Thai editorial: When mobilisation equals democracy...

[webfact]

EDITORIAL
When mobilisation equals democracy...
The Nation

New rallies loom, and so does Square One

BANGKOK: -- Democracy mobilises its advocates. That's what it does. It persuades people to go to the ballot boxes, encourages them to make their voices heard on the streets, or spread opinions as far as the minds can absorb. In that sense, Thailand's democracy must be flourishing. Only we are in danger of tearing apart the nationhood in the process, as new rounds of mobilisation near for both sides of the national conflict.

Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side insisting that if the majority is truly empowered the rest will take care of itself. The other side demands better checks and balances, pointing that unchecked empowerment of the majority can lead to extreme power abuses. Both camps are backed by millions, so it is not easy to discard either of them.

But if democracy is about mobilisation, isn't Thailand's current state of affairs, unfortunately and dangerous as it seems, unavoidable? Or has the mobilisation by both sides of the national divide crossed the line dividing democracy and fanaticism? We shall not forget that, if supported by enough people, fascism or fanaticism can proclaim itself to be "democratic". If nine out of ten people say killing is right, is killing right?

Problem with democracy is people can poke holes on its proclaimed values or easily expose its advocates as hypocrites.We have seen democracy "advocates" switching at will from emphasising the powers of the majority to preaching human rights of the minority. They may argue that both - power to the majority and rights of the minority - can co-exist, but isn't that just a wishful thinking.

If, in a country of one million, 900,000 think corruption is acceptable, what should we make of the other 100,000 who wouldn't compromise?

Thailand is second to none when it comes to mobilisation democracy. We are near the bottom when it comes to democracy as it's supposed to be. Human rights advocates decry cancellation of the February 2 election but how many of them condemned other factors that weakened the country's democracy, like poor checks and balances and rampant corruption?

We are a country obsessed with numbers and not values. Democracy needs both. It needs the numbers to make sure no particular individuals or groups can impose their thinking on the majority, but if the numbers are not guided by the right principles, what's the point? Thais have selectively studied democracy, which is why the country is here today.

Suthep Thaugsuban and his supporters are nowhere near perfect. However, if their campaign led to a general election with a voter turn-out below 50 per cent and a sizable number of voters marking "abstention", it's time democracy "advocates" take serious notice. He has mobilised people, made voices heard that otherwise would have been ignored, and spread opinions about what is wrong with a "democratic" government.

In short, Suthep's is also "mobilisation democracy" designed to counter another "mobilisation democracy". It's too late to pinpoint which side is more right or more wrong, but the cause of the detrimental standoff remains unchanged. Thailand's democracy as it's practiced gives more importance to numbers than it should while true values have been all but abandoned.

As long as numbers are allowed to overshadow integrity, we will continue to see seizure of government agencies, blockade of intersection, shooting between security forces and protesters or simply between protesters of different ideologies. We will continue to see a government blatantly effect highly-contentious policies and politicians in power shrug off corruption charges as "conspiracies" to weaken "the power of the people."

Not everything the majority thinks is right is right. Democracy, for its own sake, should start seriously preaching that painful fact. Mobilisation is important, but, as with all learnings, everybody needs to move on after finishing the textbook.


-- The Nation 2014-05-05

[noitom]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

[smedly]

Mobilisation with an M79 and AK47 is not democracy

[smutcakes]

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side insisting that if the majority is truly empowered the rest will take care of itself. The other side demands better checks and balances, pointing that unchecked empowerment of the majority can lead to extreme power abuses. Both camps are backed by millions, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

Yes that is definitely what they want! They want it so much they did nothing about it when they were in power a few years ago!

What the sentence is supposed to say is something like this:

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side hiding behind the fact that they get elected every time which allows them to rape the country. The other side are upset that someone else is raping the country which has been their and their supporters preserve for decades, and will say or do anything to get themselves in that position again. Both camps are backed by millions, and both sets of parties have thousands of easily persuaded supporters, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

[Thai at Heart]

This is absolute nonsense. The only apparently mobilised group is the reds and how many do they number?

Does Suthep have millions? All. What a joke. This idea that in some way representing millions is ridiculous. The vast majority are just interested spectators who maybe willing to attend something if cajoled and paid.

