Lessons in Democracy from the streets of Bangkok

[webfact]

Lessons in Democracy from the streets of Bangkok
Surin Pitsuwan
Special to The Nation



BANGKOK: -- Whether or not the massive nationwide anti-government protests, particularly on the streets of Bangkok, will lead to any meaningful changes in our political culture and system remains to be seen.

One thing is clear though: the marathon demonstrations have brought forth striking literary works inspired by the largest political event in Thailand's history. Whatever you call it - "street poetry" "protest art" or the "music of grievances" - this new genre of popular art has sprung spontaneously from the dusty concrete footpaths and the emotional depths of protesters, supporters and bystanders.

And powerful quotations from philosophers and thinkers of politics and democracy from ancient Greece to the genius of modern eras were invoked to justify their "right to rebel" against what they perceive to be an unjust government. Social media has been the best instrument to share with millions around the country and help galvanise the overwhelming support from the country's agitated electorate.

Arrogance of power

The very first issue of grievance articulated day in and day out on the pavement of Rajdamneon Avenue is the arrogance of power. Hundreds of thousands of multitude from all walks of life and all corners of the country, armed only "with a pair of sport shoes and a pure heart," converged for one and the same reason, ie. the abuse of power by the majority over the limits of the laws and the bounds of decency which have been social norms and cultural traits of the Thai society. This is what Thomas Jefferson called "elective despotism".

When the majority in the two Houses of Parliament dragged every controversial issue through the legislative process against the protest of the minority, sometimes submitting different documents from what have been passed by the other body, often times allowing others to slip voting cards in their absence, many times shunning many members from expressing their opinion on the ground that "the sense of the majority seem to be overwhelming already," the resulting legislative products would be flawed both in their substance and in their procedural integrity. The Thai Constitutional Court handed down its majority opinion on 20 November, calling the House' s procedure in an effort to amend the Constitution "illegal".

Prior to the Constitutional Court's ruling, hundreds of thousands of people were already on the streets of Bangkok and at provincial halls around the country protesting against an Amnesty Bill aiming at whitewashing all criminal acts committed since 19 September 2006 coup against former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra all the way to 10 May 2013. It would have been a sweeping amnesty for all sorts of crimes.

It was argued that the Bill would have undermined the rule of law, reversing verdicts of other courts, including the conviction against Mr Thaksin himself and the confiscation of his "ill-gotten wealth".

This was perceived to be an act of injustice. And we heard the Oxford-educated Korn Chatikavanij, a Democrat MP of Bangkok and former minister of finance under the Abhisit Government, invoking Thomas Jefferson on the Rajdamneon stage in front of tens of thousands of people: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." The crowd roared and applauded approvingly.

Facebook, Line and other forms of social media during the month-long protests certainly helped raised a higher level of political awareness and sophistication of the people in Bangkok and around the country. They shared photos, poems, articles from newspapers and video clips of powerful and persuasive speakers relevant to the controversial acts or omissions of the government. One one reached all the way to the Greek sage from 5th Century BC, Plato. He was quoted as admonishing people who remain uninterested and silent on political issues, known as Thai cheuy, "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." That certainly sounds a bit condescending, but such is the nature of Thai politics at the moment.

The urban and rural divide has been an Achilles heel of Thai politics all along. And the general impression of the Bangkok middle class is that the politicos in charge of the country now are full of country bumpkins and inferior than themselves. Such a condescending attitude can understandably create a strong sense of resentment from the provincial folks. Coming from a rural village myself, I can appreciate that resentment. Urbane, well-educated and taxpaying, the people of Bangkok detest the populist projects doled out by the Pheu Thai government, fraught with corruption and waste. The controversial money-losing rice price guarantee project is a good example of misconceived and mismanaged populist initiative aimed at winning rural support. The rating agency Moody's and IMF itself have issued warnings that the scheme would become a large black hole of debt and corruption if it is not abandoned soon. To date over Bt450 billion is considered irrecoverable. And the National Counter Corruption Commission is set to rule about corruption practices in the entire scheme.

