Elections without checks and balances aren't democracy: Thai talk

[webfact]

THAI TALK
Elections without checks and balances aren't democracy
Suthichai Yoon
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The Economist magazine's cover story this week has drawn considerable interest here in Thailand. Both the caretaker government and protesting People's Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) could cite the story to fit their respective agendas. But the real issue remains critical: What is wrong with democracy here? How can it be revived?

Democracy is a powerful but imperfect mechanism, so said founders of modern democracy such as James Madison and John Stuart Mill… "something that needed to be designed carefully in order to harness human creativity but also to check human perversity, and then kept in good working order, constantly oiled and worked upon," according to The Economist's six-page review.

Those attending the PDRC's "reform forum" would undoubtedly endorse this vital proposition: "The need for hard-headedness is particularly pressing when establishing a nascent democracy. One reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy."

The caretaker government has justified most of its actions by citing the fact that it won the election with a majority in the House of Representatives and that any challenge to its power would be considered "illegitimate".

The protesters have argued that winning an election isn't a "blank cheque" and that being in power doesn't give you the authority to be involved in or to ignore corrupt practices.

The Economist's report has this to say: "The power of the state needs to be checked, for instance, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organise must be guaranteed."

Thai politicians may call it "the right of the majority" to ram through legislation and regulations that serve the powers-that-be's own interests, but it's known universally as "majoritarianism" - described by The Economist as "the notion that winning an election entitles the majority to do whatever it pleases".

The disastrous decision by the ruling Pheu Thai Party to push through the "all-embracing" amnesty bill - seen as a bid to absolve former premier Thaksin Shinawatra from corruption convictions - was a perfect example of how the temptation of "majoritarianism" can blind politicians to what democracy is all about.

The report seems to have Thailand in mind when it makes the point that corruption is one of the main ailments that can cause democracy to fail in any country.

"Robust constitutions not only promote long-term stability, reducing the likelihood that disgruntled minorities will take against the regime. They also bolster the struggle against corruption, the bane of developing countries," it says.

One of the main reasons the ongoing protest has drawn an unexpected number of middle-class working people out onto the streets against an "elected government" is the conviction that elections, held under the tight control of the money and power of the ruling party, have failed to prevent corruption in high places. And if elections prolong the rule of the corrupt, then something is seriously wrong with Thai democracy.

And when the ruling party publicly announced that it would not accept the rulings of the Constitutional Court and also belittled the orders of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the number of protesters soared. To the angry and frustrated citizens, the "Thaksin regime" respects the "democratic rules" only if independent agencies rule in its favour. A negative ruling draws the ire of the government, which invariably cites "double standards" to avoid punishment.

The protesters may find confirmation of their belief in a statement contained in The Economist report: "The people who most need to learn this lesson are the architects of new democracies: they must recognise that robust checks and balances are just as vital to the establishment of a healthy democracy as the right to vote."

The call for "reform before election" will continue to be the protest theme while the Yingluck government continues to use the term "democracy" (whatever that means, with or without checks and balances) to justify its struggle to remain in power.


-- The Nation 2014-03-13

[chainarong]

The Thai Democracy was never designed to be a Democracy, the benefits are aimed at the top end of town, they are the only ones that can use the loop holes, to corruption or circumventing the law, the Academic's told them at the forming of the constitution that it would not work ,the original version was laughable and in no small effort on the Academic's behalf they managed to salvage a complete route back to the junta days of rule and law , there are few checks and balances , that is what the reforms are all about, however they should be administered by people not having a second agenda and it should include the reform of who can stand as a political candidate , as in all free Democracy's , not just the wealthy and degree holders.

[Bkungbank]

Majority doesn't mean can do what ever we would like examples amensty bills which use majority to surpass the opposition this was called dictator without listen to the monority group that's make the shut down begin.

To use the majority power for the profit of the people not for personal or party gain, examples aviod jail terms, approved mega projects for kickback etc which nowdays the social media cannot cover any unwanted even or news to be known by the people in few hours or days

[focus27]

Those countries, such as Thailand, that are relatively peaceful and struggling with their nascent (80 year-old in this case) democracies would do well to look beyond their local problems and survey those countries considered to be developed democracies. What do you see?