[chainarong]

What motivates people to write Mobilisation = Democracy. Democracy is all about checks and balances , not running around like an army , Democracy is a set of guidelines to stop mobilisation of forces to dictate the state of play , democracy lets an individual go he's or her own way with out hinderance , protection from the law political repression, freedom of expression , religion beliefs , without being abused , victimised, freedom of speech , the right for equality ,the list is endless Democracy is not a subject that Thailand can hold its head high and proudly say, we are Democracy, to be honest, it never will be

[ratcatcher]

"New rallies loom, and so does Square One." No doubt.

[ABCer]

Mobilisation = Declaration of War. In military lingo.

Democracy is the most abused and least understood concept.

The way things are unfolding before my eyes any Thai mentioning "Democracy" is guilty of insult.

The Nation of Ignorant led by Unscrupulous.

Edited May 5, 2014 by ABCer

[thesetat2013]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

You should be saying the same thing for the PTP. Instead if doing it for elitist they do it for Thaksin. No difference at all. You just prefer a Thaksin regime instead of elitist. Which would be the lesser evil? Neither!

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[geovalin]

Suthep is a seditionist.

And corrupted and etc.

He is 100% similar to the ones he's denouncing.

To denounce a guilty person does not make you an innocent.

[gabruce]

This is absolute nonsense. The only apparently mobilised group is the reds and how many do they number?

Does Suthep have millions? All. What a joke. This idea that in some way representing millions is ridiculous. The vast majority are just interested spectators who maybe willing to attend something if cajoled and paid.

Obviously you've missed what's been going on in Thailand the last 6 months.

No problem. The pro-reform movement may or may not be a majority, however it is real and they are real people.

You also missed the Feb 2 election.

[wow64]

Should have a final battle on election day.

90 million will go to the rally just get them all to vote.. Job done.

Sent from my c64

[Lupatria]

Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is.

Really?

And the debating stopped, when they discovered the system is basically inadequate to fill the pockets of those in parliament…

Edited May 5, 2014 by Lupatria

[smedly]

Mobilisation = Declaration of War. In military lingo.

Democracy is the most abused and least understood concept.

The way things are unfolding before my eyes any Thai mentioning "Democracy" is guilty of insult.

The Nation of Ignorant led by Unscrupulous.

I'll clear this up for you and may I also add is a huge part of the problem in this country

Anyone using or mentioning the word "DEMOCRACY" should fully understand what it actually means and that includes elected governments

[GuestHouse]

Right now, democracy in Thailand has been swamped by the mobilisation of Mob Rule.

Bought votes, rented mobs and 'Red Villages'.

Nothing has changed - the masses are being paid for votes, being paid for allegiance and looking up to the 'Phu Yai' to save them.

Democracy will arrive when ordinary people select other Ordinary people from within their own communities to represent them in Parliament.

The one group that has the power to do this right now are the Red Shirts - hence the violence and death meted out on any ordinary Red Shirt members who look like they might offer an alternative to the Red Shirts selling their franchise to the PTP.

The PTP being the same old faces that have been seen in every re-incarnation of the same gang of money grubbers under the name of Populist Political Parties over the past 25 years.

Nothing has changed - just the fight has become more angry, on the streets and more desperate.

Change is coming for sure, it pivots around one inevitable event and it is not going to be a fight for democracy.

[outre99]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

You should be saying the same thing for the PTP. Instead if doing it for elitist they do it for Thaksin. No difference at all. You just prefer a Thaksin regime instead of elitist. Which would be the lesser evil? Neither!

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The difference is that the previous status quo was based on the centuries old patronage system (just like in the western societies until very recently). One of the guiding principles was the concept of moderation, which was probably derived from Bhuddism. It ment that you take some apples from the tree but you leave more in order for the gardern to continue and others to participate. When Taksin came on the scene he changed the whole game. He didn't just take all the apples he put the fence around the tree. There was an excellent editorial article describing the roots of this conflict. I lost the link but i'm sure other members can post. The apple analogy is from the article.

So the root of the problem is not democracy, or access to privelege, it's the irreconciable difference between the traditional attitudes that value social "moderation" and "honor/face" vs the new cut-throat, winner-take-all, lie-with-the straigh-face-about-everything approach of Taksin. It's the difference between the classy, refined, and honorable old money, and the garrish, brash, selfish new money. The populist policies were just the means to an end and as such were short term by design. Painting Taksin as some kind of "people's champion" is myopic and disingenuous. Under the guise of pupulist policies he managed to inflict great damage to the country's reputation, treasure, and stability. Instead of compromising with his oponents for the sake of the country he has continuously made decisions governed by the my-way-or-the-highway approach, and of course pure greed. That attitude was instilled in all of the latter iterations of PTP party and its politicians. If there was any kind of transparency and accountability I suspect that the red crowds would lose a lot in numbers and enthusiasm. The Rice scheme debacle has demostrated that plainly.