Even the authority of Albert Einstein was invoked to inspire the crowd to cling to their seats on the surface of Rajdamneon. They would hear Dr Trairong Suwankiri, another fiery orator from the Democrat camp, quoting the giant of modern physics: "The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything." That statement certainly strikes a responsive chord among the "silent majority" who have harboured tremendous grievances but would not dare to articulate it out for fear of being despised, not knowing who the next person is, affiliated with, or entertaining any political persuasion. They have been described as being "lonely in the crowd", full of frustrations, brimming with anger and agitated by all the misguided policies that would in the long run ruin the country's economy. The large crowd on the streets has given them enough courage to come out, feeling liberated, wanting to join and articulate their pent up sentiments in the faceless but powerful waves of their fellow citizens.

The organisers and leaders of the demonstrations on Rajdamneon and in every corner of the country realise very well that the larger number matters to the international community. The dividing line between an ordinary political protest and a general uprising is very thin. It is the size of the crowd that makes the difference. A couple of thousands on the streets you could be a group of rebels. Four or five hundred thousand to a million and over, and you would be considered an expression of People's Power. They also realise that a large number of humanity on the streets means more than just a normal power play. They cannot be accused of being undemocratic, not accepting the democratic process, defiant against the parliamentary majority. A large number of people on the streets in any capital of the world has its own weight, its own logic and its own legitimacy.

Thus, the teaching of John Locke on the right of revolution has also been referred to on the campuses of Thammasat and other academic institutions. When there is no power on earth to adjudicate between the people, the fount of sovereignty, and the supreme legislature which has gone astray, "the people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven."

Right to revolt

This clause, to appeal to Heaven, has been interpreted, since the writing of the Second Treatise on Civil Government in 1690, as the right to revolt against unjust and tyrannical government. And the bloodless and peaceful Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a modality of non-violent resistance that Locke tried to explain and justify.

Millions of Thais also hope that their resistance would be peaceful and glorious. And they fervently believe in their just cause to raise their hands to the Heaven on High and appeal for justice and a reprieve from the transgression of power that was theirs originally, but "reposed" in the wrong hands. They expect the international community to sympathise with them and, in the final analysis, would not regard them as "undemocratic and unconstitutional, rejecting the majority rule", but would consider them as merely exercising their right of forfeiting the trust back from a government which has manifestly abused it.

So, going forward, let the world not be surprised by the ever large number of people coming on to the streets of Bangkok. They are no longer lonely in the crowd. They sense the solidarity. They are convinced of the righteousness of their cause. They know the number matters to the international community.

Surin Pitsuwan is a Tun Abdul Razak Fellow at the University of Oxford's Centre for Islamic Studies.

-- The Nation 2013-12-09

[michaeljordan]

It would all make sense except they are all wearing yellow and the other side wears red and they are not calling for a coup.

The Reds won the election.

The international community?

Read what posters outside Thailand are saying.

The vast majority of posts call it a coup and undemocratic and they look down upon Thailand should a coup be aloud to happen with this act.

You see, if you marched toward Obama, the army would shoot down the people like dogs.

If you tried to take out the PM in the UK, David Cameron, they too would defend him with armed force.

But in Thailand?

The army not only sits silently, it gives aid.

NO--this will be a coup and no way to hide it should it happen.

The international community knows this for a fact now.

[angsta]

Lessons in democracy from Thailand? Give me a break.

What's next, lessons in human rights from North Korea?

Oh The Nation...

[SebD]

I am confused am I.

Please could someone help me out with understanding Thai style politics as I’m not very learned in the subject and maybe have not quite grasped it properly.

My current take on the system is that an election is called and the majority of the voting populace (under the generally agreed fairest of democratic principals which is one-person-one-vote) elect Party A over Party B (let’s give them colours to make it easier. So Party A are now “White” and party B are now “Blue”).

Party A (the White party) is duly and verifiably elected by a majority of the voting public.

Party B (the Blue party) and its supporters are not happy that they didn’t win though and continually protest and behave restlessly on the streets of the Capital city and it all culminates in them employing the top echelons of the national Army to organise a military coup which ousts the democratically elected government and exiles its leader.

After a short period of military rule the Blue party is handed the seat of government, without being elected to it.

Some unrest is (not unsurprisingly) forthcoming by supporters of the formerly elected White party which is quelled when the military start shooting, maiming and killing them on the streets.

After the Blue party has held power for the maximum period of time allowed there is another General Election and the people again show their unhappiness with the Blue party’s running of the country (and possibly the methods they had employed in forcibly wresting power from the properly elected government). This results in the White party being voted in (again) under the one-person-one-vote system.

