Thai Democrats likely to take part in next election: source

[darren84310]

As Dr Bruce points out, if the Democrats fail to participate in a second successive election the electoral commission will have to de-register them as a political party.

Their only "out" would be to argue that the February election was voided and does not count, but that would be skating on very thin ice. They would need help from friends in the judiciary to make that one stick.

The Feb election has already been nullified. Therefore, they would not be penalised if they don't run this time around.... I hope they do run though.

[londonthai]

"The EC should first reform the electoral and political systems before holding a new election, otherwise the country will not be able to move on, the group said"

Let me correct the suggested outcome: "........otherwise the PAD-dem's cannot win an election"

Their objective......Diddle the system to improve their electability, but don't ask them to change and become electable......After all, they are divinely designed to govern, even if those idiotic voters don't appreciate their political wisdom....So why would they change?...Right?

Who on earth are these PAD-dems you keep going on about?

the dems came to power in 2008, after pad occupied bangkok airports and forced dissolution of the governing parties.

the pad are now part of pdrc, street boys of democrats

Edited March 28, 2014 by londonthai

[northernjohn]

The (un) Democrat are still in a no-win situation. If they run then it gives the PTP more merit when they win. If they don't run then they will be disolved by any unbiased Court.

What does the corrupt PTP get when they lose?

[Fryslan boppe]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

in order to be electable, the dems need to change the leader/leadership

Agreed.....And that should be the frst step in "Reform before elections" .

Quite pointing elsewhere for this so-called Reform, and focus on yourself.......that would be my message to the PAD-Dem's if they asked....I am sure they will

[Fryslan boppe]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

think really, really hard!

[northernjohn]

You can see the Dems slowly distancing themselves from Suthep and at least contemplating working with PT/EC to agree to a commitment to stated/agreed reforms prior to elections again. If they can get their heads in order and come up with some sensible, actionable reforms to be implemented, then I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them easily win a majority in the next elections.

At the end of the day, all parties need to make some firm commitments to reforms and hold themselves personally accountable and liable to them, and then we can get the ball rolling again with new elections. Claiming an electoral majority however to justify certain actions is simply not acceptable to a large proportion of the public anymore and they all better learn to be a little bit more open, accountable and transparent from now on or this whole stupid mess is going to go around and around in circles for decades to come.

The big question is what are the PTP going to agree to change being as many of them have been filling their pockets with the situation as it is. They are not going to be that easy to get on board for a change.

On the other hand Thaksin doesn't care if his employees are liars.

Will the public trust some one who has consistently backed corruption to make a 180 degree turn around? Or a finance minister who not only has lied to the public but has gone on record as saying it is OK to do it because it made them feel good.

As for the EC I am not sure if it makes a difference. They do have a mandate to call one and hopefully both parties will work with them unlike the last one where the PTP would not work with them and the Democrats refused to even be a part of it.

Sad and disruptive as all this has been it is a good thing. It will defiantly make any future government more aware of the fact that there is a part of the population they had been ignoring for years who is watching them and will cause them trouble if they persist in the same type of you don't count government.

[northernjohn]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Could someone help me please? What are the specific issues with the electoral system that need to be reformed or that people want reformed?

Do the protestors have any specific proposals or have they identified any specific issues? I do remember the "vote-buying" issue.

I wonder if ballots here are secret or are they monitored?

Could any of these electoral reforms be handled directly by the EC implementing procedural policies?

I honestly cannot remember.

Yes vote buying is one of them. Also the rite to vote with out being monitored is another one. It is a common thing in the villages for the head man to monitor the voters as he has been promised certain rewards for his village's support. Also the care of the ballot box's before they are counted has been criticized.

In addition to these things Penalties should be inserted. If you sell your vote for 500 baht you should be fined 5 times that for 2,500 baht and the one who bought it a two year jail sentence.

Not sure about the restrictions on the counting of votes they should be double checked. Fab 4 will try to tell you that vote buying based on the study of one village 6 years ago makes no difference. He fails to explain why the parties do it if it makes no difference.

Suthep has been adamant that elections can only be held after national reforms are put in place.