None of the current warring camps have a viable vision to lead the country to a better future. There's a vacuum of ideas and a "grand vision" that could unite Thais dispite their socio-economic differences. Unfortunately there's no leader that can embody that vision and convince others to follow it. It's a historical opportunity for a 3rd party of progressive elite, technocrats, and moderate populists to come together and offer a new way.

Edited May 5, 2014 by outre99

[northernjohn]

Mobilisation with an M79 and AK47 is not democracy

pointing that unchecked empowerment of the majority can lead to extreme power abuses.

In this case we had a minority backed up by their militant arm who is armed with M79 and AK47. Also publicly announcing they are trying to raise more arms and a private army of 600,000.

And still people support them. It is as obvious as the nose on your face that reform is needed and they reject it at every level unless it benefits them.

[northernjohn]

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side insisting that if the majority is truly empowered the rest will take care of itself. The other side demands better checks and balances, pointing that unchecked empowerment of the majority can lead to extreme power abuses. Both camps are backed by millions, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

Yes that is definitely what they want! They want it so much they did nothing about it when they were in power a few years ago!

What the sentence is supposed to say is something like this:

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side hiding behind the fact that they get elected every time which allows them to rape the country. The other side are upset that someone else is raping the country which has been their and their supporters preserve for decades, and will say or do anything to get themselves in that position again. Both camps are backed by millions, and both sets of parties have thousands of easily persuaded supporters, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

As usual you show your bias with the comment why didn't they do some thing about it when in power.

Get your facts straight. They managed to stop the rise in corruption. After leaving office it started rising again. It was on the rise under Thaksin and they held it in check as soon as he got back in it started to rise again. They hhad an opposition party that had an armed section that they used against the Government. When the PTP got into power they would not even allow the Opposition to talk.

Also they did it with a minority government. If you understood any thing about politics you would realize the handicap that can be. You are a typical red shirt follower watch some clown dance around on the stage and utter nonsense and you swallow it hook line and sinker even though it advocates ignoring the constitution if you don't get your way and if it will get you what you want support the constitution.

[northernjohn]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

You should be saying the same thing for the PTP. Instead if doing it for elitist they do it for Thaksin. No difference at all. You just prefer a Thaksin regime instead of elitist. Which would be the lesser evil? Neither!

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The difference is that the previous status quo was based on the centuries old patronage system (just like in the western societies until very recently). One of the guiding principles was the concept of moderation, which was probably derived from Bhuddism. It ment that you take some apples from the tree but you leave more in order for the gardern to continue and others to participate. When Taksin came on the scene he changed the whole game. He didn't just take all the apples he put the fence around the tree. There was an excellent editorial article describing the roots of this conflict. I lost the link but i'm sure other members can post. The apple analogy is from the article.

So the root of the problem is not democracy, or access to privelege, it's the irreconciable difference between the traditional attitudes that value social "moderation" and "honor/face" vs the new cut-throat, winner-take-all, lie-with-the straigh-face-about-everything approach of Taksin. It's the difference between the classy, refined, and honorable old money, and the garrish, brash, selfish new money. The populist policies were just the means to an end and as such were short term by design. Painting Taksin as some kind of "people's champion" is myopic and disingenuous. Under the guise of pupulist policies he managed to inflict great damage to the country's reputation, treasure, and stability. Instead of compromising with his oponents for the sake of the country he has continuously made decisions governed by the my-way-or-the-highway approach, and of course pure greed. That attitude was instilled in all of the latter iterations of PTP party and its politicians. If there was any kind of transparency and accountability I suspect that the red crowds would lose a lot in numbers and enthusiasm. The Rice scheme debacle has demostrated that plainly.

None of the current warring camps have a viable vision to lead the country to a better future. There's a vacuum of ideas and a "grand vision" that could unite Thais dispite their socio-economic differences. Unfortunately there's no leader that can embody that vision and convince others to follow it. It's a historical opportunity for a 3rd party of progressive elite, technocrats, and moderate populists to come together and offer a new way.

