Support For Democracy Slim If Thai Politicians Are Corrupt

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Support for democracy slim if politicians are corrupt

Pravit Rojanaphruk

BANGKOK: -- What kind of political system does Thailand have? The question is deceptively simple but the real answer is not.

Thais should stop pretending that we have a clear consensus on what political system we want. Some want electoral democracy, while others want unelected rules via a "benign" elite installed through military coups or other means without widespread public participation.

This, ironically, helps explain why some people went out of their way to offer roses to soldiers who staged the coup in 2006, and then rewrote the |constitution - and why some are now seeking to prevent Parliament re-writing the charter.

The whole mess has little to do with the Constitution and much to do with the love for and loathing of ousted fugitive former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, and fears that if the charter is amended, Thaksin will return home a free and innocent man.

The lack of a society-wide consensus about the country's political system is best reflected in the fact that political rule has swung like a pendulum between that of military dictatorships (or junta-appoint governments) to elected governments.

Basically, many of the so-called |educated and well-to-do Thais still believe that elections are only legitimate as long as their desired political party wins, and that a military coup is acceptable as long as it rids the Kingdom of undesirable politicians. Many less-to-do and less-educated Thais feel that their vote should count - no matter how flawed their elected and winning party may be perceived in the eyes of others.

That is why every dozen years or so, Thailand has a coup, a military regime or a military-appointed regime, then elected government, then another coup - a seemingly never-ending pendulum that swings from elected to unelected governments.

Thai society also has no uniform consensus on issues like the lese majeste law, and even the one-sided positive-only news and information disseminated through the mainstream media about the monarchy institution has failed to keep the lid on growing calls to have the law amended, or abolished.

Eighty years ago, when a revolt took place to end the absolute monarchy and introduce a constitutional monarchy, it was led and enforced by a small group of people, without society-wide deliberation or consensus. Today, we are nowhere near achieving a consensus either.

Many educated and middle-class Thais still feel that the voice of the majority is only legitimate as long as it reflects an endorsement of their preferred political party. They cite voters' lack of adequate formal education, or deception by corrupt and autocratic politicians, as |reasons to disregard the voice of the majority any time, as they did in 2006. Basically, many will stick to the "rules" if it benefits or meets their desired results, but are ready and willing to discard the rules if it doesn't bring their desired |outcome.

These people love to say: Elections are fine if a "good" party or politicians win. And a coup is commendable if a "bad" government is ousted. It's all about good and bad, and nothing about accepting common rules, respecting equal political rights or having a social contract. Thus Thai society should stop fooling itself that most of us have a full commitment to a democratic system.

This writer doesn't know how long it will take for a consensus that is socially binding to be achieved. We have no common political pole to unite around. Unlike in the United States, South Korea or Japan, where coups are unthinkable and unacceptable to most, as long as there is no consensus on a democratic system, military coups or even "judicial coups" will continue to be part of the Thai |political landscape.

-- The Nation 2012-07-11

[JurgenG]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Edited July 10, 2012 by JurgenG

[whybother]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

[Yunla]

Support for democracy slim if politicians are corrupt

Well at least something in government is still slim. PTP certainly aren't.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Yunla

[JurgenG]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

[whybother]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

No.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Maestro
Deleted troll comment about a shoe.

[JurgenG]

^ IMO the title is not from the author of the article. Corruption is everywhere. Japan, Korea and even the USA are corrupted countries to the very top. So here there is no difference with Thailand.

The difference, as the author states, in these countries coups are unthinkable and unacceptable to most

Thailand's problem is the important number of people who think that a military coup is an acceptable way to solve a political problem.

Thailand's problem is an important number of people don't have faith enough in democracy.

[whybother]

^ IMO the title is not from the author of the article. Corruption is everywhere. Japan, Korea and even the USA are corrupted countries to the very top. So here there is no difference with Thailand.

The difference, as the author states, in these countries coups are unthinkable and unacceptable to most

Thailand's problem is the important number of people who think that a military coup is an acceptable way to solve a political problem.

Thailand's problem is an important number of people don't have faith enough in democracy.

