What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

[heybruce]

"BTW apart from restrictions imposed on 'freedom of speech and gathering' ( to prevent rumour mongering, facebook lies and aggitation), what 'human rights' are willingly and knowingly violated?"

Freedom of press immediately comes to mind. A number of articles from the Economist have been blocked on the internet and corresponding issues not distributed in Thailand. I assume the same is true for other publications. The Thai press is sufficiently cowed to self-censor. Perhaps you think the editors of the Economist are a bunch of redshirt agitators intent on spreading lies and rumors.

In some circles it is considered a violation of human rights to hold people incommunicado without charges, and some people go so far as to consider elections and representative government a human right.

There may be other violations of human rights, but with the press censored it's difficult to know.

Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law. Furthermore at first the normal political shenanigans were tried, with facebook warriors having fun and so, which had to be stopped. Yes, on purpose I write 'had to be stopped'. With stabilisation some of those measures have been relaxed already and no doubt more relaxation will follow.

Now if only all that energy to 'fight' the NCPO would be put in helping the NRC and CDC to build a more solid base for democracy Thailand could be on it's way there within a year.

"Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law."

Right, all acceptable if you accept the need for a coup. Of course I'm of the opinion that what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence.

"what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence."

At last I agree with you, but in typical PTP fashion they made assumptions that they simply couldn't follow through on when chalerm stated "Those who are thinking of going and shutting polling stations in the morning should think twice because the police will not allow them to," . Seems that the PTP got it wrong………AGAIN.

Thank god the Right Honorable General Preyuth has taken the reigns then to allow "properly monitored elections free of violence" to happen next year.

Yeah, it's too bad the military wouldn't support the government and make it clear they would ensure the elections were held. Funny, they were willing to conduct a bloody street clearing crackdown in 2010 to support an unelected government calling for elections.

[heybruce]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I think reforms would have a much better chance of success if they were presented by elected leaders. Military governments, in Thailand and the rest of the world, have a poor history of eliminating corruption, economic stewardship, and of course democratic rule.

Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were.

It's in situations where for a long time nothing got really done that reforms are necessary. Such situation could have been created by a dictatorial government, an elected government, a dictatorship. The 1997 constitution may have been a step in the right direction, but it would seem some elected government only tried to get around a few parts or try to use them in their advantage, a situation made possible by the limited democracy in Thailand. Thaksin's attempts in 2006 to bring all under his control come to mind.

Military governments in Thailand may have a poor track record, but that doesn't mean this NCPO and NLA can't get the reforms set in motion through NRC and CDC. With real cooperation of all Thai reforms can be worked out, education programs set on the right path. People made aware of their own abilities.

What we'll have by the general elections in 2015 I don't know. Still the chances are still good even if history doesn't like it.

"Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were."

That is the key point: I'm not aware of any military government in history that has reduced corruption, they only change the beneficiaries. They also have a poor record on tolerating dissent and criticism, rights that are key to democracy.

The only examples of countries significantly reducing corruption that I am aware of came in democracies with freedom of press when the press reported on outrages and the voters demanded change. Even then it was a slow process, but at least it works.

I don't buy the 'quick-fixes' promised by a military junta. Clearly others do.

[heybruce]

I don't claim anything. I am just saying that the NRC has the task to formulate reforms with help from the Thai population and in such a way as to have those reforms acceptable by most Thais. If the NRC cannot complete their task they should say so and give reasons, to help improve and solve problems. While that is ongoing both NCPO and NLA will stay

So, in a way I'm saying that the Thai population should start to work together for Thailand and their own advancement. Democracy comes not only with rights but also with duties.

You are running from your own words. The people accept the reforms chosen by the NRC, or the NCPO remains in charge. That's a summary of what you wrote.

You are a bit obdurate, my dear chap.

I wrote that the NRC with help of the Thai people will try to formulate reforms. Those reforms should be acceptable by most Thai. If the NRC is unable to formulate reforms acceptable by most Thai, we obviously have a problem.

Simply 'drop reforms' wouldn't do, as that would mean return to chaos. So the NRC would need to formulate the disagreements, get a few experts together and come with an approach to bridge the disagreements. Then Thai should again be invited to provide input, to help discuss and formulate and so on.

