Weakening voting rights will only provoke greater division: Thai opinion

[webfact]

Weakening voting rights will only provoke greater division
Titipol Phakdeewanich
Special to The Nation

A society in which we disregard the voice of others when they dare to disagree with us can no longer address social, political and economic challenges

BANGKOK: -- Thailand's contentious and fragile democratic arrangement has come under increasing pressure in recent days, culminating in a remarkable concession from the Pheu Thai government led by Yingluck Shinawatra. On Monday it dissolved Parliament ahead of another anti-Thaksin march on Government House.

However, the move is unlikely to assuage protesters' anger at corruption in government. Meanwhile, for hardline government supporters, this concession was a step too far.

Anti-government protesters led by former Democrat MP Suthep Thaugsuban are pursuing a campaign to free Thai politics of Shinawatra family influence. Although still uncertain, their main proposal is to suspend electoral democracy and establish a "people's council" as the country's interim leadership.

The members of this council will almost certainly be unelected, which inevitably brings its legitimacy and representative nature into question. Unsurprisingly, many sceptics have described this idea as little more than a coup in disguise.

What kind of a future society is Thailand then creating for itself, when a mass of citizens are now prepared to ignore their constitutionally enshrined voting rights in an attempt to challenge entrenched political corruption? How can such a regressive move - rescinding long-fought-for democratic rights - help achieve resolution to this latest national dispute?

The right to vote extends to the underprivileged majority in rural provinces. Although this demographic may not be regarded as having minority status, their experiences and overall quality of life indicate just such an inferior position.

Millions of Thailand's rural population continue to subsist as an effective underclass, without the privilege of a secure economic status or the realistic possibility of accessing high-quality education. In their stereotypical perceptions of this majority, the Bangkok middle-class remain harsh and closed-minded, behaving towards them as if they were second-class citizens.

Such social division and injustice was thrown into sharp relief last week by the death of Nelson Mandela. Reflecting on the life and legacy of this rare individual, we may find ourselves better able to understand that it is the quality of moral fortitude that challenges injustice, and that this is what history will ultimately recognise.

During his time in office, Mandela was able to support the rights of the disenfranchised black majority and also those of minorities not only because of his established political capital, but also because of his essential humanity. And importantly, South Africans were increasingly coming to accept, sometimes against their own immediate self-interest, that the apartheid status quo was no longer tenable.

"We have travelled too far along the road to freedom to turn back now," said Mandela, after a 1992 massacre of protesters in Bisho and before he became president. "We shall not be deterred by the threats or the actions of the forces of the past. Our people have the right to hope, the right to a future, the right to life itself. No power on this earth can destroy the thirst for human dignity."

It is alarming to hear protesters in Bangkok attempting to blame the problem of vote-buying on a lack of education among the rural majority. Is Thailand now witnessing the attempt to establish a precedent of removing individuals' right to vote (an inherent human right) because of their alleged failings?

Isaan resident Rattana Kampui is one among many who strongly disagrees with the anti-government protesters: "I am from Ubon Ratchathani but I have a national ID card so I should have the right to vote. I only want my voice to be heard just like those in Bangkok. Suthep's 'people's council' will only make me feel like I am no longer a citizen of Thailand, because my voice and my vote will mean nothing to this council."

With millions of disaffected Thais now feeling the same, and with the reconciliation process evidently stalled, there is little hope that the divide between Bangkok and the rest of Thailand can be bridged any time soon.

A society in which we disregard the voice of others when they dare to disagree with us can no longer intelligently address escalating social, political or economic challenges. Yet, this is Thai society today as we observe it, where voters often question the motives or rationale of those with different perspectives, without bothering to question their own.

The anti-government coalition seeks to justify its stance by focusing on the problem of vote-buying. But the reality is that in Shinawatra strongholds and elsewhere, vote-buying is no longer the decisive factor it once was. Voter behaviour today has become a much more complex matter.

Furthermore, that a populist political mandate was at all achievable, first by Thai Rak Thai and now by Pheu Thai, is indicative of the many historical injustices that existed before most Thais had even heard of Thaksin. No amount of evasive political argument can change this fact, despite continual attempts to divert attention away from the "elephant in the room" of Thailand's social inequality.

