Why Thailand's political system isn't working

[BlueNoseCodger]

If democracy is the best there is, why shouldn't we take it to the extreme? Why not have separate elections for key sectors like education, agriculture, defence, foreign affairs, and so on? If we can't, tell me why.

That is exactly what democracy is!

The democracy elects MPs the MPs then become the proxy for democracy voting on each bill. So they vote on amendments and bills and make decision for each bill separately. So an Agriculture bill might get a different set of MPs suggesting amendments and voting on amendments from say a defense bill. In other words, that is exactly what Parliament is.

If you insist that Chalerm Yoobamrung head the Justice Ministry or Jatuporn Prompan be handed the Interior portfolio because their ultimate boss whose party has just won an election says so, it's dictatorship in disguise, no matter how you paint it.

If the Democrats won an election, how would Chalerm be in the Justice Ministry? If I didn't like Chalerm so much I voted out PT, how would he be in the Justice Ministry? In essence you want to appoint people, because you think your choices are the right ones and the elected governments choices are the wrong ones. Yet everyone has an opinion and your side can't even agree on an electable candidate to submit for elections, because even among yourselves you can't agree.

The democratic system "as we know it" may work if the power is centred in someone who is not divisive, who can make the best use of the nation's human resources and who can discard nepotism.

Fantasy land. Politics is a scrum, and the dirtiest players block elections and lie about rice money being stolen to Hong Kong, or Train Infrastructure funding being bribe money, or have military Generals behind them while pretending to be representing the 'people'.

“The conductor, however, must not get to choose every musician “

No, Bob, the guard on the opera house must choose the musicians! Because Bob has a gun and nobody argues with him, so he must be right. Don't let the conductor choose the musicians, Bob, the guard will do it, perhaps with his Boyfriend 'Mark', who always wanted to be a conductor but wasn't good enough.

Let me explain dear Generals how it works. Before you retired you had guns and we were afraid of you, so we didn't tell you your ideas sucked. Perhaps you got the impression from that, that your ideas were good ideas? Well no, it's that you had guns. But you are retired now, and you are old, and your hands shakey and have no guns, and your choices suck and you suck, and we can freely say it now. Go away and take that old-man-stench with you, we get elections, we get democracy.

Edited April 30, 2014 by BlueNoseCodger

[smileydude]

The reason Thailand's political system isn't working is because most Thai's tolerate and actually accept corruption as "OK" as long as the wheels roll and mouths are fed. Political parties know this, so they make sure the mouths are fed via populist policies and everybody is sabai dee and mai pen rai while the elected help themselves to state coffers, our tax money.

The system only works when you vote in people who have integrity. Thai's vote for people who benefit them the most, not the country, which results in the parliament occupied by greedy opportunists and power hungry thieves.

Edited April 30, 2014 by smileydude

[WoopyDoo]

Thai politics will always fail until there are huge judicial changes, and those who are in very high positions of trust are pulled out into the open and felled with a large axe... meaning that the seriousness of the offense and subsequent punishment should relate to the position held. With the PM being the highest and thus has the most to lose by way of punishment.

In some countries a failed and corrupt government get pulled out and hung from lamp posts or put down by a firing squad. I am not saying that is a good thing, but a hefty prison sentence and having all assets stripped should be a minimum.

Let politicians realize what personal risks they are taking when they attempt to abuse their position and the power that comes with it.

Politicians should be in it for the career and the prestige, there is already a decent salary and very good perks.. That surely should be enough to satisfy... But no... Thais are very greedy people by nature, that Is evident all around, and the fact that there is a rule in existence saying that a minister while in office is above the law, this will continue... Never have I come across such a rule, and that is one of the biggest flaws in this democratic system..... no rule of law... for the very people that need the law to be applied to them more than anyone else in the land.

I do believe that stupid rule will be repealed with reforms and the sooner it happens, the sooner that politicians will feel that much more vulnerable to their come-uppence.

[mok199]

YOU CAN TELL A THAI...BUT YOU CANT TELL HIM MUCH....THEY ARE SO FAR BEHIND THEY THINK THEY ARE COMING IN FIRST...TOO MUCH FEAR HERE....FEAR OF CHANGE.....LIFE IN A BOTTLE IS EASY,ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE THE ONES,, FLOATING ON THE TOP........THE NEXT CHANGE WILL BE THE ARRIVAL OF CASINO'S,THEN THEY WILL SEE REAL LIFE....