Excellent article

I do how ever disagree to this part.

None of the current warring camps have a viable vision to lead the country to a better future. There's a vacuum of ideas and a "grand vision" that could unite Thais dispite their socio-economic differences. Unfortunately there's no leader that can embody that vision and convince others to follow it. It's a historical opportunity for a 3rd party of progressive elite, technocrats, and moderate populists to come together and offer a new way.

While it is true to a degree both Abhist and Suthep have an idea of how to go about to obtain a better future for Thailand. They are both proposing reform to my knowledge it is not reform by one party it would involve all parts of society.

Reform under one party is in essence no change. Reform from all parties and sections of society can be meaning full. It will not cut labor ,business and academia out of the picture. In fact the political parties should maintain only about 25% of the panel discussing it.

[smutcakes]

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side insisting that if the majority is truly empowered the rest will take care of itself. The other side demands better checks and balances, pointing that unchecked empowerment of the majority can lead to extreme power abuses. Both camps are backed by millions, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

Yes that is definitely what they want! They want it so much they did nothing about it when they were in power a few years ago!

What the sentence is supposed to say is something like this:

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side hiding behind the fact that they get elected every time which allows them to rape the country. The other side are upset that someone else is raping the country which has been their and their supporters preserve for decades, and will say or do anything to get themselves in that position again. Both camps are backed by millions, and both sets of parties have thousands of easily persuaded supporters, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

As usual you show your bias with the comment why didn't they do some thing about it when in power.

Get your facts straight. They managed to stop the rise in corruption. After leaving office it started rising again. It was on the rise under Thaksin and they held it in check as soon as he got back in it started to rise again. They hhad an opposition party that had an armed section that they used against the Government. When the PTP got into power they would not even allow the Opposition to talk.

Also they did it with a minority government. If you understood any thing about politics you would realize the handicap that can be. You are a typical red shirt follower watch some clown dance around on the stage and utter nonsense and you swallow it hook line and sinker even though it advocates ignoring the constitution if you don't get your way and if it will get you what you want support the constitution.

Why is that bias? as you can see i changed the quote saying that currently they are raping the country as well.

Did they manage to stop corruption? really, i would like to know who measured it and how.?

For every red shirt supporter who swallows hook,line and sinker, there is a similar person swallowing all the other BS on the other side. The ridiculous thing about that is that the other side like to portray themselves as educated!!! they should know better.

You cannot seriously raise the point about a minority Govt?? They made their bed they lied in it. If they were as noble as you seem to think they would have simply left the Bumjumthai go if they did not like their corruption. Instead they were allo happy for the corruption, if it meant securing the votes. You cant have it both ways.

[fxe1200]

Mobilisation = Declaration of War. In military lingo.

Democracy is the most abused and least understood concept.

The way things are unfolding before my eyes any Thai mentioning "Democracy" is guilty of insult.

The Nation of Ignorant led by Unscrupulous.

I'll clear this up for you and may I also add is a huge part of the problem in this country

Anyone using or mentioning the word "DEMOCRACY" should fully understand what it actually means and that includes elected governments

Adolf Hitler was elected too, democratically, just as a reminder.

[GuestHouse]

Mobilisation = Declaration of War. In military lingo.

Democracy is the most abused and least understood concept.

The way things are unfolding before my eyes any Thai mentioning "Democracy" is guilty of insult.

The Nation of Ignorant led by Unscrupulous.

I'll clear this up for you and may I also add is a huge part of the problem in this country

Anyone using or mentioning the word "DEMOCRACY" should fully understand what it actually means and that includes elected governments

And freedom to speak, a free press, freedom of association and freedom of concious.

Without which elections may be manipulated and almost always are.

[Morch]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

Guevera or Ghandi.....tough choice there. Both start with a G, one advocate killing of rivals...hmm.

Agreed that Suthep got nothing to do with either.

[Morch]

Suthep is a seditionist.

And corrupted and etc.

He is 100% similar to the ones he's denouncing.

To denounce a guilty person does not make you an innocent.

I don't think anyone with a bit of common sense sees Suthep as a saintly figure.

Agreed that denouncing a guilty person does not make one innocent, it does also not detract an iota from the guilty man's guilt.

[Bakseeda]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

Whoever he is .. he WILL go down in Thai history as a hero... and Seditionist he certainly is not... and with your pen-name I take it you are a lesbien, surely that is more of a seditionist than Suthep..