The unfolding of the current crisis has an air of inevitability given the seeming refusal of most Thais to consider the possibility they might be blinded by prejudice, or that those of a different political persuasion might have valid claims.

Is it really credible to deny the link between deep-rooted political corruption and the voting decisions of millions? When those decisions continue to be dictated by short-term decision-making and motivations that are essentially self-serving, then politics will play out accordingly.

Until Thai voters prove themselves capable of examining such questions with greater objectivity, we cannot expect a miraculous change. In the meantime, the game of brinkmanship being played by our political class will very likely push Thailand to the edge of yet another abyss. And the damage will, as usual, be felt most by those who are already the most marginalised in society.

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.


-- The Nation 2013-12-13

[blaze]

Excellent piece--

But I wonder why so many academics, while condemning the 'peoples' council' idea, are shy about discussing that this is in no way a new concept in history. In the interwar-period in Europe- utopian visions ran rampant- and unifying all of them was the idea that electoral democracy was rotten. What was needed was 'good people' whose soul reflected the hightest and most noble virtues of the nation, to lead the country out of the morass of modern politics.

And these movements were vastly popular- and horribly doomed.

Yes of course Suthep (and cloaked behind liberal sounding platitudes, a surprsingly large number of commentators in the media)- promises that once the system if perfect- pure- and absolute democracy possible- then we will have elections- (without, one presumes, polititians).

Thailand is by no means alone in recognizing the flaws in electoral democracy- every nation on earth that permits popular elections knows about the lobbying, the back handers, the cronyism- EXCEPT those so called Democracies which don't permit popular elections- like the Democatic People's Republic of Korea.

('Democratic'? Peoples?) And they wrestle with the flaws- with the imperfection- slowly, patiently (usually) thoughtfully,, (sometimes) things get a bit better over time- (no longer can a vote be purchased in North America for a bottle of local hooch- though that was the way even in my youth).

What is a bit frightening is that there seems to be a popular notion that perfect government- yielding a perfect society is possible- attainable- Based on what? Based, as in Europe of the 1920s, a national mythology of a perfect period in the bygone past (ie, before Thaksin rose from hell-- or before liberal democracy created corruption-- and if we can just get back----

All that is needed is a good man-- one good man- and the promised land- the land of smiles- will be ours.

Edited December 13, 2013 by blaze

[ramrod711]

Furthermore, that a populist political mandate was at all achievable, first by Thai Rak Thai and now by Pheu Thai, is indicative of the many historical injustices that existed before most Thais had even heard of Thaksin. No amount of evasive political argument can change this fact, despite continual attempts to divert attention away from the "elephant in the room" of Thailand's social inequality.

Sad but true, in a democracy peoples economic status should not matter. A compromise is in order, i don't think anyone denies that PTP won the election and have the right to govern, however, nobody should be comfortable, or have to tolerate a person running the country from exile.

Edited December 13, 2013 by ramrod711

[Thait Spot]

A person who sells their vote should be banned from voting for 2 elections and spend a month in prison

A person who buys a vote should be banned from voting forever and spend a year in prison

Populist schemes should be scrapped and replaced with schemes that move the nation/workers forward rather than mired in the stoneage

[citizen33]

I'm visiting Singapore at the moment and talked to a few academics there. Although some have a sense of a cycle repeating itself, there is near disbelief in some quarters about Khun Suthep's demands. One Malaysian professor said to me over dinner last night: 'I find it truly amazing that a man like that can order the elected Prime Minister to leave the country. How is it possible for him to do that?' Dr Titipol is pretty much in tune with what most outside academic observers think.