[jpeg]

Democracy is about individual freedom. The further you move away from individual freedom, the further you move away from democracy. Democracy is all about freedom of choice. Thais have no freedom of choice, opinion, and thought. They are led by clapboard banging losers like Suthep and wishy washy empty suits like Abhisit or money grabbing manipulators like Thaksin. Thais are told about 'democracy" but few Thais understand the basic fundamentals of what it consists of and its prerequisites. Thais have no visionary leadership or anyone capable of implementing democracy.

I would agree with this post except for the very salient fact that the majority of Thais are willfully ignorant. Kinda stems from their repulsive nationalism and lack of ability to learn for themselves. We did. Why can't they?

[rickirs]

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

It's not democracy that's the problem, it's Thailand's version of it. You can't create an inherently flawed system riddled with corruption and then slap on the label 'democracy' and expect it to work.

I think that's exactly it: "democracy" is a label and is used to make the package look prettier, edible and officially approved. Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of China, (Former) German Democratic Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo...

I guess we can also add names of political parties for the same reaons such as the Democrat Party.

[atyclb]

For democracy to work the populous needs to be competently able to understand and apply it. The lack thereof of societal competency not to mention the corruption, cheating, face, impunity sort of dooms democracy.

[Strangebrew]

Why it not working is You don't have a PM who is able to lead. You need a person of high moral standards who can see where Thailand should be 10 years down the road. Then put all on that path. It is a slow process, you will stumble along the way. But as you progress adjustments are made. You build trust in your people allow them a voice in the process. It isn't 1 size fits all, But you do your best to make it fit all you can, for the greater good. Look at the US from 13 colonies to a super power in a little over 250 years. Build to the future of your children's children. Where all are equal under the law. By taking little steps great things can be done. Or as a Chinese man once said the journey of a thousand mile starts with one step.

[Roadman]

Could not but like this OP's piece..the most balanced and honest opinion of the current state of thai politics for a while on TV.

[siampolee]

This item would indeed be a boon here in Thailand would it not.

Edited April 30, 2014 by siampolee

[issanaus]

You cannot successfully impose democracy from the top down, it need to be built from the ground up.

[bulekee]

Only when the writer has the guts to question the true role of the Military can the question REALLY be answered...

And who in Thailand has the balls to ask that question.Answers on a postcard please.First one out of the hat will win ?????????????????

[bulekee]

You cannot successfully impose democracy from the top down, it need to be built from the ground up.

Have you ever experienced Thai builders?

[longway]

I think the reason that Thailand nor anywhere else in the world has democracy is because no-one actually knows what it is.

Seriously.

[issanaus]

You cannot successfully impose democracy from the top down, it need to be built from the ground up.

Have you ever experienced Thai builders?

Yep, and one has experienced a pom builder - level floors, vertical walls, square corners and under budget, 555

[rickirs]

I agree with Taptin's statement, "Thailand is not equipped for such a democracy."

Thailand's Constitutional Monarchy is by definition an extreme form of an oliarchy. In a Constitutional Monarchy the Head of State is not elected nor accountable by any institution except to be mindful of elitist and wealthy classes that control the majority of the nation's wealth. The country's armed forces are an institution of the monarchy and not of the people. The Thailand Constitution is weak if not flawed in terms of assuring a democratic framework of government with sufficient checks and balances, transparency and accountability to encourage, if not force, political leaders to abide by and respect the rule of law.

Thailand has a "faux" democracy. It has all the "decorations of democracy like a parliament and supreme court, uses democratic terms like "Demorcat Party," goes through an electorial process for some of its national leadership, and has some government checks and balances of a parliament. But it lacks the completeness of a democratic system that does not fear a majority-elected government leadership nor fear the freedom of speech.

With regard to Taptin's statements, "When an overwhelmed team runs a corporation, the worst-case scenario is bankruptcy for those concerned. When a group of people has to do everything "for" a country after winning an election, there is no limit to how bad things can get," I get some confused signals. When corporate leadership finds itself with an unmanageable company, leadership instincts are either to breakup the company into smaller, more manageable parts, spinoff (ie., liquidate) parts of the company to reduce the company to a more manageable size, or to provide for more delegation of decisions by flattening the leadership organization.