The Blue party are unhappy again and take to the streets (again – and with no-one being killed by the authorities as had happened to the White party supporters when they did likewise).

Eventually and despite now having been voted in twice in succession but never having been allowed to serve even one full term in office, the leadership of the White party offers an immediate new General Election to the leaders of the Blue party (barely more than half way through their own term of office) which appears still not quite good enough for the Blue party who believe the White party should just resign and allow them (the Blue party) back into power, unelected.

So all votes are measured equally. But some votes are measured more equally than others.

Is that about right?

[GeorgeO]

It would all make sense except they are all wearing yellow and the other side wears red and they are not calling for a coup.

The Reds won the election.

The international community?

Read what posters outside Thailand are saying.

The vast majority of posts call it a coup and undemocratic and they look down upon Thailand should a coup be aloud to happen with this act.

You see, if you marched toward Obama, the army would shoot down the people like dogs.

If you tried to take out the PM in the UK, David Cameron, they too would defend him with armed force.

But in Thailand?

The army not only sits silently, it gives aid.

NO--this will be a coup and no way to hide it should it happen.

The international community knows this for a fact now.

This article strikes at the heart of the debate, recognising that the people who are now demonstrating are actually the 'silent majority'. You are very wrong to suggest that they are all wearing yellow; they are not! These are the common people of Thailand who did not affiliate themselves with the likes of those who took over the airport.

The primary aim of the anti-government movement is to peacefully protest, en masse, to show that they have had enough of this corrupt government and that they wish to see Thailand rid of them and ultimately become a true democracy. They can be likened to the suffragette movement in Britain, which, despite continually being downtrodden throughout their efforts, ultimately became recognised as an important element of the democracy that emerged in Britain.

You say that the Reds won the election, but fail to mention the widespread vote-buying that the victory was based on, and please don't ask me to provide evidence, as we have recently had senior figures admitting that vote-buying was rife, but that they felt that it was justified because the other side was also doing it...!! Vote-buying is wrong on all levels as it distorts the true feelings of the populace.

As is often the case when someone takes sides, bias will tend to creep in, and in this case, it manifests itself through the comment that "the vast majority of posts call it a coup and undemocratic". I don't see that, but of course, now I will be accused of juxtaposed bias! However, I like to think that my view of all of this is based upon right and wrong, and what we currently see in this government is simply wrong on so many levels, and indeed, it is this view that has sparked the current protests.

Using the US as an example of what can happen if you try to bring down a government is probably not a wise thing to do, as you can get shot down like a dog in the US simply for walking the street late at night...! And the suggestion that the Armed Forces would turn out to defend David Cameron is just so wrong that it begs the question why you even think that. I served in the British Armed Forces for 22 years, retiring at a senior level, and I can tell you that our role could never be a political one, regardless of the situation. We have a perfectly good police force in the UK which is equipped for all situations, and to bring in the Army would indicate that the UK had fallen into total anarchy....!

In both the US and the UK, had there been a situation such as currently exists in Thailand, there would have been no requirement for the people to take to the streets, because either leader would have been brought down by the system. Neither the US nor the UK would sit idly by whilst their leader ransacked the coffers for their own benefit. They would have been impeached, had their assets seized, made to appear before an enquiry, and potentially jailed for their actions

The international community does not "know for a fact" that there is to be a coup, what it does know for a fact is that the direction that Thailand is currently going with the current government in place is simply unsustainable, and there is a strong recognition that the people had little choice but to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the current leadership.

The alternative would be to wait it out for 19 months until the next election and deal the PTP a final death blow with a resounding defeat at the polls, but by that time, the country would already be bankrupt, and these criminals, thinly disguised as politicians, would have crept away in the night to join their beloved self-exiled leader.

[ramrod711]

The controversial money-losing rice price guarantee project is a good example of misconceived and mismanaged populist initiative aimed at winning rural support. The rating agency Moody's and IMF itself have issued warnings that the scheme would become a large black hole of debt and corruption if it is not abandoned soon. To date over Bt450 billion is considered irrecoverable. And the National Counter Corruption Commission is set to rule about corruption practices in the entire scheme

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

When the elected government chose to pass a bill, in the middle of the night, that had been altered to benefit a criminal, and that they knew was hugely unpopular, they earned these protests. Let's get one thing straight, Thaksin Shinawatras name was not on the ballot. Thai people did not elect him to office. Nobody asked him to phone in with his advice, and when elected MPs talk to him, visit him, or follow his orders, they are breaking the law and should be expelled from the legislature. People have a legitimate right to blow the whistle when they see their government breaking the law, I applaud them.