As long as we have no reform program which is acceptable to most Thai, the NCPO and NLA have the duty to stay on to keep the countries affairs running.

Now if all this you want to interpret as "take it or leave it" you seem to be negative on purpose.

"As long as we have no reform program which is acceptable to most Thai, the NCPO and NLA have the duty to stay on to keep the countries affairs running."

Once again, you're saying that if the Thai people don't accept the NLA's reforms, the NCPO stays in power. You're trying to present this as a good thing. I don't see it as such.

[heybruce]

Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law. Furthermore at first the normal political shenanigans were tried, with facebook warriors having fun and so, which had to be stopped. Yes, on purpose I write 'had to be stopped'. With stabilisation some of those measures have been relaxed already and no doubt more relaxation will follow.

Now if only all that energy to 'fight' the NCPO would be put in helping the NRC and CDC to build a more solid base for democracy Thailand could be on it's way there within a year.

"Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law."

Right, all acceptable if you accept the need for a coup. Of course I'm of the opinion that what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence.

Your wish is my command. Please keep your agenda free for September, October 2015.

Mind you, if all THai co-operate as much as you seem to do, there may be a need for a temporary postponement.

Once again, history is not on your side. Junta's don't feel any need to step aside when the population is complacent and cooperative. Junta's step aside when staying in power is becoming difficult (after negotiating an exit that precludes them from being charged with anything and protects any assets they acquired while in power).

[tbthailand]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I think reforms would have a much better chance of success if they were presented by elected leaders. Military governments, in Thailand and the rest of the world, have a poor history of eliminating corruption, economic stewardship, and of course democratic rule.

Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were.

It's in situations where for a long time nothing got really done that reforms are necessary. Such situation could have been created by a dictatorial government, an elected government, a dictatorship. The 1997 constitution may have been a step in the right direction, but it would seem some elected government only tried to get around a few parts or try to use them in their advantage, a situation made possible by the limited democracy in Thailand. Thaksin's attempts in 2006 to bring all under his control come to mind.

Military governments in Thailand may have a poor track record, but that doesn't mean this NCPO and NLA can't get the reforms set in motion through NRC and CDC. With real cooperation of all Thai reforms can be worked out, education programs set on the right path. People made aware of their own abilities.

What we'll have by the general elections in 2015 I don't know. Still the chances are still good even if history doesn't like it.

"Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were."

That is the key point: I'm not aware of any military government in history that has reduced corruption, they only change the beneficiaries. They also have a poor record on tolerating dissent and criticism, rights that are key to democracy.

The only examples of countries significantly reducing corruption that I am aware of came in democracies with freedom of press when the press reported on outrages and the voters demanded change. Even then it was a slow process, but at least it works.

I don't buy the 'quick-fixes' promised by a military junta. Clearly others do.

you may not buy the quick fixes if like me you do not feel that democracy is the goal of this general and this junta.

did he not even just say that people should stop all opposition to the NCPO and to stop calling for democracy and elections?

is he not the same general involved in 2006, 2009, and 2010?

Aren't the NLA and NRC hand-picked by the general himself?

Isn't he simultaneously Commander of the armed forces, Head of the Junta, and Prime Minister?

Isn't this recent 'return to civilian rule' just a poorly executed illusion?

prediction:

If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years.

[Thai at Heart]

I would also like a democracy which isn't constantly threatened by corrupt politicians or businessmen. A democracy which doesn't need the military to stop a stepped down ex-PM from corrupting parliament, senate, courts and institutions. A democracy which doesn't need to stop a clone PM who is controlled by a criminal fugitive abroad.

Maybe we have a chance now, assuming Thais can unite in reforms rathers than continuing the political bickering.

I think reforms would have a much better chance of success if they were presented by elected leaders. Military governments, in Thailand and the rest of the world, have a poor history of eliminating corruption, economic stewardship, and of course democratic rule.

Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were.

It's in situations where for a long time nothing got really done that reforms are necessary. Such situation could have been created by a dictatorial government, an elected government, a dictatorship. The 1997 constitution may have been a step in the right direction, but it would seem some elected government only tried to get around a few parts or try to use them in their advantage, a situation made possible by the limited democracy in Thailand. Thaksin's attempts in 2006 to bring all under his control come to mind.

