Jump to content

Defining Democracy..... Please do


Gonzo the Face

Recommended Posts

I seem to be running into a interpretation or definition problem. But having said that , I'm sure there are a number of someones out there who will be happy to clear it up for me.

This is just my understanding and opinion.

Democracy ='s a good system..... I feel the best going.

Country wide or local, elections ='s a good thing

Countrywide or democratic and fair elections ='s an even better thing.

A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner

Those of us in or from western democratic countries , accept the one with most votes is always the winner, as that is what the people wanted.

This precept is widely accepted by those in/from western democratic countries as well as most international media.

But lets look a little deeper,,,,,,,,, the one with the most votes is not always the winner in a free and democratic election. But you see and hear the media use that term day in and day out " the Democratically Elected Government" , and my opinion is they are wrong.

There is no question about vote buying going on in this country it would seem before every election. If you or your side has more money than the other side and can out buy your opponents...... and do so, did you win a free and democratic election??? I don't think so. But that scenario has come about on too many occasions. ...... and then , maybe months or years later, when strife occurs, you are reported, repeatedly to have won a free and fair election.

If you have more money than your opponents and can promise better gifts from the government coffers.... you don't have to fulfill those promises, just have to make it sound like you would..... chances are that you will be so noted as to have won a free and fair election and have been democratically elected.

I say that in a free and fair democratic election, both the giver and the receiver are wrong and guilty, in the above scenario.

In Thailand this seems to be the problem at hand.

For the problem to be cured, there has to be a most mind shattering happening occur..... that is of course that both sides see the wrong of the ways and each puts a end to this wrongful and corrupt problem But this is just the icing on the cake.

Herein lies the real problem,,,,,, not the icing but the cake itself........

Some months , maybe a year ago now, one of the big national polling groups ran a survey/poll. The poll was about corruption and did the people think corruption was wrong or was ok.

Best as I remember, approximately 68% of the population polled felt there was nothing wrong with corruption as long as you could benefit from it in some way.

Now how do you fix the overall free and democratic election problem...... when two thirds, 2/3rds, of the population do not see there as being a problem????

They don't see there being a problem, the only one with seeing the problem is the outsider.....????

Go Figure.

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is finally something interesting.

I have basically three points I would like to make;

1) People need to be educated or at least understand how government works to be able to cast a vote. Otherwise they would vote for the party or individual who deceives them most with unrealistic promises.

2) There is a need of checks and balances. Someone needs to look over the elected government and ensure that they stay conform to constitution and laws. This is typically achieved by constitution courts. Even in western countries constitution courts find some government decisions unconstitutional at times and force them to revise.

3) change of constitution should require more than a 51% Majority of voters

Some other notes that puzzle me here in LOS; politicians are not the experts in their field of work. Best example is the flood management. Why not just leave it to people who know and limit yourself to the general direction giving.I e. Any physics Student would have known that boats anchored in a river with propellers running do not increase the water flow...

And also this constant reshuffle of ministers, how can one get a grip on things.

Finally not more than let's say two family members should be in government. What is the likelihood that the nation's bright minds are all cousins?

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

You are so right, a simple "like" would not express how much I agree.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never the less please suggest something that is better than democracy?

IMO even though all the points in your interesting posts are valid, for democracy to work optimally surely the voting population should be democratically entitled to learn from the mistakes of voting for the wrong party or person and in the fullness of time to realise those mistakes and then vote for a better candidate or party.

Democracy is still in its infancy in Thailand and until the process of filling the top jobs in Government and the provinces by a vote and not by cronyism or the buying of these top jobs ends then you will not see Thai democracy mature to a level of genuine fairness for all of the population and an end to the corruption that seems to be so endemic.

Further whether the last Government were bought and paid for is irrelevant.

On the basis that you get what you pay for or as in this situation you get what you voted for and if what you voted fro is is corrupt then there should be a way of democratically ending its term.