Edited December 9, 2013 by ramrod711

[Roadman]

I am confused am I.

Please could someone help me out with understanding Thai style politics as I’m not very learned in the subject and maybe have not quite grasped it properly.

My current take on the system is that an election is called and the majority of the voting populace (under the generally agreed fairest of democratic principals which is one-person-one-vote) elect Party A over Party B (let’s give them colours to make it easier. So Party A are now “White” and party B are now “Blue”).

Party A (the White party) is duly and verifiably elected by a majority of the voting public.

Party B (the Blue party) and its supporters are not happy that they didn’t win though and continually protest and behave restlessly on the streets of the Capital city and it all culminates in them employing the top echelons of the national Army to organise a military coup which ousts the democratically elected government and exiles its leader.

After a short period of military rule the Blue party is handed the seat of government, without being elected to it.

Some unrest is (not unsurprisingly) forthcoming by supporters of the formerly elected White party which is quelled when the military start shooting, maiming and killing them on the streets.

After the Blue party has held power for the maximum period of time allowed there is another General Election and the people again show their unhappiness with the Blue party’s running of the country (and possibly the methods they had employed in forcibly wresting power from the properly elected government). This results in the White party being voted in (again) under the one-person-one-vote system.

The Blue party are unhappy again and take to the streets (again – and with no-one being killed by the authorities as had happened to the White party supporters when they did likewise).

Eventually and despite now having been voted in twice in succession but never having been allowed to serve even one full term in office, the leadership of the White party offers an immediate new General Election to the leaders of the Blue party (barely more than half way through their own term of office) which appears still not quite good enough for the Blue party who believe the White party should just resign and allow them (the Blue party) back into power, unelected.

So all votes are measured equally. But some votes are measured more equally than others.

Is that about right?

Wrong overall.

Where were the Blue party handed the seat of power? Another Thaksin proxy party won the next election after the last Army intervention.

Why can very few on this site in spite of some excellent articles appearing today not get it through their heads that this is not about the winning or losing of elections but about abuse of power.

[SebD]

The controversial money-losing rice price guarantee project is a good example of misconceived and mismanaged populist initiative aimed at winning rural support. The rating agency Moody's and IMF itself have issued warnings that the scheme would become a large black hole of debt and corruption if it is not abandoned soon. To date over Bt450 billion is considered irrecoverable. And the National Counter Corruption Commission is set to rule about corruption practices in the entire scheme

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

When the elected government chose to pass a bill, in the middle of the night, that had been altered to benefit a criminal, and that they knew was hugely unpopular, they earned these protests. Let's get one thing straight, Thaksin Shinawatras name was not on the ballot. Thai people did not elect him to office. Nobody asked him to phone in with his advice, and when elected MPs talk to him, visit him, or follow his orders, they are breaking the law and should be expelled from the legislature. People have a legitimate right to blow the whistle when they see their government breaking the law, I applaud them.

But when Abhisit is on the phone to his paymasters it's Ok?

[SebD]

I am confused am I.

Please could someone help me out with understanding Thai style politics as I’m not very learned in the subject and maybe have not quite grasped it properly.

My current take on the system is that an election is called and the majority of the voting populace (under the generally agreed fairest of democratic principals which is one-person-one-vote) elect Party A over Party B (let’s give them colours to make it easier. So Party A are now “White” and party B are now “Blue”).

Party A (the White party) is duly and verifiably elected by a majority of the voting public.

Party B (the Blue party) and its supporters are not happy that they didn’t win though and continually protest and behave restlessly on the streets of the Capital city and it all culminates in them employing the top echelons of the national Army to organise a military coup which ousts the democratically elected government and exiles its leader.

After a short period of military rule the Blue party is handed the seat of government, without being elected to it.

Some unrest is (not unsurprisingly) forthcoming by supporters of the formerly elected White party which is quelled when the military start shooting, maiming and killing them on the streets.

After the Blue party has held power for the maximum period of time allowed there is another General Election and the people again show their unhappiness with the Blue party’s running of the country (and possibly the methods they had employed in forcibly wresting power from the properly elected government). This results in the White party being voted in (again) under the one-person-one-vote system.