[Scamper]

Excellent article, that - by the way - poses the concept of democracy equaling mobilization in a highly ironic light. This article is by no means an advocate of that concept. It simply states that that is how things have evolved here - on both sides. Each side mobilizes its forces. The reason why this article paints this concept in so much irony is because - it doesn't work. The point of the article - for those that have missed it - is this -

" Not everything the majority thinks is right is right. "

That's about as succinct as one can make it. Pheu Thai and the UDD believe that whatever the majority sanction becomes right, or legal, or constitutional. Period. The right to defy court rulings. The right to break laws. The right to dismantle checks and balances. The right to pass an amnesty bill that would absolve Thaksin and over 25,000 other people convicted of corruption. The right to unfettered and unchecked corruption in the implementation of social policies. To Pheu Thai and the UDD, a mandate gives them the right for all of that. No functioning democracy in the world believes that. Every functioning democracy in the world has stringent checks and balances, and every functioning democracy in the world demands respect and adherence to its courts' rulings.

[Thai at Heart]

Suthep is a seditionist. The Thai press should not aggrandize him as some sort of freedom fighter such as an Ernesto Guevara or Mohandas Ghandi . He is a disruptive seditionist who fights for a "privately appointed" set of leaders to further advance the cause of the elite establishment.

You should be saying the same thing for the PTP. Instead if doing it for elitist they do it for Thaksin. No difference at all. You just prefer a Thaksin regime instead of elitist. Which would be the lesser evil? Neither!

Sent from my GT-S5310 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

The difference is that the previous status quo was based on the centuries old patronage system (just like in the western societies until very recently). One of the guiding principles was the concept of moderation, which was probably derived from Bhuddism. It ment that you take some apples from the tree but you leave more in order for the gardern to continue and others to participate. When Taksin came on the scene he changed the whole game. He didn't just take all the apples he put the fence around the tree. There was an excellent editorial article describing the roots of this conflict. I lost the link but i'm sure other members can post. The apple analogy is from the article.

So the root of the problem is not democracy, or access to privelege, it's the irreconciable difference between the traditional attitudes that value social "moderation" and "honor/face" vs the new cut-throat, winner-take-all, lie-with-the straigh-face-about-everything approach of Taksin. It's the difference between the classy, refined, and honorable old money, and the garrish, brash, selfish new money. The populist policies were just the means to an end and as such were short term by design. Painting Taksin as some kind of "people's champion" is myopic and disingenuous. Under the guise of pupulist policies he managed to inflict great damage to the country's reputation, treasure, and stability. Instead of compromising with his oponents for the sake of the country he has continuously made decisions governed by the my-way-or-the-highway approach, and of course pure greed. That attitude was instilled in all of the latter iterations of PTP party and its politicians. If there was any kind of transparency and accountability I suspect that the red crowds would lose a lot in numbers and enthusiasm. The Rice scheme debacle has demostrated that plainly.

None of the current warring camps have a viable vision to lead the country to a better future. There's a vacuum of ideas and a "grand vision" that could unite Thais dispite their socio-economic differences. Unfortunately there's no leader that can embody that vision and convince others to follow it. It's a historical opportunity for a 3rd party of progressive elite, technocrats, and moderate populists to come together and offer a new way.

Thaksin changed nothing. He was just going to shake up the families who dominate business in Thailand.

I find it genuinely hilarious that people think Thaksin was some kind of nefarious Dr. Evil who created a new system

The system was there and a collection of largely Bangkok families had been milking it for many decades. He just challenged that status quo.

[northernjohn]

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side insisting that if the majority is truly empowered the rest will take care of itself. The other side demands better checks and balances, pointing that unchecked empowerment of the majority can lead to extreme power abuses. Both camps are backed by millions, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

Yes that is definitely what they want! They want it so much they did nothing about it when they were in power a few years ago!

What the sentence is supposed to say is something like this:

"Thailand is debating what the true essence of democracy is. Two schools are battling it out, with one side hiding behind the fact that they get elected every time which allows them to rape the country. The other side are upset that someone else is raping the country which has been their and their supporters preserve for decades, and will say or do anything to get themselves in that position again. Both camps are backed by millions, and both sets of parties have thousands of easily persuaded supporters, so it is not easy to discard either of them."