​Too right…Otherwise it would be an electoral coup where an accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive unelectable would control Thailand again and when an accused mass murderer, accused terrorist, convicted criminal fugitive unelectable runs a country the people he controls inevitable end up on the wrong side of the law, in court and found guilty of a crime or an abuse of power. Then the cycle starts all over again.

Wise words Suthep. Wise words. Criminals hate them, but over 50% of the population agree with you.

Unfortunately wise as the words are they are impractical. As Abhist has pointed out some of them will need a vote of the legislator to be put into place. A non partisan committee should be set up to investigate the changes to be made with some form of commitment from the ruling government to implement them. This committee should be drawn up from all walks of life so that the needs of all the citizens can be heard.

I don't believe it would require legislative action to clean up the election system. It might to implement the punishments but they could be done retroactively.

This is a great chance for Thailand to turn the direction of the government around and start working for the people.

[northernjohn]

"The EC should first reform the electoral and political systems before holding a new election, otherwise the country will not be able to move on, the group said"

Let me correct the suggested outcome: "........otherwise the PAD-dem's cannot win an election"

Their objective......Diddle the system to improve their electability, but don't ask them to change and become electable......After all, they are divinely designed to govern, even if those idiotic voters don't appreciate their political wisdom....So why would they change?...Right?

Who on earth are these PAD-dems you keep going on about?

the dems came to power in 2008, after pad occupied bangkok airports and forced dissolution of the governing parties.

the pad are now part of pdrc, street boys of democrats

You are defiantly out of date and wrong. They had a falling out over the Cambodian temple and the yellow shirts refused to vote in the election. If they had we would have Abhist as the Prime Minister today instead of a photo op shopaholic enthusiast.

[Scamper]

The Democratic party will likely leave wiggle room here to change their minds. After all, they had until December 23 to decide whether or not to contest the last election. They decided not to - but not until two days prior to registration. Similarly, any signals they send now will not gain definiteness until they are actually called upon to register which wouldn't be until after a new election is called. They will allow themselves wiggle room to change their mind. After all, Abhisit just called for a referendum on the question of pursuing reform discussions before an election. It is a popular idea and is already being borne out by opinion polls. Let's review why the Democratic party decided to boycott the previous election. They knew that it would put reform again in the hands of a Pheu Thai post-election promise that they did not keep the last time, and "reform " that turned out to be everything but. They knew that Thaksin would remain firmly in place. And they knew his agenda for the independent agencies would constitute a future potential erosion of the checks and balances. So they boycotted. As nothing has changed, it seems highly unlikely that they would go ahead with an election, despite any public stance, which is still being coached as a preference. If you listen closely to the Democratic party's statements, they will continue to reiterate that the election be free and fair - in other words - free of corruption and free of the manipulative control of Thaksin. So it is reasonable to suppose that this statement will likely be subject for review when the time arrives. The Democratic party, as well as the PDRC - are firmly pushing for reform. That push is not likely to disappear.

[fab4]

The other English Language newspaper are positing the idea that he dems are likely to boycott the election again, but they don't quote a "high level source". The reason being given is that if they didn't they would lose support from those backing the PDRC.

[ginjag]

The other English Language newspaper are positing the idea that he dems are likely to boycott the election again, but they don't quote a "high level source". The reason being given is that if they didn't they would lose support from those backing the PDRC.

Funny isn't it the longer this gets stretched out the less chance the PTP will win, REASON is quite clear the more exposure of corruption -and courts decisions.

This is the main reason in particular Yingluck wanted a snap election, and rushing elections asap. now they are losing the strength, the only way out for them is to engage the thugs in red to try to get the army to react.

[marstons]

When ever there is an acceptable election it will be a Red victory with a Chin pulling the strings. Simple numbers

game, bit like the conservatives trying to get a majority in Wales or Scotland. To many reds vexed more than ever now that their democratically elected government has been forced out twice.

If the Wikileaks are to believed the Dems dont trust Suthep and want him gone.

Edited March 28, 2014 by marstons

[HKChris]

The (un) Democrat are still in a no-win situation. If they run then it gives the PTP more merit when they win. If they don't run then they will be disolved by any unbiased Court.

They cannot be dissolved under the 'not running in 2 elections or 8 years rule' as the Feb 2nd elections were voided and don't count.

Correct, Plan B.