Oh because there is no easy answer to the ending of a cartel or Government which has been bought and paid for then you have the only alternative left.

Which took place this week when the Army stepped in.

I just hope that something good will come out of this like a complete overhaul of how Leaders Ministers and officials are chosen for their positions of power and if there indeed can be some curbs, restraints and check if they do not.

Edited by n210mp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

What Thailand has at present is an ineptocracy.

People need to understand and accept that vast swathes of the population should not be allowed to vote.

I propose that voting rights should only be given to those who have completed high school education to the age of 18 (mattayom 6).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

What Thailand has at present is an ineptocracy.

People need to understand and accept that vast swathes of the population should not be allowed to vote.

I propose that voting rights should only be given to those who have completed high school education to the age of 18 (mattayom 6).

So then a situation worse than at present would surely result in those few who having the power would be absolutely in charge and you know what absolute power is equal to........or maybe not I guess or you wouldn't have posted such a preposterous suggestion in the first place.

For you and others with a fascist type point of view let me remind you of a definitive interpretation of what Democracy is all about and its relationship to human rights and freedom of speech.

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

It occurs to me that you may think that my remark about Fascist is a bit over the top so I have also included a link which may help

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

Edited by n210mp
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

What Thailand has at present is an ineptocracy.

People need to understand and accept that vast swathes of the population should not be allowed to vote.

I propose that voting rights should only be given to those who have completed high school education to the age of 18 (mattayom 6).

It's all countries where vast swathes of the population should not be allowed to vote. I give you Dubbya being voted in a second time!

High school is not the yard stick. There are many idiots that have been to high school, and intelligence does not equate to formal education.All prospective voters need to attend a class to educate them on the electoral system and perhaps a little on the party's manifestos. They then need to pass an IQ test. Attend the class, pass the test, get the right to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every person should have the right to vote, no matter their level of education. Even in the very best democracy in the world we accept that governments are formed by bribing the voters with populist policies that are going to cost the country and most people will vote for their own gains above that of a nation. And I do not think within Thailand that it is the voting with its issues that is the problem. It is the abuse of power once elected, the wrongful granting of impunity to MP for civil crimes, the pathetic sentences for those with wealth or influence, the time factor for serious charges to be brought before the courts, the pathetic leniency given by the courts, the lack of enforcement of court judgements by police and justice, the kowtowing of law enforcement to elected MP, one could go on and on.

While one can get hung up with the two thirds that would partake of corruption for their gain, there is still the one third who don't and that is the group that needs to be to the forefront of reform. With that group empowered they do not need to change the other two thirds of their fellow citizens to swing the corruption percentage to a minority, but only 17% of them. And not all that two thirds will be hard core corrupt.

While corruption among the general populace may be seen to be a major obstacle I think the larger problem is the patronage system which is ingrained within Thai society. I sometimes wonder if what thai's portray for democracy is in fact just glorified patronage.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do like the concept of voters learning from their decisions. At the same time each government needs to remain accountable. Things like not disclosing rice pledging scheme performance figures are simply not on in a democracy.

Being democratically elected gives no one the right to stand above the law.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

What Thailand has at present is an ineptocracy.

People need to understand and accept that vast swathes of the population should not be allowed to vote.

I propose that voting rights should only be given to those who have completed high school education to the age of 18 (mattayom 6).

So then a situation worse than at present would surely result in those few who having the power would be absolutely in charge and you know what absolute power is equal to........or maybe not I guess or you wouldn't have posted such a preposterous suggestion in the first place.

So then a situation worse than at present would surely result

Rubbish.

You would not get an ineptocracy with an educated electorate: you would NEVER get a puppet PM working on behalf of a self-exiled criminal, nor would you get an administration whose primary goal is to seek amnesty for said criminal.

Understand that democracy is not the be all and end all it's made out to be. When you have an uneducated electorate that's incapable of planning more than one day into the future (and in many cases can't even locate Thailand on a map), democracy will fail.

