Alternatives To Trt

[cdnvic]

I, and quite a few others here I imagine, only know of Thailand under TRT/Thaksin. How do the other parties sit in ideology? As much as I complain about the CEO, I have no idea what the real alternatives are as I rarely hear anything of substance in the news about the opposition.

Any oldtimers out there willing to fill the rest of us in a bit?

Thanks

cv

[davidm]

Most of the other Thai parties stand inside the TRT-dominated coalition. None of them have an ideological platform. Palang Dhamma, the party where Dear Leader began his political career, professed to operate on a sort of moral basis i.e. anti-corruption, pro-people etc. but when that tactic failed Thaksin was invited to join and became leader after a brief interval.

Most parties revolve around a dominant "personality". That person, or his backer, must have very deep pockets. Prior to recent changes in the law, MPs and candidates would change parties on a regular basis, going to whoever was offering the bigger, better deal.

The Democrat Party is over 60 years old, but essentially operates the same as any other in Thailand. It has the same ratio of crooks, fools and charlatans as any other group of of Thai politicians. Actually, the one other thing all these parties have in common is the lack of Thai MPs. With the exception of a few muslims, I can't think of a single MP who isn't ethnic Chinese. Perhaps this is the root cause of the problem.

Essentially, Thai politics works like this:

The politicians are in it for the money. The "prestige" and other perks are also nice, but basically it's the money. All MPs can make a certain amount of money from funds for their constituencies, but the best returns are obtained by being in government. The higher an MP is in a government, the more money he or she stands to make. Defence and interior portfolios are generally the most lucrative, with commerce, agriculture, transport & communications and first deputy prime minister (there are at least four deputy PMs) are also highly sought after. Foreign minister was not a popular choice for many years because the returns it generated were relatively low.

There are about 50 members of the cabinet - a much larger number than needed for policy, but an indication of how many pigs want their snout in the trough. If an MP can't get a coveted ministerial or deputy post, he will support another candidate in return for a share of the spoils. Often, this is the MP's own sponsor.

Getting into parliament requires a substantial investment. Nearly every vote has to be bought in advance. You may ask how can this happen in a country which has a secret ballot. Simple. With the exception of Bangkok and a few other major urban centres, Thailand is divided into thousands of districts, each of which is controlled by a local official, the kamnan. Most of these kamnan are unelected, and hold the position for life, even bequeathing the post to their children.

A political candidate will negotiate with a kamnan to ensure he delivers the vote from his district. Each voter receives a small bribe and the kamnan receives the rest. Often these kamnan will report to a local gangster, and negotiations will take place at that level. The kamnan knows every registered voter has to vote for the right candidate, so he will relay the message to his people and ensure a 100% turnout.

As there is more than one candidate per constituency, competition for kamnans' services is fierce, often deadly. Spoiling the campaign of rivals can be another nice little earner for kamnans and their henchmen.

Once the politician is elected, it's time to repay any debts and recoup his investment. He knows he doesn't have much time as the record for any administration staying in power (prior to the current government) is two years and ten months. Therefore, the MP knows he has to steal as much as he can from the country before the electoral process begins all over again.

[Georgie-Porgie]

davidm, I really enjoy your posts.

[davidm]

Very kind of you, George. Thanks.

[cdnvic]

So essentially an election in Thailand is like throwing out a carton of sour milk from your fridge and bying a different brand of sour milk?

cv

[davidm]

So essentially an election in Thailand is like throwing out a carton of sour milk from your fridge and bying a different brand of sour milk?

Yup. Nice analogy.

[Basher]

David,

you really do have a grasp on the who's and where's mate

Good post

[davidm]

Thanks a lot, guys. Just wish the subject inspired less cynicism and more positive feelings.

[cdnvic]

I re-read your very informative post again. Do you suppose you could outline the positive in it? I see little to be positive about in Thai politics, aside from the fact that it's a constitutional monarchy with a King whose proven to be a smart and quite decent man over the years, rather than a republic. Worse comes to worse, he can keep a government in check, and no politician, regardless of popularity can compete with that. The may or may not like their PM, but they Love their king.

cv

[davidm]

The bright side is that Thailand's government is a bit better than the regimes in Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines. As a result, the country hasn't gone through as much turmoil.

There is a huge downside to what you wrote, cdnvic, but's it's much too sensitive to post here. If you re-read you post, I'm sure you can work it out.

[cdnvic]

I think I see what you mean, but thats the upside to a constitutional monarchy. A monarch reigns but cannot rule. Their power over government is limited to dissolving parliment and calling an election. After that only the electorate are allowed to decide. In most republics this safety mechanism does not exist.

cv

[davidm]

Unfortunately, you don't see. Just as well, because I don't really want to discuss it in public. One last hint: what is the one certainty which applies to all rulers, regardless of whether they are presidents, kings, dictators or spiritual leaders?

[cdnvic]

If you are talking about the danger of personality cults, I do see it. But isn't that what having the parliment and the monarchy seperated (in any constitutional monarchy, not just Thailand in particular) is supposed to prevent? Nobody has absolute power.

cv

[piet pompies]

davidm, you are astute, whatever happens when the undiscussable happens can only be speculated. I have not found any Thai prepared to discuss it openly, but most are wary and comprehensive. Read history, it will probably repeat itself.

[davidm]

In fairness Piet Pompies, there were a couple of articles published in the Bangkok Post about 10 years ago which said the relevant authority had decided the issue in question could be resolved in a way not always considered conventional.

A lot of water has flowed under that particular bridge. There's been a marriage (can you believe by some coincidence I've got Rolling Stones "Respectable" blasting out as I type this) and a huge PR campaign which has made some positive inroads into public sentiment. The natural order may be resumed. Consequently, the worst case scenario is looking more likely by the day.

Anyway, enough said. No point in risking upsetting someone for the sake of a chat.

[ovenman]

davidm, that was a very succinct primer on Thai politics. It should be put in a FAQ somewhere.

Even if parliament were dissolved and elections held tomorrow, it would in all probability be another cakewalk for TRT. None of the other parties appear to have a dominant personality at the moment that the masses would get behind.