The Blue party are unhappy again and take to the streets (again – and with no-one being killed by the authorities as had happened to the White party supporters when they did likewise).

Eventually and despite now having been voted in twice in succession but never having been allowed to serve even one full term in office, the leadership of the White party offers an immediate new General Election to the leaders of the Blue party (barely more than half way through their own term of office) which appears still not quite good enough for the Blue party who believe the White party should just resign and allow them (the Blue party) back into power, unelected.

So all votes are measured equally. But some votes are measured more equally than others.

Is that about right?

Wrong overall.

Where were the Blue party handed the seat of power? Another Thaksin proxy party won the next election after the last Army intervention.

Why can very few on this site in spite of some excellent articles appearing today not get it through their heads that this is not about the winning or losing of elections but about abuse of power.

Abuse of power as in financial power?

Paying army generals to swing the power pendulum in your favour, for instance?

[metisdead]

A post intended to be profane and vulgar has been removed as well as the replies.

[mca]

A post intended to be profane and vulgar has been removed as well as the replies.

Actually it was a direct quote from media reports of graffiti at the Anusawari Prachathipatai protest sites including a few bits blanked out for the sake of not offending anyones sensibilities.

Is this better?

One thing is clear though: the marathon demonstrations have brought forth striking literary works inspired by the largest political event in Thailand's history. Whatever you call it - "street poetry" "protest art" or the "music of grievances" - this new genre of popular art has sprung spontaneously from the dusty concrete footpaths and the emotional depths of protesters, supporters and bystanders.

And powerful quotations from philosophers and thinkers of politics and democracy from ancient Greece to the genius of modern eras were invoked to justify their "right to rebel" against what they perceive to be an unjust government.

I've been reading the works of Plato and I can't ever seem to recall him using " Expletive deleted - face " to get his point across.

[96tehtarp]

You say that the Reds won the election, but fail to mention the widespread vote-buying that the victory was based on, and please don't ask me to provide evidence, as we have recently had senior figures admitting that vote-buying was rife, but that they felt that it was justified because the other side was also doing it...!! Vote-buying is wrong on all levels as it distorts the true feelings of the populace.

Vote buying has been widely discredited as having had any effect on the outcomes of the last few elections in Thailand. It's on record and well documented. Look it up.

Even if vote buying were to have any effect on the outcome of a future election and given an unlimited bankroll with which to buy unlimited votes I doubt the DP could win enough electoral seats to form a majority government and appoint a DP PM.

The Democratic Party knows they cannot win an election and they have capitulated democracy to the dark wolf of dictatorship wrapped in the soft blanket of "Peoples Council for Democracy".

Who considers winning the hearts and minds of the people through government policies which are popular to be a form of vote buying?

[icare999]

It would all make sense except they are all wearing yellow and the other side wears red and they are not calling for a coup.

The Reds won the election.

The international community?

Read what posters outside Thailand are saying.

The vast majority of posts call it a coup and undemocratic and they look down upon Thailand should a coup be aloud to happen with this act.

You see, if you marched toward Obama, the army would shoot down the people like dogs.

If you tried to take out the PM in the UK, David Cameron, they too would defend him with armed force.

But in Thailand?

The army not only sits silently, it gives aid.

NO--this will be a coup and no way to hide it should it happen.

The international community knows this for a fact now.

who cares what so called international community think They stand idly bye when millions are massacred inn Cambodia in Rwanda and everywhere unless of course oil is a factor. For me good luck and anything that rids Thailand of Taksin is worth it. Nothing can be worse than this government in fact its not a government its a one man show with not slightest voice raised in discussion about anything as long as Taksin gets back.

[Crushdepth]

Abuse state power and eventually you will lose it. Don't start whining about the rules when they come for your head.

[glennb6]

Not being fluent in Thai and now back in the states, I read about the protests with a degree of envy and admiration of those with feet on the street.

This is a pulled quote from the Declaration of Independence, and it happens to be printed on the new $100 US note (for some odd reason);

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

However sloppy and rough on the edges the Thai protests may be, they are exercising a fundamental human right.

Frankly I wish that spirit and determination were in abundance here in the ussa, but alas not.