Military governments in Thailand may have a poor track record, but that doesn't mean this NCPO and NLA can't get the reforms set in motion through NRC and CDC. With real cooperation of all Thai reforms can be worked out, education programs set on the right path. People made aware of their own abilities.

What we'll have by the general elections in 2015 I don't know. Still the chances are still good even if history doesn't like it.

Issue is, that the politicians themselves are so universally scaly that they will never propose anything that rains on their parade.

No one in Thailand enters politics to serve the country.

[MaxLee]

In short Thai style democracy is "Election-Collection copied and pasted from the West to Thailand's majority victims"

[rubl]

Issue is, that the politicians themselves are so universally scaly that they will never propose anything that rains on their parade.

No one in Thailand enters politics to serve the country.

I guess that's one reason why the NCPO selected the NLA to make sure there would be no political bickering in the day-to-day activities. Also anyone involved in the reforms may not run for office for three or five years. That may explain the luckwarm applications for an NRC seat.

[rubl]

"Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were."

That is the key point: I'm not aware of any military government in history that has reduced corruption, they only change the beneficiaries. They also have a poor record on tolerating dissent and criticism, rights that are key to democracy.

The only examples of countries significantly reducing corruption that I am aware of came in democracies with freedom of press when the press reported on outrages and the voters demanded change. Even then it was a slow process, but at least it works.

I don't buy the 'quick-fixes' promised by a military junta. Clearly others do.

you may not buy the quick fixes if like me you do not feel that democracy is the goal of this general and this junta.

did he not even just say that people should stop all opposition to the NCPO and to stop calling for democracy and elections?

is he not the same general involved in 2006, 2009, and 2010?

Aren't the NLA and NRC hand-picked by the general himself?

Isn't he simultaneously Commander of the armed forces, Head of the Junta, and Prime Minister?

Isn't this recent 'return to civilian rule' just a poorly executed illusion?

prediction:

If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years.

It's awfully nice of TB to have replied on this. Now I can do two at the time

For Brucy it's I don't believe in progress, for TB distortion of facts.

The negative attitude of Brucy with the constant 'history teaches us' seems to concentrate on negatives while ignoring positives. Furthermore if Thailand with it's failed democracy was left to the politicians and other corrupt figures the Thai would still be struggling for a few generations. Now they have a chance to make it work.

As for TB, well, 2006 had gen. Sonthi as coup leader, the general turned politician who's (small) party became coalition partner in the Yingluck government and as the only MP of that party voted for his own amnesty again.

As for handpicked NCPO and NLA by the general himself, probably just as handpicked as Ms. Yinglucks cabinet members, selected on knowledge, capabilities, suitability and so.

The NRC team was selected by the NCPO, but you need some good people to run such enormous task. Further members are selected from the applicants. At least those in function must not be under restrictions as listed in the constitution.

As for quick fixes, well in another topic Thanet asked why the junta didn't do something about education. Since he's Thai, it would seem Thai think differently about this. I have no problem for the NRC to have one year to formulate reforms in such a form as to be acceptable by most Thais.

Finally your predictions, well, I stick to my octopus.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

"Now your talking. Indeed a few more items' against human rights.

Mind you that's on par with Martial Law."

Right, all acceptable if you accept the need for a coup. Of course I'm of the opinion that what Thailand needed, and still needs, is another properly monitored election that is free of violence.

Your wish is my command. Please keep your agenda free for September, October 2015.

Mind you, if all THai co-operate as much as you seem to do, there may be a need for a temporary postponement.

Once again, history is not on your side. Junta's don't feel any need to step aside when the population is complacent and cooperative. Junta's step aside when staying in power is becoming difficult (after negotiating an exit that precludes them from being charged with anything and protects any assets they acquired while in power).

If there's one thing history can teach us it's nothing is impossible. Unfortunately also nothing is durable.

This NCPO has clearly indicated to want elections in September/October 2015 timeframe. This NCPO tries to create the reforms and constitution to enable that, by setting up NRC and CD and involving the people, ask for input, etc.

As for the "protects any assets they acquired", you are defaming the junta by suggesting they will acquire assets while in power.