When Taptin's corporate analogy is applied to the Thailand nation, one could interpret that he is suggesting a breakup of Thailand's monolithic federal government into numerous jursidictional states or provinces. Such a system has worked well for a number of well-known, large democratic nations, albeit with much more complex electorial requirements and federal laws assuring states' rights. On the other hand, Taptin's statements might be suggestive of the elimination of a federally centralized government except for some nominal governmental role such as foreign relations and national security and replacement with autonomous regional governments. That concept didn't worked well in the case of Crimea being an autonomous region of Ukraine. But no one can doubt that Taptin has taptined the imagination.

[tonbridgebrit]

Right, Thailand is a country where the richest 5% control a large percentage of the country's wealth. A few people have already said on TV that's it's almost a feudal state, similar to what Europe was like centuries ago. This small minority have wealth, and basically, almost do as they please. Yes, a country where this minority can buy Mercedes Benz cars, whilst maybe a third of the population works for under 400 baht per day.

Now, democracy gives every man his ONE vote. You can have a Mercedes Benz, or you might be a person who works for 300 baht a day and have almost zero savings (capital). Democracy MIGHT mean that the gap between rich and poor might narrow. Democracy might take away or reduce the wealth and privileges of this minority controlling group.

This minority group, they DON'T want to give up the 'special status' that they presently have. They want to preserve it. They don't want the majority group, a group who have far less wealth per person, to remove this 'special status'. And what is democracy about ? In a democracy, the majority will take over, it won't be about a minority group holding onto their wealth and power.

Yes, I do agree that democracy can be manipulated to suit certain people. Yes, you can trick the 'masses'. But, at the end of the day, this Thailand (and certain other places) is actually about the struggle between this minority controlling group and the majority, this majority having little wealth and power. Thanks for reading.

[HerIndoors]

To TONBRIDGEBRIT... you are almost spot on ...I read these figures from a recent report ..

'When it comes to assets, the report shows that the top 10% of land owners hold up to 60% of all land in the country. Meanwhile those whose bank account balances are in the top 10% hold more than 93% of all wealth'.

Thaksin is also part of this elite although not in the 'old money' amaart, it's all about getting your snout in the trough and enriching yourself at the expense of the great unwashed and both sides are brilliant at it. A pox on both your houses I say !!

[yellow1red1]

the same/same FLAW exists in all past and present political systems. We the Sheople, allow a few, behind closed doors, decide how to spend our tax monies. same/same with most religions, too.

The Swiss system is a step in the right direction, towards a design that [would] civilize Human Governing.

---- what makes me wince is the pervading and false notion that democrazy is only broken in Siam.

Edited April 30, 2014 by yellow1red1

[longway]

^Its difficult to convey this message. What we have in the west, in the USA, UK and most other so called democracies, are electoral oligarchies. This is not an opinion, its a fact based on logic.

People pointing fingers at various people for Thailand not having it need to first understand the definition of democracy.

In a democracy; people must be the sovereign power and the free expression of their will should be the basis of authority of the elected government. Go look it up. This is democracy, its not a fuzzy concept it has a very specific meaning.

The problem is that for people’s will to be expressed in an election they must have given their consent to the winner of the election to represent their will, but to for an elector to give consent then he or she must be able to withhold consent.

You cannot claim to represent anyone's will without their consent and you cannot give consent without the ability to withhold it. And if you can neither give or withhold consent you are not the sovereign power.

This is where None of the Above (NOTA) comes in.

In an election when a voter casts their vote for a candidate, it is implicit that the voter is consenting for the winner of the election to represent the whole of that electorate, even if they did not vote for the winner.

However there is no mechanism for a voter to withhold consent; there should be NOTA option or equivalent where if it gets more than 50% of the votes cast the election must be re-run as the electorate as a whole has withheld their consent to be represented by any of the candidates standing in that election.

Almost all electoral systems are run along the lines of lead, follow, or get out of the way. There is no place in them for consent, so are not fit for purpose.

Without NOTA what we have nothing more and nothing less than an electoral oligarchy, where elected politicians are the sovereign power and it is their will that is represented (and consequently those behind them that hold the purse strings).

Thailand does not have a democracy, not because the amart 'insert self serving bs here' or people are not 'ready' for democracy, but because the electoral system is not fit for purpose. If you actually want democracy, it is crucial to understand this point.

Otherwise all you are doing is trying to ape the west's electoral oligarchy to supplant your more traditional oligarchy where elected and unelected elites balanced each other out, now the issue is not about 'democracy' its that elected elites have the chance to become the dominant oligarchic group; the average thai will not benefit from this change.