[Chupup]

The controversial money-losing rice price guarantee project is a good example of misconceived and mismanaged populist initiative aimed at winning rural support. The rating agency Moody's and IMF itself have issued warnings that the scheme would become a large black hole of debt and corruption if it is not abandoned soon. To date over Bt450 billion is considered irrecoverable. And the National Counter Corruption Commission is set to rule about corruption practices in the entire scheme

"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."

When the elected government chose to pass a bill, in the middle of the night, that had been altered to benefit a criminal, and that they knew was hugely unpopular, they earned these protests. Let's get one thing straight, Thaksin Shinawatras name was not on the ballot. Thai people did not elect him to office. Nobody asked him to phone in with his advice, and when elected MPs talk to him, visit him, or follow his orders, they are breaking the law and should be expelled from the legislature. People have a legitimate right to blow the whistle when they see their government breaking the law, I applaud them.

But when Abhisit is on the phone to his paymasters it's Ok?

????........SebD,.Reminder to myself to ignore your nonsence posts in the future.......

[belg]

you must give thai people this credit

they take the streets when they are unhappy

in your western countries, many resent that their tax payer money is waisted on illegals, unwilling people to work, social security fakers, for emptying the coffers of the social welfare build by their parents and greatparents

but none is doing annything, except the keyboard warriors to complain on fora !

[PaullyW]

you must give thai people this credit

 

they take the streets when they are unhappy

 

 

in your western countries, many resent that their tax payer money is waisted on illegals, unwilling people to work, social security fakers, for  emptying the coffers of the social welfare build by their parents and greatparents

 

but none is doing annything, except the keyboard warriors to complain on fora !

 

 

 

But many of our counties are easily far better off, richer ect than Thailand. So, truth is that most western countries problems are developed country problems that, in comparison, are not so bad. Thais are just a couple hundred years behind so they MUST take to the streets.

Please don't forget the French Revolution which brought us to this modern age, the American Revolutionary War against the British ect. Western countries TRULY fight for their objecticves - don't mistake it.

[brewsterbudgen]

Ironic that an anti-democratic mob protest is being called a "lesson in democracy". Crazy stuff.

[nong38]

It would all make sense except they are all wearing yellow and the other side wears red and they are not calling for a coup.

The Reds won the election.

The international community?

Read what posters outside Thailand are saying.

The vast majority of posts call it a coup and undemocratic and they look down upon Thailand should a coup be aloud to happen with this act.

You see, if you marched toward Obama, the army would shoot down the people like dogs.

If you tried to take out the PM in the UK, David Cameron, they too would defend him with armed force.

But in Thailand?

The army not only sits silently, it gives aid.

NO--this will be a coup and no way to hide it should it happen.

The international community knows this for a fact now.

This article strikes at the heart of the debate, recognising that the people who are now demonstrating are actually the 'silent majority'. You are very wrong to suggest that they are all wearing yellow; they are not! These are the common people of Thailand who did not affiliate themselves with the likes of those who took over the airport.

The primary aim of the anti-government movement is to peacefully protest, en masse, to show that they have had enough of this corrupt government and that they wish to see Thailand rid of them and ultimately become a true democracy. They can be likened to the suffragette movement in Britain, which, despite continually being downtrodden throughout their efforts, ultimately became recognised as an important element of the democracy that emerged in Britain.

You say that the Reds won the election, but fail to mention the widespread vote-buying that the victory was based on, and please don't ask me to provide evidence, as we have recently had senior figures admitting that vote-buying was rife, but that they felt that it was justified because the other side was also doing it...!! Vote-buying is wrong on all levels as it distorts the true feelings of the populace.

As is often the case when someone takes sides, bias will tend to creep in, and in this case, it manifests itself through the comment that "the vast majority of posts call it a coup and undemocratic". I don't see that, but of course, now I will be accused of juxtaposed bias! However, I like to think that my view of all of this is based upon right and wrong, and what we currently see in this government is simply wrong on so many levels, and indeed, it is this view that has sparked the current protests.

Using the US as an example of what can happen if you try to bring down a government is probably not a wise thing to do, as you can get shot down like a dog in the US simply for walking the street late at night...! And the suggestion that the Armed Forces would turn out to defend David Cameron is just so wrong that it begs the question why you even think that. I served in the British Armed Forces for 22 years, retiring at a senior level, and I can tell you that our role could never be a political one, regardless of the situation. We have a perfectly good police force in the UK which is equipped for all situations, and to bring in the Army would indicate that the UK had fallen into total anarchy....!