Edited August 24, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

You are a bit obdurate, my dear chap.

I wrote that the NRC with help of the Thai people will try to formulate reforms. Those reforms should be acceptable by most Thai. If the NRC is unable to formulate reforms acceptable by most Thai, we obviously have a problem.

Simply 'drop reforms' wouldn't do, as that would mean return to chaos. So the NRC would need to formulate the disagreements, get a few experts together and come with an approach to bridge the disagreements. Then Thai should again be invited to provide input, to help discuss and formulate and so on.

As long as we have no reform program which is acceptable to most Thai, the NCPO and NLA have the duty to stay on to keep the countries affairs running.

Now if all this you want to interpret as "take it or leave it" you seem to be negative on purpose.

"As long as we have no reform program which is acceptable to most Thai, the NCPO and NLA have the duty to stay on to keep the countries affairs running."

Once again, you're saying that if the Thai people don't accept the NLA's reforms, the NCPO stays in power. You're trying to present this as a good thing. I don't see it as such.

You are the negative running around chap. I'm the more optimistic guy who hopes that Thai can agree on reforms acceptable by most.

If Thai cannot agree on that they seem to accept being ruled by those who will tell them.

Luckily you have no say in this. Neither do I by the way, but I'm willing to believe in the capabilities of the Thai population.

[Publicus]

...

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

When hell freezes over.

Greeting from Hell where one may type intelligent messages with eyes shut wide

[Publicus]

...

Grow up, rubl, and open your eyes.

When hell freezes over.

Greeting from Hell where one may type intelligent messages with eyes shut wide

[heybruce]

I think reforms would have a much better chance of success if they were presented by elected leaders. Military governments, in Thailand and the rest of the world, have a poor history of eliminating corruption, economic stewardship, and of course democratic rule.

Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were.

It's in situations where for a long time nothing got really done that reforms are necessary. Such situation could have been created by a dictatorial government, an elected government, a dictatorship. The 1997 constitution may have been a step in the right direction, but it would seem some elected government only tried to get around a few parts or try to use them in their advantage, a situation made possible by the limited democracy in Thailand. Thaksin's attempts in 2006 to bring all under his control come to mind.

Military governments in Thailand may have a poor track record, but that doesn't mean this NCPO and NLA can't get the reforms set in motion through NRC and CDC. With real cooperation of all Thai reforms can be worked out, education programs set on the right path. People made aware of their own abilities.

What we'll have by the general elections in 2015 I don't know. Still the chances are still good even if history doesn't like it.

"Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were."

That is the key point: I'm not aware of any military government in history that has reduced corruption, they only change the beneficiaries. They also have a poor record on tolerating dissent and criticism, rights that are key to democracy.

The only examples of countries significantly reducing corruption that I am aware of came in democracies with freedom of press when the press reported on outrages and the voters demanded change. Even then it was a slow process, but at least it works.

I don't buy the 'quick-fixes' promised by a military junta. Clearly others do.

you may not buy the quick fixes if like me you do not feel that democracy is the goal of this general and this junta.

did he not even just say that people should stop all opposition to the NCPO and to stop calling for democracy and elections?

is he not the same general involved in 2006, 2009, and 2010?

Aren't the NLA and NRC hand-picked by the general himself?

Isn't he simultaneously Commander of the armed forces, Head of the Junta, and Prime Minister?

Isn't this recent 'return to civilian rule' just a poorly executed illusion?

prediction:

If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years.

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position.

[rubl]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position.

The Democrats? As in Democrat party?

If you base the rest of your rant on this faulty assumption, you might save time by not ranting.

[heybruce]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position.

The Democrats? As in Democrat party?

If you base the rest of your rant on this faulty assumption, you might save time by not ranting.

Out of context and out of proportion, once again. Congratulations on you consistency.

My post was a reply to tbthailand's post, which ended with: "If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years." Hence my first paragraph, which addressed the subject of an unfair election. You could have easily included enough in your post to keep things in context, but again you chose not to.

The rest of the post clearly addresses the current junta and is based on a knowledge of current events and history. What part of it do you consider to be a rant?

[tbthailand]

Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were.