As usual you show your bias with the comment why didn't they do some thing about it when in power.

Get your facts straight. They managed to stop the rise in corruption. After leaving office it started rising again. It was on the rise under Thaksin and they held it in check as soon as he got back in it started to rise again. They hhad an opposition party that had an armed section that they used against the Government. When the PTP got into power they would not even allow the Opposition to talk.

Also they did it with a minority government. If you understood any thing about politics you would realize the handicap that can be. You are a typical red shirt follower watch some clown dance around on the stage and utter nonsense and you swallow it hook line and sinker even though it advocates ignoring the constitution if you don't get your way and if it will get you what you want support the constitution.

Why is that bias? as you can see i changed the quote saying that currently they are raping the country as well.

Did they manage to stop corruption? really, i would like to know who measured it and how.?

For every red shirt supporter who swallows hook,line and sinker, there is a similar person swallowing all the other BS on the other side. The ridiculous thing about that is that the other side like to portray themselves as educated!!! they should know better.

You cannot seriously raise the point about a minority Govt?? They made their bed they lied in it. If they were as noble as you seem to think they would have simply left the Bumjumthai go if they did not like their corruption. Instead they were allo happy for the corruption, if it meant securing the votes. You cant have it both ways.

Transparency International measured it and they used the same statistics they did to find Denmark the least corrupt and Somalia the most corrupt. In one year the PTP red shirts went from 88 to 101 on the list. From the middle of the pack

to the lower part of it.

You know the numbers look up the method on your own. Remember every one you discredit will have to be discredited

on the other countries. Every one you say they should have used should also been used on the other countries.

It is perfectly obvious that you really don't know what the difference is between a minority government and a majority

government so that is a useless subject to discuss with you.

As for the Democrats raping the country. How are they doing that?

How much money is flowing into Off shore bank accounts from them that is supposed to go to serving the country?

You are backing one of the most corrupt governments in Thailand history.

They promised the Rice farmers a fantastic unreasonable price for their rice and then when they could not pay it

they closed the government down and told the rice farmers they would pay them so often and failed to pay them

that they quit asking. Put yourself in their place if you were owed that much and lied to every time you asked

how long would you keep asking before giving up. The Democrats had nothing to do with that.

They told the PTP from the start it was a bad idea.

[Mrgk]

That's about as succinct as one can make it. Pheu Thai and the UDD believe that whatever the majority sanction becomes right, or legal, or constitutional. Period. The right to defy court rulings. The right to break laws. The right to dismantle checks and balances. The right to pass an amnesty bill that would absolve Thaksin and over 25,000 other people convicted of corruption. The right to unfettered and unchecked corruption in the implementation of social policies. To Pheu Thai and the UDD, a mandate gives them the right for all of that. No functioning democracy in the world believes that. Every functioning democracy in the world has stringent checks and balances, and every functioning democracy in the world demands respect and adherence to its courts' rulings.

First of all, I am not aware of any "Red" ever stating that whatever the majority "sanctions" is automatically right, legal, and/or constitutional. Any particular Red you have in mind, or is this merely your own hyperbolic reading?

Second, democratic politics is at the core about reciprocity. What is especially unattractive about the Thai opposition and its proponents is their wholesale abandonment of the golden rule.

While they themselves indignantly expect not only law-abidedness, but submissive and silent law-abidedness on the part of their opponents, they themselves feel free to engage in (or support) wholesale wrecking of the most fundamental part of the democratic process through naked force - I.e. by sabotaging elections and staging military coups, or through legal manipulation and deceit that often approaches black comedy.

This unpalatable blend of naked cheating and indignant insistence on the tremendous importance of "checks and balances" and the "rule of law" is the primary reason why there is roughly zero sympathy with the Yellow/PDRC/Democratic (pick one or more depending on your outlook) cause outside of Thailand.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the focus in Thai politics on mass mobilization is a direct result of the repeated and unceasing attempts of the Yellows/PDRC/Democrats to gain power by sidestepping the formal democratic process using varying blends of violence and subterfuge. When they stop cheating at politics, peace will return to Thailand, but not sooner.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Mrgk

[outre99]

That's about as succinct as one can make it. Pheu Thai and the UDD believe that whatever the majority sanction becomes right, or legal, or constitutional. Period. The right to defy court rulings. The right to break laws. The right to dismantle checks and balances. The right to pass an amnesty bill that would absolve Thaksin and over 25,000 other people convicted of corruption. The right to unfettered and unchecked corruption in the implementation of social policies. To Pheu Thai and the UDD, a mandate gives them the right for all of that. No functioning democracy in the world believes that. Every functioning democracy in the world has stringent checks and balances, and every functioning democracy in the world demands respect and adherence to its courts' rulings.