Edited December 13, 2013 by citizen33

[comeondoit]

yes again we hear about the uneducated in the rural part of thailand.....but PT had it in hand to really improve the educational system but their incompetency and populist stupidity ended up in spending into useless tablets .... there we go again if the PT would have a strong and integer PM elected they couild really turn to better use of their elected power....majority in a parliament is no free ticket to do what they are pleased without listening to the opposition...they have to serve all people.....

a clever swiss politician said once asked by a journalist....do you have a problem now...his party had just lost a vote....."it is easy to be a democrat if you are part of the majority, but the real democrat shows if he looses and accepts the verdict of the majority" compromises seem to be impossible in tahiland......if both sides would give in a bit to find solutions which are supported by people from both sides, then......this here would not happen. unfortunately i never heard from the actual governement something like "yes we mad mistakes, we will do better in the future" they never seem to learn the lesson

[tingtongteesood]

As I said earlier in another thread, this whole 'people's council' thing is only being used as a way to try and pressure the stubborn Shin regime to leave. It is the only way Suthep can try and lever them out of the political system using the constitution to back him up. Good on him I say, he found the one loop hole and he is trying his darndest to use it to out them. While the fugitive puppet master is involved, there can never be a fair election, remember 3 of his parties were dissolved when the members were given 5 year bans for electoral fraud - therein lies the problem. Once they are gone, if all Shin's and cronies are out of it, maybe then we can have a fair election.

[bkkfaranguy]

As I said earlier in another thread, this whole 'people's council' thing is only being used as a way to try and pressure the stubborn Shin regime to leave. It is the only way Suthep can try and lever them out of the political system using the constitution to back him up. Good on him I say, he found the one loop hole and he is trying his darndest to use it to out them. While the fugitive puppet master is involved, there can never be a fair election, remember 3 of his parties were dissolved when the members were given 5 year bans for electoral fraud - therein lies the problem. Once they are gone, if all Shin's and cronies are out of it, maybe then we can have a fair election.

You really can not be that nieve, the Shin regime is no more than a cover for there true agenda and thats to put the other corrupt BKK elites and military back in full control, only this time they want to seal the deal for no futher losses at the polls by eleminating the elction system and passing laws that say only certain people can vote. This is the only way this party can take control once again by a coup, its the only way they have ever been able to regain power either by military force or misleading propaganda.

[manarak]

One way to handle it well it allow all net contributors to the budget to vote, i.e. all net taxpayers. No tax, no vote.

[englishoak]

Excellent piece--

But I wonder why so many academics, while condemning the 'peoples' council' idea, are shy about discussing that this is in no way a new concept in history. In the interwar-period in Europe- utopian visions ran rampant- and unifying all of them was the idea that electoral democracy was rotten. What was needed was 'good people' whose soul reflected the hightest and most noble virtues of the nation, to lead the country out of the morass of modern politics.

To steal a famous quote that is quite appropriate ,They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

[MickGC]

One way to handle it well it allow all net contributors to the budget to vote, i.e. all net taxpayers. No tax, no vote.

Everyone in Thailand pays tax whether they are working or not. Its called the VAT

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6043.0.html

[dunque]

One way to handle it well it allow all net contributors to the budget to vote, i.e. all net taxpayers. No tax, no vote.

Well that would rule out all civil servants, the police and the armed forces so I suppose it is a start - not quite sure it was what you meant though.

[chrisrazz]

"Millions of Thailand's rural population continue to subsist as an effective underclass, without the privilege of a secure economic status or the realistic possibility of accessing high-quality education. In their stereotypical perceptions of this majority, the Bangkok middle-class remain harsh and closed-minded, behaving towards them as if they were second-class citizens."

This is an interesting statement in that it is the truth. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of the middle-class in this, though. What is second class or uneducated about growing your own food, living with the environment and understanding it, clean of polution and all the rest of the chaos of a big city? It's a matter of perception I suppose. The perception of self because you have things, is a result of consumerism, that the middle-class, with all the advantage of education seem to miss. They too, seem to miss the point that you are who you are due to the incredible accident of birth, being born rich does not make you Einstein! If Einstein was born in a poor rural thai village would that make him stupid or less worthy?

[manarak]

One way to handle it well it allow all net contributors to the budget to vote, i.e. all net taxpayers. No tax, no vote.

Well that would rule out all civil servants, the police and the armed forces so I suppose it is a start - not quite sure it was what you meant though.

One way to handle it well it allow all net contributors to the budget to vote, i.e. all net taxpayers. No tax, no vote.

Everyone in Thailand pays tax whether they are working or not. Its called the VAT

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6043.0.html

ok, time to be more precise:

voting rights go to people whose direct taxes on revenue or on wealth are higher than direct social transfers, i.e. money or services they receive from the government.