There was a guy on this forum a while back who used to believe that the best way forward for Thailand would be for a benign dictator to take charge. This is something I agree with.

Edited by casualposter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives

Any other questions?

That is a new definition (probably from wikipedia, which is way wrong) that can not be found in older dictionaries.

A democracy is where the people vote for what they want, and majority wins. In a real democracy, for example, all the whites (still a majority in the US) could conceivably vote for all the blacks to be expelled. Or all Thai citizens of Thai ancestry could vote to enslave those of Cambodian or Laotian ancestry.

Put another way, a democracy is mob rule. But a republic uses a constitution and laws ensuing from it to insure fairness and equality for all citizens. A republic requires an orderly process to enact laws. A democracy requires only a vote be taken, and the majority wins.

A republic is where a limited number of people are elected to represent all the people's best interest. The USA was established as a republic, not a democracy, as the founding fathers knew the inherent dangers of pure democracy. Sadly, an end run is being made in recent years, and it is now an oligarchy.

All forms of government have flaws. But the best would be that of a wise, benevolent dictator. Not many of them around, so I'll take a true republic.

Anybody know of one?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a description of a multi vote system that was advocated by one of my favourite authors, Nevil Shute. In his novel "In the Wet", he described a fictitious system that had been adopted in Australia. The book was written in 1953.

In the book, a person can have up to seven votes. Everyone gets a basic vote. Other votes can be earned for education (including a commission in the armed forces), earning one's living overseas for two years, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, being an official of a Christian church, or having a high earned income. The seventh vote is only given at the Queen's discretion by Royal Charter.

While perhaps a little dated, the theory implies that the vote of the unthinking "common man" can be outweighed by the multiple vote/s of the educated, those that have strived in business, those that have lived stable lives etc.

I always thought the idea had merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy cumulative in voting processes but they are not the basis.

Education, fairly balanced public radio and TV (like the public stations in Germany, Swiss and France; Thai PBS is a good start, transparent and accountable administrations (possibly the freedom of information act is the best part of the US system), draconian judgments against corruption and a 30% share of the bribes to the person that makes it public and facilitates court conviction

All this would go a long way to build the foundations upon which transparent and fair elections could take place.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy... Fallacy upon fallacy.

The prime principle behind this concept is - MAJORITY rules!

Postulate one. Majority, People, Mob, Masses, etc. have no voice. 'Vox Populi' is, so to speak, a double concept not a reality.

Postulate two. The IQ distribution curve is not an ideal symmetrical bell shape. Both Median and Average are shifted towards lower figures => majority is dumb(?).

Postulate three. Elected Representatives for the silent Vox Populi are smarter than average, i.e. crooks (?).

Therefore I am challenging the OP's basic presumption: Democracy = Good!

Note! Before frothing on the mouth and starting verbal abuse try to argue/discuss the proposed presumption. coffee1.gif

I would be grateful for any references to current or past successful True Democracies.

Edited by ABCer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A person, party or group receiving the most votes ='s winner"

I seem to recall George Dubbya Bush did not have most of the citizens vote for him....but perhaps that proves your point because Dubbya changed the country AND the world, but in a detrimental way.

Democracy is not great.

The best democracy would be a Qualified Democracy wherein the candidates have to qualify in intelligence and integrity. Also, the citizens have to qualify in intelligence (at a lower threshold to the candidates) to be allowed to vote.

The rationale? 1. It's not good for the people if the leaders are dumb or crooked. 2. It's not good for the country to have leaders elected by dummies.

What Thailand has at present is an ineptocracy.

People need to understand and accept that vast swathes of the population should not be allowed to vote.

I propose that voting rights should only be given to those who have completed high school education to the age of 18 (mattayom 6).

So then a situation worse than at present would surely result in those few who having the power would be absolutely in charge and you know what absolute power is equal to........or maybe not I guess or you wouldn't have posted such a preposterous suggestion in the first place.