The problem with Thailand is that it is corrupt to the very bottom as well.

Sent from my shoe phone

[tuky]

We have no common political pole to unite around. Unlike in the United States, South Korea or Japan, where coups are unthinkable and unacceptable to most, as long as there is no consensus on a democratic system, military coups or even "judicial coups" will continue to be part of the Thai |political landscape.

South Korea has had several Coups, sometimes resulting from presidential assasinations.

The last coup was in 1980 and led by the South Korean CIA.

[hanuman2543]

Never heard about a "South Korean CIA". I always thougt this fine organization is 100% American.

[OzMick]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

At least, your concept of democracy.

[h90]

^ IMO the title is not from the author of the article. Corruption is everywhere. Japan, Korea and even the USA are corrupted countries to the very top. So here there is no difference with Thailand.

The difference, as the author states, in these countries coups are unthinkable and unacceptable to most

Thailand's problem is the important number of people who think that a military coup is an acceptable way to solve a political problem.

Thailand's problem is an important number of people don't have faith enough in democracy.

Yes it is total stupid to protect politicians that are undemocratic and bought their way into office from coups.

Even if this pseudo-democracy is causing Millions of deads.

Democracy is a tool to find the most honest, best leaders for us. If that system brings only the bottom of the society than this tool doesn't work. But if the people come into power by vote buying and fraud than we don't even speak about democracy.

A military coup to remove a non democratic (but somehow elected) dictator isn't a bad thing.

[Moruya]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

English is my first language, I admit, however from the statement you replied to I took the following:

1. A bought vote is not acceptabe in a democracy.

2. If the policies are about making friends and families rich then it's not democracy.

[ginjag]

IF..........Thai polititions are corrupt ???? joke = this is where is should be stopped and followed down the ladder at every turn until you eliminate the worst of the shi#E. THE REST THEN IS EASY TO STAMP OUT.

[bigbamboo]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

No.

Sent from my shoe phone

All politicians buy votes to varying degrees.... either by blatantly handing over cash or with false election promises or both and Thailand is still a democracy in that Thaksin/PTP/Yingluck received the biggest number of votes and so they get to rule.

Edited July 11, 2012 by bigbamboo

[Exsexyman]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

What's democratic about all politicians who say "Vote for me and i will do X Y and Z", then when they are safely esconced in power ignore the promises they made and do the exact opposite? Lets face it, Western style democracy is an illusion and a sham.. The only true democracy people have is the two minutes in the polling booth when they put their cross on the piece of paper. After that all bets are off. If voting for politicians made a difference, they would abolish it!

[WhizBang]

Thailand's problem is an important number of people don't have faith enough in democracy.

No, Thailand's single biggest problem is endemic corruption, especially at the top. The other big problem Thailand has is that there is no rule of law. The Thai police are Thailand's biggest criminal organization.

You cannot have democracy, or even faith in democracy, until you have proper rule of law and eliminate the endemic corruption.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

What's democratic about buying votes?

There's apparently some distinction between buying votes and promising to reimburse those who will sell you their vote.

Vote-buying is wrong.

Promising to reimburse those who vote for you is different somehow? I've never really worked out why.

Personally, I think democracy is a patronising slap in the face for vassals too dull to realise Power doesn't give power away. Only vassals give their power away. Liberty is the right of every man but, by definition, Power cannot exist unless those with power are willing to give their power away to whomever they believe (correctly or incorrectly) will use their power to represent them and/or act in your their best interests.

You cannot have government and liberty. The two concepts are mutually exclusive. The game theory answer is not anarchy; but it's very cute how those who have created a situation that is nothing more than a feudal patron system pretend that the alternative to democratic tyranny is anarchy. I'm talking about the democratic tyrants in the US, in this instance.

But to pretend the alternative to democratic (or any) government is anarchy is a ludicrous misrepresentation of the reality. Anarchy and liberty are antonyms; but a society which has degenerated into anarchy cannot be controlled. A society which is free by virtue of individuals having liberty, cannot be controlled either. Power would not be possible either way. Power is only possible when vassals give their power away.

Basically you're against democracy.