It's in situations where for a long time nothing got really done that reforms are necessary. Such situation could have been created by a dictatorial government, an elected government, a dictatorship. The 1997 constitution may have been a step in the right direction, but it would seem some elected government only tried to get around a few parts or try to use them in their advantage, a situation made possible by the limited democracy in Thailand. Thaksin's attempts in 2006 to bring all under his control come to mind.

Military governments in Thailand may have a poor track record, but that doesn't mean this NCPO and NLA can't get the reforms set in motion through NRC and CDC. With real cooperation of all Thai reforms can be worked out, education programs set on the right path. People made aware of their own abilities.

What we'll have by the general elections in 2015 I don't know. Still the chances are still good even if history doesn't like it.

"Indeed, reforms would probably have a much better chance of success if they were presented by a government in a democracy. Mind you, in a democracy reforms come in the form of gradual changes, evolution as it were."

That is the key point: I'm not aware of any military government in history that has reduced corruption, they only change the beneficiaries. They also have a poor record on tolerating dissent and criticism, rights that are key to democracy.

The only examples of countries significantly reducing corruption that I am aware of came in democracies with freedom of press when the press reported on outrages and the voters demanded change. Even then it was a slow process, but at least it works.

I don't buy the 'quick-fixes' promised by a military junta. Clearly others do.

you may not buy the quick fixes if like me you do not feel that democracy is the goal of this general and this junta.

did he not even just say that people should stop all opposition to the NCPO and to stop calling for democracy and elections?

is he not the same general involved in 2006, 2009, and 2010?

Aren't the NLA and NRC hand-picked by the general himself?

Isn't he simultaneously Commander of the armed forces, Head of the Junta, and Prime Minister?

Isn't this recent 'return to civilian rule' just a poorly executed illusion?

prediction:

If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years.

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position.

your option 1 is the 2007 constitution on steroids. But I still think that they will go farther this time and blatantly tip the playing field.

your option 2 is a very real possibility. writing today, I would give it odds between 30-40%. The thing is, it would be very easy for the junta to flip this switch. They hardly need to defend the choice should they make it, they have full control.

As for human rights and basic freedoms, I agree with you. Those "little items" have been sacrificed for other objectives.

[rubl]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position.

The Democrats? As in Democrat party?

If you base the rest of your rant on this faulty assumption, you might save time by not ranting.

Out of context and out of proportion, once again. Congratulations on you consistency.

My post was a reply to tbthailand's post, which ended with: "If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years." Hence my first paragraph, which addressed the subject of an unfair election. You could have easily included enough in your post to keep things in context, but again you chose not to.

The rest of the post clearly addresses the current junta and is based on a knowledge of current events and history. What part of it do you consider to be a rant?

So you reply on fear for elections and simply mention the democrats as 'out of context or proportion' example, just like using that Pheu Thai MP speaking in favour of a Lanna State, to condemn all of Pheu Thai?

Since you used the Democrats as vehicle to post your negative biased views with two outcomes you wouldn't like, you seem to rant out of proportion. IMHO.

[rubl]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

... ...

Which reminds me

"“Besides,” continued Tully, as if he had not heard her last remark, “I don’t like Communism. I don’t like to think that anyone’s my equal. Nobody is. I’m superior to a great number of people and inferior to others, and for that reason I’m not at all sure that I’m in favour of democracy either. It’s nonsense to have the vote of someone who only after enormous struggle achieves the ability to read, be the equal of the vote of another who can read in twenty-four languages, though reading is no criterion. I merely cite it as an example""

The Wrath of Grapes (aka The Mouse that Roared) - 1955 Leonard Wibberly

[heybruce]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position.

The Democrats? As in Democrat party?

If you base the rest of your rant on this faulty assumption, you might save time by not ranting.

Out of context and out of proportion, once again. Congratulations on you consistency.

My post was a reply to tbthailand's post, which ended with: "If and when there is a new constitution, and if and when there are new elections, the elections will be the least fair elections that Thailand has seen in over 20 years." Hence my first paragraph, which addressed the subject of an unfair election. You could have easily included enough in your post to keep things in context, but again you chose not to.

The rest of the post clearly addresses the current junta and is based on a knowledge of current events and history. What part of it do you consider to be a rant?