So then a situation worse than at present would surely result

Rubbish.

You would not get an ineptocracy with an educated electorate: you would NEVER get a puppet PM working on behalf of a self-exiled criminal, nor would you get an administration whose primary goal is to seek amnesty for said criminal.

Understand that democracy is not the be all and end all it's made out to be. When you have an uneducated electorate that's incapable of planning more than one day into the future (and in many cases can't even locate Thailand on a map), democracy will fail.

There was a guy on this forum a while back who used to believe that the best way forward for Thailand would be for a benign dictator to take charge. This is something I agree with.

Rubbish or not.

Since when did academic achievement go hand in glove with morality, altruism or in fact democracy?

Once again your political immaturity shines out from your Jai Dee in your idealistic belief in a singular solution that smacks of vested interest and elitism, exactly the cause of the present predicament in my opinion

Haven’t you noticed that the main reason for the present onerous state of affairs is because those who haven’t enjoyed the luxury of education equate "education" with wealth and position are now protesting that it is time that they had their share of the spoils that those who have had an education do not wish to share with them.

Further and in any event those that are academically qualified in the LOS may well have bought those academic credentials or possibly their parents did making most of academic achievement by perhaps the majority of graduates suspect to say the least.

My last paragraph seems to negate any point that you are making with regard to the “Educated” or their desire to make Thailand an even playing field eh?

Edit

Whilst I disagree with Casualposter and his simplistic answer to the woes of Thailand it needs saying that education is of course the answer but not from the "educated "of an elitist and secular part of the community looking after their own ends.

Or in other words where are these "educated" that are going to change the face of Thai politics coming from?

Edited by n210mp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is finally something interesting.

I have basically three points I would like to make;

1) People need to be educated or at least understand how government works to be able to cast a vote. Otherwise they would vote for the party or individual who deceives them most with unrealistic promises.

2) There is a need of checks and balances. Someone needs to look over the elected government and ensure that they stay conform to constitution and laws. This is typically achieved by constitution courts. Even in western countries constitution courts find some government decisions unconstitutional at times and force them to revise.

3) change of constitution should require more than a 51% Majority of voters

Some other notes that puzzle me here in LOS; politicians are not the experts in their field of work. Best example is the flood management. Why not just leave it to people who know and limit yourself to the general direction giving.I e. Any physics Student would have known that boats anchored in a river with propellers running do not increase the water flow...

And also this constant reshuffle of ministers, how can one get a grip on things.

Finally not more than let's say two family members should be in government. What is the likelihood that the nation's bright minds are all cousins?

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hi, Stefan.

I commend you for good wishes, but tell me (just being curious)

1) where do you get these 'educated' people from? not from current educators...

1a) before you educate the educators who in turn will educate the voters, who, how and in which direction will steer the country?

1b) the 'deception' you mention does take place as we speak in the West, East and dead Centre. Any quality (say, education) is relative. The better educated will take advantage of less educated...

2) constitutional courts are made of Judges, in other words people. They cannot be trusted. So who will supervise the supervisors?

3) and here is a clincher - constitution is written by people. It can be revised and as you mentioned one needs only 51% MAJORITY. In other words - organised mob of fools!

Afraid we are back to square one...

But you are right - it does get curiouser and curiouser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Policy In General Regarding Thailand Election/Political Discussions
As a result of the great increase in posts about politics in Thailand, we are requesting that members keep political discussion confined to threads already open in the Thailand News Forum.
Non-political topics in General which are hijacked with political arguments will see posts removed without further notice.

Members who cannot comply with our request will risk a posting suspension.

And let's not forget NO discussion of the Monarchy in a political context. An immediate ban is possible.

Link to forum rules regarding the Monarchy: Here

Thanks for your understanding and participation on Thaivisa.

Thaivisa moderating team

Closed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.







×
×
  • Create New...