I'm not so sure if that is correct....it would make an interesting court case.

The view may be taken that the first election was voided primarily due to the Dem's refusal to participate (and of course the illegal violence from the Suthep 'gang' to prevent people voting), so it may just be deemed a second refusal and have to be de-registered. What is possibly more likely to happen is that the EC won't schedule a new election until the Dems have committed to participate.....friends in all the 'right' places.

[Bluespunk]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

in order to be electable, the dems need to change the leader/leadership

oh, right, got it.

Nonsense.

[Bluespunk]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

think really, really hard!

No need, someone explained. You're wrong.

[Bluespunk]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

in order to be electable, the dems need to change the leader/leadership

Agreed.....And that should be the frst step in "Reform before elections" .

Quite pointing elsewhere for this so-called Reform, and focus on yourself.......that would be my message to the PAD-Dem's if they asked....I am sure they will

PAD-Dems? Who they?

[h90]

The (un) Democrat are still in a no-win situation. If they run then it gives the PTP more merit when they win. If they don't run then they will be disolved by any unbiased Court.

If they run their supporters will be very angry and some will abstain from the election which will make them loose.

If they don't run everything will the same as now...no progress for the Democrats, Protesters, Shinawatra clan which isn't a good idea

I don't think they can be dissolved as the last election was invalid, but still there is some risk

[h90]

When ever there is an acceptable election it will be a Red victory with a Chin pulling the strings. Simple numbers

game, bit like the conservatives trying to get a majority in Wales or Scotland. To many reds vexed more than ever now that their democratically elected government has been forced out twice.

If the Wikileaks are to believed the Dems dont trust Suthep and want him gone.

That the Dems don't trust Suthep is possible. With his ideas of reforms, getting rid of corruption, having a small tax on land if you have more than a given number (so these people who keep huge lands for speculating get hurt and the prices go down) and direct democracy I surely scares his own party as well.

Surely everyone agrees with him as long as there is no chance that it really happens, like it seemed on the beginning. Now there is a chance that is really happening....

[ginjag]

When ever there is an acceptable election it will be a Red victory with a Chin pulling the strings. Simple numbers

game, bit like the conservatives trying to get a majority in Wales or Scotland. To many reds vexed more than ever now that their democratically elected government has been forced out twice.

If the Wikileaks are to believed the Dems dont trust Suthep and want him gone.

If there are not the parties there to contend, through being banned-suspended or jailed then the tories may have a good chance, The same here when they get the exposure and lose face and more and more Thai learn about the truth, this is how it is playing out.

Why do you think the red army is starting to get aggravated ??? the Dubai man hates to be on the down side.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The main reason that the Democrats do not win at the polls is because they do not promise everybody riches with unethical, immoral and unaffordable populist policy bribes!!

Whoever wins the election doesn't matter to me as our school runs the same whoever is in government. If, after the essential reforms (even Yingluck, for that read Thaksin) realises that the people will settle for nothing less than major changes (to outlaw or more realistically, diminish corruption) to be put into place - then the Democrats are much more likely to form the next government and the country can be ruled with competence and honesty.

All PTP do is garner votes from these idiotic scams of theirs and then proceed to abuse them by creaming off a good percentage to enrich themselves. No wonder they wanted less transparency and less obstacles put in the way (in the form of checks and balances) as that would make it more difficult to steal the money!!

Edited March 29, 2014 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

[Bluespunk]

"The EC should first reform the electoral and political systems before holding a new election, otherwise the country will not be able to move on, the group said"

Let me correct the suggested outcome: "........otherwise the PAD-dem's cannot win an election"

Their objective......Diddle the system to improve their electability, but don't ask them to change and become electable......After all, they are divinely designed to govern, even if those idiotic voters don't appreciate their political wisdom....So why would they change?...Right?

Who on earth are these PAD-dems you keep going on about?

the dems came to power in 2008, after pad occupied bangkok airports and forced dissolution of the governing parties.

the pad are now part of pdrc, street boys of democrats

Let's see PAD, nothing to do with Dems and opposed the last Dem govt. PDRC, suthep's creation, nothing to do with Dems or for that matter the now defunct PAD. Nope, still not seeing it.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Bluespunk

[billd766]

"The EC should first reform the electoral and political systems before holding a new election, otherwise the country will not be able to move on, the group said"

Let me correct the suggested outcome: "........otherwise the PAD-dem's cannot win an election"

Their objective......Diddle the system to improve their electability, but don't ask them to change and become electable......After all, they are divinely designed to govern, even if those idiotic voters don't appreciate their political wisdom....So why would they change?...Right?