If you don't believe me, ask Princeton University that analysed all the policy initiatives in the USA between 1981 and 2002 and found that the average US citizen has ZERO influence.

http://www.policymic...not-a-democracy

If you don't have democracy in Thailand it is because the electoral system is not fit for purpose, you get that right before you can even start on the rest.

Edited May 2, 2014 by longway

[tonbridgebrit]

^Its difficult to convey this message. What we have in the west, in the USA, UK and most other so called democracies, are electoral oligarchies. This is not an opinion, its a fact based on logic.

People pointing fingers at various people for Thailand not having it need to first understand the definition of democracy.

In a democracy; people must be the sovereign power and the free expression of their will should be the basis of authority of the elected government. Go look it up. This is democracy, its not a fuzzy concept it has a very specific meaning.

The problem is that for people’s will to be expressed in an election they must have given their consent to the winner of the election to represent their will, but to for an elector to give consent then he or she must be able to withhold consent.

You cannot claim to represent anyone's will without their consent and you cannot give consent without the ability to withhold it. And if you can neither give or withhold consent you are not the sovereign power.

This is where None of the Above (NOTA) comes in.

In an election when a voter casts their vote for a candidate, it is implicit that the voter is consenting for the winner of the election to represent the whole of that electorate, even if they did not vote for the winner.

However there is no mechanism for a voter to withhold consent; there should be NOTA option or equivalent where if it gets more than 50% of the votes cast the election must be re-run as the electorate as a whole has withheld their consent to be represented by any of the candidates standing in that election.

Almost all electoral systems are run along the lines of lead, follow, or get out of the way. There is no place in them for consent, so are not fit for purpose.

Without NOTA what we have nothing more and nothing less than an electoral oligarchy, where elected politicians are the sovereign power and it is their will that is represented (and consequently those behind them that hold the purse strings).

Thailand does not have a democracy, not because the amart 'insert self serving bs here' or people are not 'ready' for democracy, but because the electoral system is not fit for purpose. If you actually want democracy, it is crucial to understand this point.

Otherwise all you are doing is trying to ape the west's electoral oligarchy to supplant your more traditional oligarchy where elected and unelected elites balanced each other out, now the issue is not about 'democracy' its that elected elites have the chance to become the dominant oligarchic group; the average thai will not benefit from this change.

If you don't believe me, ask Princeton University that analysed all the policy initiatives in the USA between 1981 and 2002 and found that the average US citizen has ZERO influence.

http://www.policymic...not-a-democracy

If you don't have democracy in Thailand it is because the electoral system is not fit for purpose, you get that right before you can even start on the rest.

So, you're saying that the USA and UK are actually 'electoral oligarchies', and not real democracies.

"However there is no mechanism for a voter to withhold consent; there should be NOTA option or equivalent where if it gets more than 50% of the votes cast the election must be re-run as the electorate as a whole has withheld their consent to be represented by any of the candidates standing in that election."

Hold on, is this really a solution to Thailand's problem ? Let's just say we do have NOTA on the voting card. And let's just NOTA does get 52% of the votes cast. So that means we've got to have another election later ? Is this a good idea ? And what if the next one, NOTA also gets 52%. Then what ?

How about we accept, that the Thais who have most of the money, those Thais make up a minority of Thailand's population. This minority, they're refusing to let their wealth(and power) be diluted. They know that giving EVERY man ONE vote (and to me, that is the simple cornerstone of democracy) will mean that the 'poor' will certainly bring in policies that will try to close the gap between Thailand's rich and the rest of Thailand.

Surely, Thailand has greater 'in-equality' with regards to wealth distribution than any Western nation ? This is a nation where the richest 5% (okay, maybe 3%) can buy a Mercedes Benz, and half (or most people) of them have a monthly income of less than 15,000 baht (that's 300 British pounds, or $500 US). It's an absurd distribution of wealth. The minority rich (the elite) are killing or preventing democracy from happening. But they've still got to make it look like that Thailand is a democracy. After all, EVERYONE claims to be cheering on democracy.

[longway]

^Its difficult to convey this message. What we have in the west, in the USA, UK and most other so called democracies, are electoral oligarchies. This is not an opinion, its a fact based on logic.

People pointing fingers at various people for Thailand not having it need to first understand the definition of democracy.

In a democracy; people must be the sovereign power and the free expression of their will should be the basis of authority of the elected government. Go look it up. This is democracy, its not a fuzzy concept it has a very specific meaning.