First of all, I am not aware of any "Red" ever stating that whatever the majority "sanctions" is automatically right, legal, and/or constitutional. Any particular Red you have in mind, or is this merely your own hyperbolic reading?

Second, democratic politics is at the core about reciprocity. What is especially unattractive about the Thai opposition and its proponents is their wholesale abandonment of the golden rule.

While they themselves indignantly expect not only law-abidedness, but submissive and silent law-abidedness on the part of their opponents, they themselves feel free to engage in (or support) wholesale wrecking of the most fundamental part of the democratic process through naked force - I.e. by sabotaging elections and staging military coups, or through legal manipulation and deceit that often approaches black comedy.

This unpalatable blend of naked cheating and indignant insistence on the tremendous importance of "checks and balances" and the "rule of law" is the primary reason why there is roughly zero sympathy with the Yellow/PDRC/Democratic (pick one or more depending on your outlook) cause outside of Thailand.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the focus in Thai politics on mass mobilization is a direct result of the repeated and unceasing attempts of the Yellows/PDRC/Democrats to gain power by sidestepping the formal democratic process using varying blends of violence and subterfuge. When they stop cheating at politics, peace will return to Thailand, but not sooner.

Any particular opposition leader or spokes person in mind, or is this merely your own biased reading?

The tragedy of the situation is that while both camps scream about democracy and constitution neither actually abides by nor understands what these terms mean. Your statements can be applied to both camps. The red complaints about the subversion of the electoral process, which you echo, sound rather hollow when one considers the current lawless electoral process: vote buying, opposition voter indimidation, threats against opposition candidates. There are some districts up north that are simply too dangerous for the opposition to campaign in. There's actually a whole formalized movement of Red villages and towns. Do you really think that anybody in those vilages is allowed to freely decent? All they need is the little red book and the transformation is complete.

You rightly mention Checks and balances, rule of law, transparency, and accountability as requirements for an open and democratic society. But somehow you forget that it were the successive Red governments that have repeatedly demonstrated complete disregard and active aversion to all of these. Starting with Taksin's drug war and extrajudicial killings, political meddling in the business of independent agencies and courts, financial mismanagement, appointing cronies to power, silencing whistle blowers, squandering public funds on ill concieved mega projects and policies, repeated incompetence and bad decision making without consequences, using parlamentary majority to ram through legislation designed to benefit a single individual, rejecting the authority of the courts when it doesn't suit them. On and on it goes. And all done with impunity. This is not a government that it interested in democratic principles.

Even if the red parties started out as the champions of the people as you paint them at some point any rational person has to look at their actual record and realize that these people are bad at governing, that they don't have the best interests of the country and its people at heart, that the system that keeps returning them to power is broken and needs to be changed. Winning elections in a broken, fundumentally undemocratic system does not make a democracy. The difference between the old elites and the new red ones is that the old ways were based on traditional codes of conduct and valued moderation, honor/face, and the long term survival of the system. While the new Taksin ways are akin to slash-and-burn approach designed to extract as much wealth out of the power position as possible in as short time as possible. And damn the long term consequences. Is the old system of patronage is unfair to the poor? Yes it is. Has the Taksin "revolution" bring fairness and progressive change to benefit the poor in any meaningful and sustainable way? No it hasn't. Have the red governments demonstrated the desire and ability to govern fairly and build a better future for all Thais. Clearly and demonstrably not.

So if the "formal democratic process" keeps giving power to incompetent, shortsighted, and corrupt governments there's something wrong with the process and it needs to be changed. I think the majority of Thais outside of the hard core partisans would agree that the current situation is not viable. So who would have enough clout and moral authority from both camps to devise and implement such a change. Realistically in Thailand there's only one institution capable of doing so. Hence the proposal's of an appointed assembly to make the course correction to get the country back on course. Western media lacking the nuanced understanding of the Thai history and power structures and encouraged by Taksin hired PR and law firms keep pushing the simplistic narative of "bad" elite loyalists vs the "good" populist reds, which has very little to do with reality just like your above post.