I agree with JurgenG's conclusion.

whybother, what is your idea of 'democracy'?

The way I see it, government is (and has always been) little more than a Protection Racket. Just like the Law.

Edited July 11, 2012 by TheyCallmeScooter

[JurgenG]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

At least, your concept of democracy.

There is nothing like "my concept" or "your concept" of democracy, that's what the article is about and what you guys don't want to debate.

Please read and understand that :

These people love to say: Elections are fine if a "good" party or politicians win. And a coup is commendable if a "bad" government is ousted. It's all about good and bad, and nothing about accepting common rules, respecting equal political rights or having a social contract. Thus Thai society should stop fooling itself that most of us have a full commitment to a democratic system.

[bigbamboo]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

What's democratic about all politicians who say "Vote for me and i will do X Y and Z", then when they are safely esconced in power ignore the promises they made and do the exact opposite? Lets face it, Western style democracy is an illusion and a sham.. The only true democracy people have is the two minutes in the polling booth when they put their cross on the piece of paper. After that all bets are off. If voting for politicians made a difference, they would abolish it!

And when democracy is abused by politicians who get into power and ignore the promises they made then you get a publicly supported coup.

As Thailand knows only too well.

Edited July 11, 2012 by bigbamboo

[h90]

Good article.

I just don't understand the relation with the title.

It's not about corruption, it's about what Thai people want : democracy or communism with Thai characteristics.

Some people don't believe its democracy with all the corruption involved.

What's democratic about buying votes?

Sent from my shoe phone

Basically you're against democracy.

At least, your concept of democracy.

All the communist countries always claimed to do everything just for democracy and to free the people.

Even in North Korea they do everything just to maintain democracy and the people are so happy that 120 % vote for their leader again on every election.

[h90]

There is nothing like "my concept" or "your concept" of democracy, that's what the article is about and what you guys don't want to debate.

Please read and understand that :

These people love to say: Elections are fine if a "good" party or politicians win. And a coup is commendable if a "bad" government is ousted. It's all about good and bad, and nothing about accepting common rules, respecting equal political rights or having a social contract. Thus Thai society should stop fooling itself that most of us have a full commitment to a democratic system.

Full commitment to a democratic system would mean an immediate ban of all the PTP politicians because of vote buying. I didn't expect that from you.

[Thai at Heart]

There is nothing like "my concept" or "your concept" of democracy, that's what the article is about and what you guys don't want to debate.

Please read and understand that :

These people love to say: Elections are fine if a "good" party or politicians win. And a coup is commendable if a "bad" government is ousted. It's all about good and bad, and nothing about accepting common rules, respecting equal political rights or having a social contract. Thus Thai society should stop fooling itself that most of us have a full commitment to a democratic system.

Full commitment to a democratic system would mean an immediate ban of all the PTP politicians because of vote buying. I didn't expect that from you.

Full commitment to a democratic system and a code of conduct for corruption for all public officials, would probably mean that the parliament, senate and civil service would end up being run entirely by about 10 people. Does anyone know of anyone who has never ever greased or had his palm greased in any way shape or form, or acted in his own selfish interest when his job was meant to be to serve the public good?

The idea of the "in the public interest" is alien to Thailand.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[bigbamboo]

There is nothing like "my concept" or "your concept" of democracy, that's what the article is about and what you guys don't want to debate.

Please read and understand that :

These people love to say: Elections are fine if a "good" party or politicians win. And a coup is commendable if a "bad" government is ousted. It's all about good and bad, and nothing about accepting common rules, respecting equal political rights or having a social contract. Thus Thai society should stop fooling itself that most of us have a full commitment to a democratic system.

Full commitment to a democratic system would mean an immediate ban of all the PTP politicians because of vote buying. I didn't expect that from you.

Full commitment to a democratic system and a code of conduct for corruption for all public officials, would probably mean that the parliament, senate and civil service would end up being run entirely by about 10 people. Does anyone know of anyone who has never ever greased or had his palm greased in any way shape or form, or acted in his own selfish interest when his job was meant to be to serve the public good?

The idea of the "in the public interest" is alien to Thailand.

