOK: - Polarisation has been and still is deeply ingrained in Thai society as conflicts and confrontation continue unabated. Every side wants to win over the others but no absolute victory is in sight. And this time the clash has shifted from one between ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra and the establishment to one between the two major political parties. Last week, red-shirt people surrounded the rally of Opposition Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva in Pathum Thani, raising fears that violence could strike the country again.

Many political scientists agree that the problem would persist unless the opposing sides agree to talk.

"Problems crop up as we see the current problems as a very big deal and cannot find a solution. And at the same time we expect all sides to agree with us. This is the problem of Thailand. Instead of talking to each other, we set up walls between each other. But we usually fail to trace back what the origin of the problems is," said Anusorn Limmanee from Chulalongkorn University.

"At one point, when the problems go too far and become mass mobilisations, the root of the problems will not matter as much as the current problems," he said.

Anusorn and his colleague Surachart Bamrungsuk agree that the real problems are political principles or paradigms.

Anusorn said real democracy would flourish if both majority rule and the examination mechanism work well. The administrators come at the majority's choice; at the same time, there are proper checks and balances and controls on power to preserve the rights and freedoms of the people.

"What I never want to see is political parties jumping into the conflicts and intensifying the polarisation. That will make talks more difficult," said Jaras Suwanmala, former dean of political science at Chulalongkorn.

The "black magic" that is bad for politics is manipulation with the idea that the opposite side is the enemy, refuses to talk and disseminates lies. Politicians should wean themselves from black magic. Otherwise, the conflicts will become worse.

Surachart - who said he sees the present as having the highest polarisation level and foresees more mass politics as people come out onto the street more - said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away.

Red-shirt leaders claim the Democrat Party wants to see bloody clashes between the red shirts and the party's supporters.

Thida Tavornsaet Tojirakarn, chairwoman of the red-shirt Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), said the red shirts will do their best to try to avoid such a street confrontation, however.

"We will be especially careful," she said.

The Democrats decided to mobilise people on the street out of desperation, she said.

"Our understanding is that they have no choice. We will have to be careful not to fall into their trap," she said.

The Democrats are fighting to remain politically relevant and to keep the rule of the old political elite, or amataya, from crumbling, she said.

Thida warned the Democrat Party against resisting the globalisation of democracy and defended red-shirt street politics as different from the Democrats, as the red shirts were robbed by the coup in 2006.

Chavanond Intarakomalyasut, spokesman of the Democrat Party, denied his party is provoking the violence.

"What we are doing [by staging rallies] is telling people the truth, and [the rallies] are lawful. We don't intend to stir up any violence. I think the government is doing the provoking," he said.

Several polls show the public disagrees with amending the charter and issuing reconciliation bills to facilitate Thaksin, he said.

The Democrats did not copy the way Pheu Thai Party mobilises the masses, he added.

Piphob Thongchai, a core member of the yellow-shirt People's Alliance for Democracy, said the political situation now is not normal, as political parties are trying to mobilise the masses to support them.

The Democrat Party saw a model for success in the Pheu Thai Party, which holds the majority in the House and cultivates the red shirts as their support, so the opposition party is trying to imitate it, he said.

"The current situation is not a normal exercise for freedom but it is a declaration of war between parties. They are fighting for their own interests, not for the sake of the country," he said.

It would certainly lead to more chaos in the country, Piphob said.

The only way out for the country is to seek reform through neutral camps, not political parties, otherwise the conflicts would come back to haunt society again no matter who becomes the ruler of the country, he said.

However, some academics think political parties holding rallies is not the problem, and that it is good for institutions to educate people and provide them with information. The problem is, their provocation makes the opponent look like the enemy.

"It's all right if they come out and educate people, give people information. The dangerous part is that they also tell supporters, 'We can't let them….'," said Sukhum Nualsakul, a veteran political scientist and former rector of Ramkhamhaeng University.

Gothom Arya, director of Mahidol University's Institute for Human Rights and Peace Studies, said he hopes the Democrat Party, as the country's oldest, would know better and avoid a bloody confrontation.

The Democrats should not just talk to their own constituencies by staging rallies around the nation, but should also try to reach out to people who may not be their supporters or even disagree with the party, he said.

"The Democrat Party should explain its thinking," he said.

Police are also concerned about the political violence. They recently reached the conclusion that political protests may erupt in the second half of the year since political and ideological conflicts linger. The National Police recently adjusted its strategy to deal with demonstrations.

Pol Maj-General Likhit Suthapinthu, commander of Border Patrol Police Region 4, who has overseen political protests since 2008, predicts that the political protests in 2012 would be shorter but more violent than in 2010, due to the strong and prolonged conflict.

He said the situation is different this year because of four factors: If the protest is prolonged, political parties will lose public support because most people have grown tired of long protests; all protest leaders have come to the forefront and no longer hide behind the crowd; mobilising the masses would be tight and fast; and an aggressive strategy would be used so the protest would be more violent than the demonstration at Ratchaprasong Intersection.