In both the US and the UK, had there been a situation such as currently exists in Thailand, there would have been no requirement for the people to take to the streets, because either leader would have been brought down by the system. Neither the US nor the UK would sit idly by whilst their leader ransacked the coffers for their own benefit. They would have been impeached, had their assets seized, made to appear before an enquiry, and potentially jailed for their actions

The international community does not "know for a fact" that there is to be a coup, what it does know for a fact is that the direction that Thailand is currently going with the current government in place is simply unsustainable, and there is a strong recognition that the people had little choice but to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the current leadership.

The alternative would be to wait it out for 19 months until the next election and deal the PTP a final death blow with a resounding defeat at the polls, but by that time, the country would already be bankrupt, and these criminals, thinly disguised as politicians, would have crept away in the night to join their beloved self-exiled leader.

The point you make about the sytem is correct, that is what is wrong and it needs to be changed, it seems to me to favour the "red" element and the blues are unlikely ever to get enough votes, which is hopeless form of democracy.

At the moment neither side we accept defeat nor wait for the next election, so, what to do?

Perhaps if the PM were to invite all interested parties to discuss changes to the system and in the meantime a Coalition Govt to run the country in the interim period till things can be sorted out to most peoples agreement. Yinglook and Abhisit to run the Govt together.

Thais really have to get a grip on how democracy works and accept lsoing is part of it, they should not be afraid to seek help and guidance from established democracies and should not consider this a loss of face indeed it would go down well around the world.

We can hope for a better outcome thats all we can do, its not in our hands, we can only discuss and offer opinions.

[PaullyW]

Ironic that an anti-democratic mob protest is being called a "lesson in democracy". Crazy stuff.

Once again providing evidence that Thais, educated or not, don't quite understand this new system called democracy that is at odds in almost every important way with their real, and seemingly preferred, system of Kleptocracies.

Calling what they have democracy is truly fascinating, but don't tell them that. They live in their own world.

[binjalin]

'mai bpen rai' PTP will win again and the Dems will be viewed as a "sour grape party" who can't take a democratic defeat (again)

[Time Traveller]

Lessons in democracy from Thailand? Give me a break.

The lesson is if your party loses the election, protest by blocking streets, invade government ministries, demand the government resign by accusing them of vote buying and making bad policies, appeal to the military to overthrow the government by saying that the voters are unsophisticated people who don't deserve the right to vote and offer up every excuse (no matter how contradictory) about how elections are not true democracy but a committee of "selected persons" (of which you are one of them) is fair.

Edited December 9, 2013 by Time Traveller

[JRSoul]

Lessons in democracy from Thailand? Give me a break.

The lesson is if your party loses the election, protest by blocking streets, invade government ministries, demand the government resign by accusing them of vote buying and making bad policies, appeal to the military to overthrow the government by saying that the voters are unsophisticated people who don't deserve the right to vote and offer up every excuse (no matter how contradictory) about how elections are not true democracy but a committee of "selected persons" (of which you are one of them) is fair.

Accusing them? Do you think PTPs policies were sustainable and likely to improve the country?

[Emptyset]

Great. Now I know why Surin is considered one of the Democrat Party's brightest and best. Talk about blinding people with philosophy and science! The Nation should let Suranand or PT's own amateur philosopher, Pansak Vinyaratn publish a reply. I'm sure they're just as capable of digging out a few relevant quotes from well known philosophers to justify whatever it is they're trying to justify. I mean, I am all for culture and intellectualism in the public sphere, but does the fact a Democrat MP can quote Einstein actually have any bearing on anything?

'That statement certainly strikes a responsive chord among the "silent majority"'

Ah yes, the old 'silent majority' and 'people in the middle' business again. All part of a con game, except the only people they're conning are themselves by having convinced themselves that the attempt to remove an elected government and replace it with an unelected council is a moderate move which is backed by the majority of people.

[newermonkey]

Can we please bring back General Prem Tinsulanonda, just prop him up in a chair, blow off the cobwebs, dust him down, a bit of lick and polish. Play some old Jazz music on all tv and radio stations, broken only by some army broadcast to stay calm.

Can we please get the Thai people to forget about "playing" politics, please, its not going to work.