Plato saw democracy as the son of a self-serving oligarchy gone soft and the father of an eventual tyranny. Thailand has seen enough coups to know how they happen, so let's look at how to stop the cycle of coups.

There is an interesting research paper, Why Democracies Collapse [http://ips.sagepub.com/content/26/3/291.full.pdf+html]. From their starting assumptions of 11 variables, the researchers narrowed it down to just 5, with the prediction that any country that manifests 4 of the 5 symptoms being very likely to see a collapse of its democratic system.

"The most crucial variables are: cleavages [or deep social divisions], a malfunctioning economy, unfavorable history [and specifically the social, civic and cultural history of democratic development], governmental instability, and foreign involvement. If four of these negative factors appear simultaneously, the democratic regime is almost doomed to collapse. Democracy is, therefore, neither fragile nor feeble, but, rather, a highly resilient regime type."

Setting aside their positive coda, one thing that surprised the researchers was that the actual type of democratic system (proportional, mixed, federal, presidential etc) that a nation employs did not strongly correlate with its stability. Democratic collapse, not just regime change and political instability, were more strongly correlated with the social currency of democratic principles than with the technicalities of the democratic process.

Those who seek to 'reform' Thailand may do well to read the article. Thailand is mentioned in relation to its chronic governmental instability and constitutional weakness.

So, ultimately, checks and balances only work in a culture that believes in checks and balances.

How does Thailand fare under those five variables?

[lvr181]

Those countries, such as Thailand, that are relatively peaceful and struggling with their nascent (80 year-old in this case) democracies would do well to look beyond their local problems and survey those countries considered to be developed democracies. What do you see?

Plato saw democracy as the son of a self-serving oligarchy gone soft and the father of an eventual tyranny. Thailand has seen enough coups to know how they happen, so let's look at how to stop the cycle of coups.

There is an interesting research paper, Why Democracies Collapse [http://ips.sagepub.com/content/26/3/291.full.pdf+html]. From their starting assumptions of 11 variables, the researchers narrowed it down to just 5, with the prediction that any country that manifests 4 of the 5 symptoms being very likely to see a collapse of its democratic system.

"The most crucial variables are: cleavages [or deep social divisions], a malfunctioning economy, unfavorable history [and specifically the social, civic and cultural history of democratic development], governmental instability, and foreign involvement. If four of these negative factors appear simultaneously, the democratic regime is almost doomed to collapse. Democracy is, therefore, neither fragile nor feeble, but, rather, a highly resilient regime type."

Setting aside their positive coda, one thing that surprised the researchers was that the actual type of democratic system (proportional, mixed, federal, presidential etc) that a nation employs did not strongly correlate with its stability. Democratic collapse, not just regime change and political instability, were more strongly correlated with the social currency of democratic principles than with the technicalities of the democratic process.

Those who seek to 'reform' Thailand may do well to read the article. Thailand is mentioned in relation to its chronic governmental instability and constitutional weakness.

So, ultimately, checks and balances only work in a culture that believes in checks and balances.

How does Thailand fare under those five variables?

Who writes/enacts "The Constitution"? The incumbent government, or Governments of the past? Knowing Thai peoples predilection for cronyism, is there ever going to be a Constitution written or amended with checks and balances that an incumbent Government will support? That a properly recognised and independent judicial system will oversee?

The current Government sure did make a huge mistake in trying to get Thaksin “amnesty bill” accepted. Majority rule should be about morality as much as about financial governance for the good of the nation (not just some select individuals).

Can Thai people and their politicians accept open, transparent and moral Government? Time will tell, but I cannot see it happening in the short term. Hope I am wrong.

[fab4]

Suthichai off on one again.

Interestingly he quotes the amnesty bill as a peril of "majoritarianism", as he puts it, and whinges about a lack of checks and balances but completely neglects to mention that the Senate (part of the checks and balances system) threw it out. Then there was the "elected Senate" amendment, ruled, rightly or wrongly, unconstitutional by the Constitution Court.

Seems to me like all the "checks and balances" are in place and working - whether one agrees if they are working in an unbiased way or not is a moot point, but they are working.