-- The Nation 2012-07-03

[Soi Sauce]

Thais are unable to understand cause and effect in school. This, inevitably, leads to situations like this.

[Moruya]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

[h90]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

and WHO should force all politics through democratic means?

The Yellows and the Military tried it already unsuccessful...who is next?

[hellodolly]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

[Moruya]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

and WHO should force all politics through democratic means?

The Yellows and the Military tried it already unsuccessful...who is next?

3 wise men would be a start!

[chotthee]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

I want to agree with you but here are my thoughts:

Ban RED is OK as RED mean communist. Commie do not like kingship.

Ban YELLOW is NOT OK, as YELLOW is the color that represent the KING. The Yellow shirts are the one that loves the king.

[Thai at Heart]

There are dozens of templates around the world for how to make a democracy work. Thailand continues to try to reinvent the wheel over and over again instead of learning from the rest of the world and its own mistakes.

Until there is

a. A completely independent judiciary

b. An army that answers to the civilian government

c. A proper set of completely independent checks and balances on the parliamentary

d. A just and fair judiciary that treats the poor and the rich completely equally

there will continue to be a boom and bust situation in Thai politics/society. It is just a matter of how long it takes between each bust.

[billd766]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

and WHO should force all politics through democratic means?

The Yellows and the Military tried it already unsuccessful...who is next?

3 wise men would be a start!

Where will you find 3 wise men in Thailand?

This is not a stabl 2012 years ago.

[ttelise]

I am sure countries like China loves the absolute pitiful mess in Thai political structure. Companies with messed up boards (comparable to political turmoil) and undervalued stock (GDP and trade deficits) are easy acquisition targets. Thailand needs to set aside their little differences, accept the result of the vote, and focus on changing the voting laws and enforcement of voting laws if concerned about corruption affecting the integrity of voting process

[chotthee]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

and WHO should force all politics through democratic means?

The Yellows and the Military tried it already unsuccessful...who is next?

3 wise men would be a start!

Where will you find 3 wise men in Thailand?

This is not a stabl 2012 years ago.

Start searching from Dubai.

[Moruya]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties.

The political parties should be forced to do away with the fiefdoms that they have today that are little more than mafia families

They should then force all political parties to submit their manifestos 1 month before the election then publish them simultaneously.

The reds and yellows are extra-constitutional mobs that should have no place in society. They have managed to bring politics to the gutter and are on the verge of doing the same to the legal system and if that happens, then God help Thailand.

and WHO should force all politics through democratic means?

The Yellows and the Military tried it already unsuccessful...who is next?

3 wise men would be a start!

Where will you find 3 wise men in Thailand?

This is not a stabl 2012 years ago.

Maybe the time has come to hand it over to Suu Kyi - lesser Myanmar

[ramrod711]

Thida Tavornsaet Tojirakarn, chairwoman of the red-shirt Democratic Alliance Against Dictatorship (DAAD), said the red shirts will do their best to try to avoid such a street confrontation, however.

Were they trying to avoid confrontation in Phathum Thani?. The red shirts demonstrated to the democrats what works, how to get elected, the democrats apparently should not be using these meetings to get their point across to voters.....because

they are the more mature party. PTP has wasted their term in office thus far, they have done nothing but pander to Thaksin. Come on PTP, show some leadership, do something for the people who elected you. By the way, they weren't all red shirts, some of them expected, or at least hoped for, some policies that would address inflation and other issues.

[RogueLeader]

Simple - ban reds and yellows and force all politics through democratic channels - the political parties

Top-down politics. Keeping the political process out of the hands of the people. How do you imagine this might be achieved? License people to think about politics and ban all non-licensed political debate? Ban assembly? Ban the colours red and yellow?

It'll definitely work. After all, drugs are illegal and no-one uses them any more.

[h90]

Maybe the time has come to hand it over to Suu Kyi - lesser Myanmar

This Suu Kyi who wanted an embargo knowing that people die due to lack of medicine because of the embargo?

Thank you, if we need someone like that we can simply look in Dubai.

[skills32]

Thida warned the Democrat Party against resisting the globalisation of democracy and defended red-shirt street politics as different from the Democrats, as the red shirts were robbed by the coup in 2006.

Wrong. The red shirts only came about as a result of the coup.

Reconciliation will only come about as a result of Thaksin's imprisonment or death.

The Thai political system is very closely aligned to the Westminster system which IMO is past it's use by date.

The red and yellow shirts are nothing but tame militias which might be OK in third world countries but heaven help a militia that tried to survive in the real world.

U Ohhh is Thailand regarded as 1st, 2nd or 3rd world?

[Bill662]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

How can Abhisit even be a pm dumbass . He did not win majority so he cannnot be the pm

[waza]

Where will it all end? Thaksin is the catalyst of all social agitation and he wont be happy till he has achieved his agenda. The reality is Thailand isnt caught up in a struggle for democracy its involve in a hostile corporate takeover.