Please just let the experts run the country, it worked before it'll work again.

http://en.wikipedia....em_Tinsulanonda

[In Town]

Shame on you, trying to justify the usurpation of power by a rich aristocracy in the name of democracy. Shameful...

[mojorison]

you must give thai people this credit

they take the streets when they are unhappy

in your western countries, many resent that their tax payer money is waisted on illegals, unwilling people to work, social security fakers, for emptying the coffers of the social welfare build by their parents and greatparents

but none is doing annything, except the keyboard warriors to complain on fora !

The Thais are famous for being apathetic, non-committal and non-participatory. Do you see Thais demonstrating outside foreign embassies in BKK, when that particular nation has committed an act of international consternation or a rights abuse? Never. On the other hand it is common to see foreign Asian nations doing this (eg Filipinos protesting at the Saudi embassy in Manila on behalf of a Thai worker unjustly imprisoned in Saudi Arabia) ... the Thais don't give a toss, unless it impacts their lot and their lot alone. The Thais are also very hyped up by TV and what the Dara's are doing, (and very easily indoctrinated). Rose coloured glasses Belg, no offence.

[hellodolly]

I am confused am I.

Please could someone help me out with understanding Thai style politics as I’m not very learned in the subject and maybe have not quite grasped it properly.

My current take on the system is that an election is called and the majority of the voting populace (under the generally agreed fairest of democratic principals which is one-person-one-vote) elect Party A over Party B (let’s give them colours to make it easier. So Party A are now “White” and party B are now “Blue”).

Party A (the White party) is duly and verifiably elected by a majority of the voting public.

Party B (the Blue party) and its supporters are not happy that they didn’t win though and continually protest and behave restlessly on the streets of the Capital city and it all culminates in them employing the top echelons of the national Army to organise a military coup which ousts the democratically elected government and exiles its leader.

After a short period of military rule the Blue party is handed the seat of government, without being elected to it.

Some unrest is (not unsurprisingly) forthcoming by supporters of the formerly elected White party which is quelled when the military start shooting, maiming and killing them on the streets.

After the Blue party has held power for the maximum period of time allowed there is another General Election and the people again show their unhappiness with the Blue party’s running of the country (and possibly the methods they had employed in forcibly wresting power from the properly elected government). This results in the White party being voted in (again) under the one-person-one-vote system.

The Blue party are unhappy again and take to the streets (again – and with no-one being killed by the authorities as had happened to the White party supporters when they did likewise).

Eventually and despite now having been voted in twice in succession but never having been allowed to serve even one full term in office, the leadership of the White party offers an immediate new General Election to the leaders of the Blue party (barely more than half way through their own term of office) which appears still not quite good enough for the Blue party who believe the White party should just resign and allow them (the Blue party) back into power, unelected.

So all votes are measured equally. But some votes are measured more equally than others.

Is that about right?

Wrong overall.

Where were the Blue party handed the seat of power? Another Thaksin proxy party won the next election after the last Army intervention.

Why can very few on this site in spite of some excellent articles appearing today not get it through their heads that this is not about the winning or losing of elections but about abuse of power.

Abuse of power as in financial power?

Paying army generals to swing the power pendulum in your favour, for instance?

Your opening article says you are not well versed on Thai politics and may not have grasped it properly.

You are correct. The part you seem to have grasped is take the money the PTP offer and make up inane statements like what about when Abhist is on the phone to his paymaster. Care to name his paymaster. I will name the paymaster for all the PTPredshirt Thaksin. Or how about the Abhist government being the third party elected after the coup but the only one not owned by Thaksin so you choose to say the Generals were behind it. Was there a general standing behind every voters head with a gun held to it telling him or her how to vote. If so why was the election so close.

They have more generals than the voters who voted Abhist into power?

[anon210]

Ironic that an anti-democratic mob protest is being called a "lesson in democracy". Crazy stuff.

Once again providing evidence that Thais, educated or not, don't quite understand this new system called democracy that is at odds in almost every important way with their real, and seemingly preferred, system of Kleptocracies.

Calling what they have democracy is truly fascinating, but don't tell them that. They live in their own world.

So true! They are locked in their own mind and their own little stupid concepts of what they imperfectly learned. And they quote philosophers to support their cause, while forgetting that the same philosophers also defend the necessity of a State to protect against absolutism.

Let us not forget about that these guys defend "absolute monarchy" and talk of people's power in the same sentence.