Who on earth are these PAD-dems you keep going on about?

the dems came to power in 2008, after pad occupied bangkok airports and forced dissolution of the governing parties.

the pad are now part of pdrc, street boys of democrats

Do you mean the governing party (PPP) who broke the law and were convicted of election fraud and thus the party was dissolved?

Of course if you can prove that they didn't break the law then please go ahead and do so. Even the PPP accepted that fact.

What PAD are you talking about? they went out of fashion a long time ago.

However please don't let the real truth get in the way of the Red Shirt/UDD version of the truth.

The Democrats came to power because the PPP could not form a majority in parliament. Under Thai law if a party cannot for a majority the next biggest party gets a chance. If they fail the next biggest party can try.

Do you EVER research your subject before you write about it?

Edited March 28, 2014 by billd766

[Publicus]

The (un) Democrat are still in a no-win situation. If they run then it gives the PTP more merit when they win. If they don't run then they will be disolved by any unbiased Court.

They cannot be dissolved under the 'not running in 2 elections or 8 years rule' as the Feb 2nd elections were voided and don't count.

Correct, Plan B.

I'm not so sure if that is correct....it would make an interesting court case.

The view may be taken that the first election was voided primarily due to the Dem's refusal to participate (and of course the illegal violence from the Suthep 'gang' to prevent people voting), so it may just be deemed a second refusal and have to be de-registered. What is possibly more likely to happen is that the EC won't schedule a new election until the Dems have committed to participate.....friends in all the 'right' places.

Yes, there is some marginal possibility the DP could fare poorly in the courts in this but ---- hey, you sound just like my lawyer in the U.S., and I recommend him to everyone I know, so you raise a good point.

However, this is Thailand and you seem to think or believe the country has real, actual, independent, courts, judges, rule of law.

For the CC to dissolve the DP it would need to get the word Big Time from the Powers That Be. If that were going to happen, we'd know about it by now cause we'd hear the sound of the already lopsided scales of justice crashing to the marble floor.

Not that the DP doesn't deserve dissolution. It's been trying full blazes to dissolve democracy.

[Publicus]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Remarkably, after all the posts this is still true.

[Bluespunk]

The following exerpt from elsewhere in today's news about upcoming Ukrainian elections, is applicable to the DP with this intention to run in an election they avoided last time.

I will let you make the connection:

The party of Viktor Yanukovych, the country’s ousted president, is also in the process of choosing a candidate and will formally expel him from its ranks as part of a rebranding effort.

I think there is a definite clue for them here....It is to everyone's benefit to have competitive elections and a balance of power in parliament. I would like to see the DP make the changes they need to do, in order to achieve that.

I have no idea what you are on about.

Remarkably, after all the posts this is still true.

Nope, I got a translation. It's just that they are wrong.

[londonthai]

the dems came to power in 2008, after pad occupied bangkok airports and forced dissolution of the governing parties.

the pad are now part of pdrc, street boys of democrats

Do you mean the governing party (PPP) who broke the law and were convicted of election fraud and thus the party was dissolved?

Of course if you can prove that they didn't break the law then please go ahead and do so. Even the PPP accepted that fact.

What PAD are you talking about? they went out of fashion a long time ago.

However please don't let the real truth get in the way of the Red Shirt/UDD version of the truth.

The Democrats came to power because the PPP could not form a majority in parliament. Under Thai law if a party cannot for a majority the next biggest party gets a chance. If they fail the next biggest party can try.

Do you EVER research your subject before you write about it?