[waza]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

How can Abhisit even be a pm dumbass . He did not win majority so he cannnot be the pm

Bill662, lucky post 13 but I dont think you will survive many more abusive posts.

[hellodolly]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

How can Abhisit even be a pm dumbass . He did not win majority so he cannnot be the pm

Love newbies get a dictionary and look up the word was.

Do a little research and you will also find out Yingluck did not win the majority either.

I am guessing you are a red shirt from some small village that has one of those schools with no electricity in it.

The education was probably one of those schools the red shirts set up to teach the poor illiterate people what Democracy is.

[h90]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

How can Abhisit even be a pm dumbass . He did not win majority so he cannnot be the pm

From which country do you come? In the countries I know you don't need to win a majority to be be PM. In many you don't even need to run for election.

The parliament votes the PM and who has the majority there is the PM. If that system is wise can be discussed but it is the way Thailand and many other countries select their PM..

[pastitche]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

France had a run off for the position of President ie head of state. Are you suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy - or are you just lacking in knowledge?

[whybother]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

France had a run off for the position of President ie head of state. Are you suggesting that Thailand should change its constitution in such a manner and no longer be a constitional monarchy - or are you just lacking in knowledge?

Having run-off elections for MPs doesn't mean a change from a constitutional monarchy.

A similar process is preference voting, which Australia uses, and its a constitutional monarchy also with the Westminster system.

Sent from my shoe phone

Edited July 3, 2012 by whybother

[whybother]

How can Abhisit even be a pm dumbass . He did not win majority so he cannnot be the pm

But he did become PM because he did get a majority of the vote.

Sent from my shoe phone

[fasteddie]

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

What a load of crap

" said the prolonged conflicts are actually a struggle between two paradigms - guided democracy and popular democracy. Unless we can agree on which way Thailand is going, the problems will not go away."

1 guided democracy In other words Thaksin calling all the shots

2 popular democracy in other words the people doing the deciding who is going to be the leader. This type of Democracy would depend on the people voting for who they think will do the best job. Not who will pay them the most for their vote.

All the fighting going on now has nothing to do with Ideology it is about white washing Thaksin and his henchmen. If they under Thaksin's guidance had followed the rule of law there would have been no armed terrorism movement.

But the rule of law was not going to achieve Thaksins aim's so he resorted to terrorism.

Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM.

In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote. Look at France they could not get a majority vote so they took the two candidates with the most popular support and made them run off against each other thereby having a leader with the most popular support.

What a load of crap!

1/ ''Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM''

Under the rules of the general's law that is.

2/ ''In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote''

They keep doing that but the army keeps saying ''No thanks''

Abhisit certainly never got the people's vote.

[whybother]

What a load of crap!

1/ ''Under the rule of law Abhist was the legal PM''

Under the rules of the general's law that is.

2/ ''In a democracy the people would pick the leader by a majority vote''

They keep doing that but the army keeps saying ''No thanks''

Abhisit certainly never got the people's vote.

Of course he got the people's vote. How did he become an MP? And then he become the PM when the majority of MPs elected him.

THE PEOPLE didn't elect anyone PM in the 2007 election. No one party got a majority of MPs. The Democrats got a similar vote as PPP in the party list. The Democrats had as much right to form government as the PPP did. It was just that Thaksin coerced other parties to support PPP, even though some of them had campaigned that they wouldn't, which enabled them to get a majority. Later, some of those parties changed their mind ... AGAIN.

Sent from my shoe phone

[RogueLeader]

d. A just and fair judiciary that treats the poor and the rich completely equally

When Thailand manages to find a way of doing this, please could they send a delegation over to Britain and the US and let us know how?

[chotthee]

d. A just and fair judiciary that treats the poor and the rich completely equally

When Thailand manages to find a way of doing this, please could they send a delegation over to Britain and the US and let us know how?

Thailand provide equal voting rights to rich and poor (one vote each). That is how.

(Apart from 50% of the senator which is selected by the powerful elites and loyals)

[Yunla]

Do a little research and you will also find out Yingluck did not win the majority either.

I am guessing you are a red shirt from some small village that has one of those schools with no electricity in it.

The education was probably one of those schools the red shirts set up to teach the poor illiterate people what Democracy is.

When PTP start handing out their 'Little Red Book' to all rural citizens, I'm going back to Europe. I'm too old to run away from 'loyalty-enhancement patrols' in the street. And I moved to Bangkok, not Beijing-by-the-sea.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Yunla

[RogueLeader]

d. A just and fair judiciary that treats the poor and the rich completely equally

When Thailand manages to find a way of doing this, please could they send a delegation over to Britain and the US and let us know how?

Thailand provide equal voting rights to rich and poor (one vote each). That is how.

(Apart from 50% of the senator which is selected by the powerful elites and loyals)

That's the legislature, not the judiciary.

In any case, Thailand is a democracy in name only. There are very, very few true democracies in the world because an effective democracy must also be meritocratic.