The problem is that for people’s will to be expressed in an election they must have given their consent to the winner of the election to represent their will, but to for an elector to give consent then he or she must be able to withhold consent.

You cannot claim to represent anyone's will without their consent and you cannot give consent without the ability to withhold it. And if you can neither give or withhold consent you are not the sovereign power.

This is where None of the Above (NOTA) comes in.

In an election when a voter casts their vote for a candidate, it is implicit that the voter is consenting for the winner of the election to represent the whole of that electorate, even if they did not vote for the winner.

However there is no mechanism for a voter to withhold consent; there should be NOTA option or equivalent where if it gets more than 50% of the votes cast the election must be re-run as the electorate as a whole has withheld their consent to be represented by any of the candidates standing in that election.

Almost all electoral systems are run along the lines of lead, follow, or get out of the way. There is no place in them for consent, so are not fit for purpose.

Without NOTA what we have nothing more and nothing less than an electoral oligarchy, where elected politicians are the sovereign power and it is their will that is represented (and consequently those behind them that hold the purse strings).

Thailand does not have a democracy, not because the amart 'insert self serving bs here' or people are not 'ready' for democracy, but because the electoral system is not fit for purpose. If you actually want democracy, it is crucial to understand this point.

Otherwise all you are doing is trying to ape the west's electoral oligarchy to supplant your more traditional oligarchy where elected and unelected elites balanced each other out, now the issue is not about 'democracy' its that elected elites have the chance to become the dominant oligarchic group; the average thai will not benefit from this change.

If you don't believe me, ask Princeton University that analysed all the policy initiatives in the USA between 1981 and 2002 and found that the average US citizen has ZERO influence.

http://www.policymic...not-a-democracy

If you don't have democracy in Thailand it is because the electoral system is not fit for purpose, you get that right before you can even start on the rest.

So, you're saying that the USA and UK are actually 'electoral oligarchies', and not real democracies.

"However there is no mechanism for a voter to withhold consent; there should be NOTA option or equivalent where if it gets more than 50% of the votes cast the election must be re-run as the electorate as a whole has withheld their consent to be represented by any of the candidates standing in that election."

Hold on, is this really a solution to Thailand's problem ? Let's just say we do have NOTA on the voting card. And let's just NOTA does get 52% of the votes cast. So that means we've got to have another election later ? Is this a good idea ? And what if the next one, NOTA also gets 52%. Then what ?

How about we accept, that the Thais who have most of the money, those Thais make up a minority of Thailand's population. This minority, they're refusing to let their wealth(and power) be diluted. They know that giving EVERY man ONE vote (and to me, that is the simple cornerstone of democracy) will mean that the 'poor' will certainly bring in policies that will try to close the gap between Thailand's rich and the rest of Thailand.

Surely, Thailand has greater 'in-equality' with regards to wealth distribution than any Western nation ? This is a nation where the richest 5% (okay, maybe 3%) can buy a Mercedes Benz, and half (or most people) of them have a monthly income of less than 15,000 baht (that's 300 British pounds, or $500 US). It's an absurd distribution of wealth. The minority rich (the elite) are killing or preventing democracy from happening. But they've still got to make it look like that Thailand is a democracy. After all, EVERYONE claims to be cheering on democracy.

You will find wealth and income inequality is widespread throughout the world and Thailand is not so different to other more developed countries and its peers, but this has nothing to do with arguments for and aginst what you call democracy.

Both Malaysia and Phillipines have gini coefficients larger (ie greater inequalities) than that of Thailand's , which is about the same as the USA and the Russia. And in fact the ratio of the average income of the richest 10% of thais and the poorest 10% of thais is smaller than that of the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Why have not the poor brought in policies that make them richer in these electoral oligarchies? (hint the clue is what they actually are rather than what they are labelled as being)

If you think that the average thai will be better served by a new order where it is solely dominated by an electoral oligarchy that is fine, but its time to stop throwing the word democracy around.

Your argument is not against NOTA, but is against democracy, you are saying that democracy is too impractical to have and that an electoral oligarchy is the only practical solution.

Naturally a NOTA 'win' has to be managed, but that is a matter of logistics. There are solutions, but first you have to decide if you want democracy or an electoral oligarchy.

I think its time to stop claiming that you want democracy in Thailand and tell the truth, you actually want an electoral oligarchy as you think its

'practical' as in your opinion with a wealth of evidence that shows its unlikely you will be right, that the average thai will be better off.