I have searched:

"Reelections for the 26 constituencies of the banned executive members from the three parties were held on 11 December 2008.^[95]

On 6 December 2008, the opposition Democrat Party announced it had garnered sufficient support from former coalition partners of PPP and their splinters to be able to form a government,^[96][97]while For Thais claimed the same, adding that it had already been joined by more than a third of MPs.^[98] The coalition partners of the Democrat Party appeared to be most of the dissolved parties, the Thai Nation Party and the Neutral Democratic Party, as well as the Thais United National Development Party, the For the Motherland party, and the "Friends of Newin" faction, a splinter of the banned PPP.^[99]

On 15 December 2008, Abhisit Vejjajiva was elected the new Prime Minister.^[100] Army commander and co-leader of the 2006 coup, General Anupong Paochinda, was widely reported to have coerced PPP MPs to defect to the Democrat Party.^[101] PAD leader Khamnoon Sitthisamarn and junta-appointed Senator called Abhisit's premiership a "genuine PAD victory" and a "Anupong-style coup d'etat."^[102] The circumstances of his ascent to power closely linked Abhisit to the Bangkok elite, the Army, and the R"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9310_Thai_political_crisis#Constitutional_Court_ruling_on_parties.27_dissolution

[icare999]

but if they did not vote in feb 2 election they are not allowed to stand or at least those dems who did not vote like Abahist I believe Best thing would be for most of Taksins top lot and Abahist and some not stand at all and lets start with a new lot. It would clear air and help a lot since many on each side hate totally other side top people

Myself and my wife and friends while we are total den supporters could accept a different party if Taksin his clan and more aggressive red shirts were not in government. If they are the problem will never go away since so many totally hate Taksin more than I bleive apart from hard core reds hate Abahist

[icare999]

Could someone help me please? What are the specific issues with the electoral system that need to be reformed or that people want reformed?

Do the protestors have any specific proposals or have they identified any specific issues? I do remember the "vote-buying" issue.

I wonder if ballots here are secret or are they monitored?

Could any of these electoral reforms be handled directly by the EC implementing procedural policies?

I honestly cannot remember.

There is little wrong with the election process other than the dems cannot manage to get the necessary number of votes to be able to form a government.

Vote Buying?

“In a study of a village in northern Thailand, Walker (2008) found that vote buying had very limited influence on election results". (Walker, Andrew, 2008: “The Rural Constitution and the Everyday Politics of Elections in Northern Thailand”. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38 (1): 84 -105.)

Katherine A Bowie:

The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 67, No. 2 (May) 2008: 469–511.

© 2008 Association of Asian Studies Inc. doi: 10.1017/S0021911808000673

Vote Buying and Village Outrage in an Election in Northern Thailand: Recent Legal Reforms in Historical Context

Vote buying has long been considered a major obstacle to democracy in Thailand. As reiterated in explanations of Thailand’s 2006 military coup, vote buying in Thai electoral politics has often been attributed to traditional village culture and rural ignorance. Placing a 1995 northern Thai election for kamnan (subdistrict head) in

historical context, this essay suggests that vote buying did not typify village electoral politics but was an aberration that reached its zenith during the mid-1990s.

Legal ambiguities, not rural apathy or ignorance, impeded villagers’ ability to protest corrupt practices and safeguard their internal democracy. These ambiguities emerged as new democratic laws implemented in 1992 and 1995 to decentralize power conflicted with older laws dating from the days of absolute monarchy. Subsequent legal reforms appear to have mitigated the importance of vote buying in village electoral politics. How these reforms will affect national electoral politics remains to be seen.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bowie-2008b.pdf

ANFREL had this to say

An Asian election monitoring group has hailed Thailand's nationwide election as final results were tallied for being generally peaceful, orderly and allowing the public to express their voice. But, the Asian Network for Free Elections also cited some flaws in the polls and warned the Thai military not to intervene in politics. ANFREL issued a statement Tuesday noting there were some flaws in the election, including cases of violence, intimidation and vote-buying that it urged authorities to handle appropriately. But it said there were no major incidents that would call into question the results.The monitoring group says the most substantial problem was the election commission failing to sufficiently inform some voters of the need to re-register for the election. According to ANFREL, that prevented up to one million Thais, about three percent of voters, from participating. ANFREL chairman Damaso Magbual told journalists Tuesday that given the tense situation in the country, Thailand’s Election Commission in general, managed the process well and the result was a vote that reflects the will of the people. http://www.voanews.com/content/asian-observer-group-commends-thai-election-cites-minor-flaws--125003034/141777.html

As William A Callahan put it, in his; The Discourse of Vote Buying and Political Reform in Thailand,

"Simply put, what is the bigger problem: vote buying or the political reformers obsession with it?"