H.M. ?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

And when democracy is abused by politicians who get into power and ignore the promises they made then you get a publicly supported coup.

As Thailand knows only too well.

There are a great many people who believe (arguably correctly) that the "reset switch" of a publicly supported coup gives Thailand's 'democracy' an edge over US 'democracy'. I think it's all 6 on one side, half a dozen on the other. I have a minor in History and spent six months on the US Civil War and to this day, I'm yet to hear an explanation for why the South did not have the right to secede from "the Union" (which was formed under a false pretext).

The argument for the Southern states being prevented from doing what they wanted to do literally boiled down to "What God has joined together, let no man tear asunder." That's more Biblical than democratic, but then the illusion of 'sovereignty' and 'nation-states' was created by the Holy Roman Emperor in 1648. Yall know about how states were formed surely?

Sovereigns were legitimised by the Church, which (by virtue of exerting their 'moral' influence for over 1000 years across the [known] world) had turned Europe into a blood-soaked state of Total War. Pure anarchy. Sociopathic bloodthirsty genocidal maniacs were forming mini-armies of vassals on whom they'd play Confidence Tricks in order convince them to kill and die for their 'Protector' (who was nothing more than the most cunning of vassals, capable of manipulating other vassals into risking their lives and killing for him or her). The most successful (i.e. Powerful) of the sociopathic killers got an invite to Munster where the Church created sovereigns out of the winners of UN-natural selection.

The JEALOUS LORD sure does work in 'mysterious' ways.

The Holy Roman Emperor brilliantly took control of the entire (known) world by giving away land he did not own and vassals he had no right to give away. He divided up the world into portions, which were then given away to literally the worst animals on the face of the planet. Sane people don't have any vassals willing to kill or die for them. Only sociopaths can ever get Power. Sociopaths became Holy sovereigns ordained by God, and sent back to their plantations to continue to exploit their own. They had the right to wage war but they all swore fealty to the Holy See. The excerpts in the Treaty of Westphalia literally states all dominions belong to the Holy Roman Empire. I'm yet to understand how exactly the Treaty of Westphalia was annulled; and if it was not...?

Either way, nationalism has always been a ludicrous illusion and a lie. Sovereigns has always been (and will always be) about domestic exploitation, first and foremost. I vaguely understand the only way to retain legitimacy when your very existence serves no function, is to wage war and run endless domestic terrorism campaigns. Protection Rackets are always about manufacturing fear.

The idea of the "in the public interest" is alien to Thailand.

But in what country on the planet is it not?

[Thaddeus]

What's democratic about buying votes?

There's apparently some distinction between buying votes and promising to reimburse those who will sell you their vote.

Vote-buying is wrong.

Promising to reimburse those who vote for you is different somehow? I've never really worked out why.

The big difference is that when a party constantly fails to deliver on promises ( reimburse ) they run the risk of being voted out the next time.

Cash in hand before an election secures that vote every time, especially when a high enough percentage of the voting population were not drastically affected negatively by failed promises, or they can't remember what they were anyway.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

The big difference is that when a party constantly fails to deliver on promises ( reimburse ) they run the risk of being voted out the next time.

Really? Has a politician in a democratic system ever _not_ failed to deliver on the promises they used to get a mandate to 'govern'? (the single parentheses denotes my suspicion that Power in democratic systems is not handed over to the winners of what amounts to a radio call-in popularity contest every few years - I could be wrong, but I don't think Power 'works' that way?)

Obama (I actually tried to send 5 figures to support his election campaign four years ago, only to blush at my stupidity when - of course - I learned foreigners cannot be permitted to corrupt the electoral process - you have no idea how stupid I felt) has failed to deliver on all the key promises he made during his campaign.

"Change you can believe in."

"Bringing change to Washington."

"No more special interests / lobbyists."

The Drug War (which creates a tiny $1,000,000,000,000 annual war fund for...ahem...someone, fingers crossed they don't get involved in politics amirite) rages on. Holder and Obama are arresting whistle-blowers as traitors. Truth has become a crime, revealing crimes has become a crime. They claim "executive privilege" refusing to disclose documents relating to Fast & Furious and heaven knows what other associated crimes and Americans tolerate this as acceptable...? No Democrats I'm aware of are even horrified. They're just too terrified of "the other guy". Pretty sure both "guys" will always defer to shadowy silent forces, of the sort that give $1,000,000,000 to candidates to enable them to run. Hurrah for democracy!

I was so furious at Obama for 'betraying' the world's faith in him until I realised, for all we know, he could be the finest hero the world has right now (that's the problem with "national secrets" - those who NEED TO KNOW are never permitted to know).

The day I heard the Supreme Court was allowing "limited liability" corporations to contribute to campaign funds....that's game over. Does this mean if I own stock in a company trading on the NYSE, I can make that donation after all? The whole ridiculous circus seems farcical to me. But what do I know. I'm just a sentimental idealist (i.e. a victim of Confidence Tricking classical literature and propaganda).

H.M. ?

If His Majesty could just do us all a favour and live for ever, I would literally swear fealty. Of course he refuses to exercise Power, which is one of the reasons I respect him. Westerners ask me how I suddenly went from being Republican to a monarchist "when the King arrests so many people for lese majeste" - these vassals in the US and Australia just believe everything they read in the Economist, etc.

I explain the King only pardons, and never convicts; they get confused with their binary minds. The idea that an institution can be used by Power (which respectfully ignores the King's wishes) is beyond their comprehension.

The Western vassals ask me, "Why doesn't the King change the Law then?"

Vassals don't really get Power, as a concept. But then they're usually bored by that point of the 'debate', and keen to return to their all-important discussing of the respective virtues of iPhone 4S v Samsung Galaxy.

Step 1. Make vassals so stupid they can be tricked into thinking they have choices.

Step 2. Give them democracy.

Step 3. Every few years, give them the opportunity to choose between two options you have selected for them.

Step 4. Laugh in scorn as they fight amongst themselves, terrified of "the other guy".

Both sides campaign from the ideological poles and rule from the Totalitarian Centre. It's important to meet in the middle. If you're especially dull, you won't understand why the left veers ever further left and the right veers ever further right. They're always going to meet in the middle which means...

We're going to war.

And no one can tell me why "special interests" have a place in a democratic system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me another word for "special interests" is....TREASON?

[h90]

Full commitment to a democratic system and a code of conduct for corruption for all public officials, would probably mean that the parliament, senate and civil service would end up being run entirely by about 10 people. Does anyone know of anyone who has never ever greased or had his palm greased in any way shape or form, or acted in his own selfish interest when his job was meant to be to serve the public good?

The idea of the "in the public interest" is alien to Thailand.

I know one, but who would be the other 9?

The 2007 constitution was a step in the right direction but far to mild. If you get caught violating the principles of democracy than you need to brake 5 years until you can do it again.

that is almost a joke. A jail term and ban for life would be a beginning.

Still PTP run amok when they hear about any restrictions.

Maybe the constitution from North Korea would fit them well.

[h90]

What's democratic about buying votes?

There's apparently some distinction between buying votes and promising to reimburse those who will sell you their vote.

Vote-buying is wrong.

Promising to reimburse those who vote for you is different somehow? I've never really worked out why.

The big difference is that when a party constantly fails to deliver on promises ( reimburse ) they run the risk of being voted out the next time.

Cash in hand before an election secures that vote every time, especially when a high enough percentage of the voting population were not drastically affected negatively by failed promises, or they can't remember what they were anyway.

And for promises (reimburse) it can't be proofed that it is vote buying as there will be always some arguments how it benefits the people. As well it will be for all people the same, no matter who they voted for.

While direct vote buying can't explained somehow.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

And for promises (reimburse) it can't be proofed that it is vote buying as there will be always some arguments how it benefits the people. As well it will be for all people the same, no matter who they voted for.

Really? The US healthcare bill was held up on the floor of the House by Democratic Representatives who refused to budge unless they got their pork.

That pork was not going to benefit the people of the US, and not going to benefit the people of the states being represented. Pork always benefits the corrupt special interests who get Representatives elected to the House. How could you make the argument that pork barreling is in the public interests?