[icare999]

Could someone help me please? What are the specific issues with the electoral system that need to be reformed or that people want reformed?

Do the protestors have any specific proposals or have they identified any specific issues? I do remember the "vote-buying" issue.

I wonder if ballots here are secret or are they monitored?

Could any of these electoral reforms be handled directly by the EC implementing procedural policies?

I honestly cannot remember.

There is little wrong with the election process other than the dems cannot manage to get the necessary number of votes to be able to form a government.

Vote Buying?

“In a study of a village in northern Thailand, Walker (2008) found that vote buying had very limited influence on election results". (Walker, Andrew, 2008: “The Rural Constitution and the Everyday Politics of Elections in Northern Thailand”. Journal of Contemporary Asia 38 (1): 84 -105.)

Katherine A Bowie:

The Journal of Asian Studies Vol. 67, No. 2 (May) 2008: 469–511.

© 2008 Association of Asian Studies Inc. doi: 10.1017/S0021911808000673

Vote Buying and Village Outrage in an Election in Northern Thailand: Recent Legal Reforms in Historical Context

Vote buying has long been considered a major obstacle to democracy in Thailand. As reiterated in explanations of Thailand’s 2006 military coup, vote buying in Thai electoral politics has often been attributed to traditional village culture and rural ignorance. Placing a 1995 northern Thai election for kamnan (subdistrict head) in

historical context, this essay suggests that vote buying did not typify village electoral politics but was an aberration that reached its zenith during the mid-1990s.

Legal ambiguities, not rural apathy or ignorance, impeded villagers’ ability to protest corrupt practices and safeguard their internal democracy. These ambiguities emerged as new democratic laws implemented in 1992 and 1995 to decentralize power conflicted with older laws dating from the days of absolute monarchy. Subsequent legal reforms appear to have mitigated the importance of vote buying in village electoral politics. How these reforms will affect national electoral politics remains to be seen.

http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/newmandala/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/bowie-2008b.pdf

BS I live in a red controlled area and while its almost certain here if they did not get 500 baht they would almost certainly still vote for Taksin's party it is also totally 100% true that they are paid. Stupid studies by academics who don't live in real world are normally total nonsense. Anyone who lives in a Thai village knows vote buying both at national level and locally are norm in all areas and that all parties and politicians or most do it. Their are exceptions and in a recent local election one side (the one in power) paid for votes other did not but both were different red shirt factions. The one not paying won to amazement of all. However having won they are now for a fact accepting kick backs for local projects but maybe not as much as previous lot.

Having lived here 30+ years the corruption etc has got a far lot worse under Taksin's regime than ever before and far more open Before their was at least some little shame in taking bribe money and even now when I had a recent bit of trouble the policeman was embarrassed a bit and told my wife to tell me its only for lunch for me and my colleges. I was one who asked if it could be solved without court and was at fault. It used to be limited mostly to as said tea money or a tip and nothing wrong with that IMO given how poorly paid most of them are but under taksin its become like greedy bankers in west obscene. If Taksin continues Thialand will fall into a total failed totally corrupt state much like Zimbabwie which wont affect me and my Thai family much since we have ample but will hit vert hard those naive poor supportes who seem to worship him.

[Suriya4]

The main reason that the Democrats do not win at the polls is because they do not promise everybody riches with unethical, immoral and unaffordable populist policy bribes!!

Whoever wins the election doesn't matter to me as our school runs the same whoever is in government. If, after the essential reforms (even Yingluck, for that read Thaksin) realises that the people will settle for nothing less than major changes (to outlaw or more realistically, diminish corruption) to be put into place - then the Democrats are much more likely to form the next government and the country can be ruled with competence and honesty.

All PTP do is garner votes from these idiotic scams of theirs and then proceed to abuse them by creaming off a good percentage to enrich themselves. No wonder they wanted less transparency and less obstacles put in the way (in the form of checks and balances) as that would make it more difficult to steal the money!!

^{The main reason that the Democrats do not win at the polls is because they do not buy vote.}