So you reply on fear for elections and simply mention the democrats as 'out of context or proportion' example, just like using that Pheu Thai MP speaking in favour of a Lanna State, to condemn all of Pheu Thai?

Since you used the Democrats as vehicle to post your negative biased views with two outcomes you wouldn't like, you seem to rant out of proportion. IMHO.

Throwing up diversions and dodging the post. Run rubl run. Here's the part of the post you are running from:

"I see two probably outcomes to this situation. I think the most likely outcome is that the junta will continue to buy popularity by continuing or implementing populace programs--subsidies for rice and rubber growers, loan forgiveness, continued tax cuts, big spending projects, etc. Before the bills for these policies and programs become due they will allow elections. Of course the elected officials will have little real power, but they will take the brunt of criticism when programs have to be scaled back and/or taxes raised. The military will stay behind the scenes ready to stage another coup if they are displeased. And if this leads to the continuance of the cycle of elections and coups, no doubt there will be people who will maintain that the problem is that the military didn't stay in power long enough.

A second, and much worse outcome, is that the military will decide to stay in power until everything 'fixed'. When spending becomes unsustainable the head man will buy support from powerful backers; either by giving them monopoly rights over critical segments of the economy (telecoms, electricity, cement, etc.) as was done in Pakistan and Egypt, or by simply allowing military commanders to run certain parts of the country for their benefit, as was done in the old Roman Empire and modern Myanmar. This is the road to ruin for Thailand, the more entrenched the military becomes in the economy the harder it will be to displace it, and the longer the military runs things the less prepared the Thai people will be for democracy when the military is finally displaced.

The first option is bad, the second option worse. I think the best solution for Thailand is to keep military rule as short as possible, which means the Thai people must achieve a balancing act of not giving the military an excuse for a crackdown and prolonged rule, but not giving them the impression that they are welcome to stay in charge as long as they like. I also believe, unlike many posters here, that freedom of speech, press, and assembly are essential to preparing the Thai people for real democracy, and to keep the military from becoming comfortable in their current position."

Explain what is wrong. Explain why you are running.

[heybruce]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

... ...

Which reminds me

"“Besides,” continued Tully, as if he had not heard her last remark, “I don’t like Communism. I don’t like to think that anyone’s my equal. Nobody is. I’m superior to a great number of people and inferior to others, and for that reason I’m not at all sure that I’m in favour of democracy either. It’s nonsense to have the vote of someone who only after enormous struggle achieves the ability to read, be the equal of the vote of another who can read in twenty-four languages, though reading is no criterion. I merely cite it as an example""

The Wrath of Grapes (aka The Mouse that Roared) - 1955 Leonard Wibberly

Is this an argument for only allowing the 'educated' to vote?

I have a Thai friend who is finishing her Masters Degree in Chemistry and is considering options for a PhD abroad, she is the daughter of a barely literate northern Thai woman who worked hard to put all three of her daughters through university. Do you think this woman should not be allowed to vote?

None of my grandparents finished high school, I have three university degrees and belong to two high IQ societies, and do not consider myself the equal of my grandparents who were denied opportunities they made available to me. Do you think my grandparents should have been denied the right to vote?

Are you presenting an argument for elitism that is both arrogant and ignorant?

[Thai at Heart]

Issue is, that the politicians themselves are so universally scaly that they will never propose anything that rains on their parade.

No one in Thailand enters politics to serve the country.

I guess that's one reason why the NCPO selected the NLA to make sure there would be no political bickering in the day-to-day activities. Also anyone involved in the reforms may not run for office for three or five years. That may explain the luckwarm applications for an NRC seat.

The ncpo thing might just work to be honest. All I know is that is these guys really wanted to serve the country. They would take a public oath, no elections for 5 years. And we are cleaning everyone's house. Ours and yours.

[Thai at Heart]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

... ...

Which reminds me

"Besides, continued Tully, as if he had not heard her last remark, I dont like Communism. I dont like to think that anyones my equal. Nobody is. Im superior to a great number of people and inferior to others, and for that reason Im not at all sure that Im in favour of democracy either. Its nonsense to have the vote of someone who only after enormous struggle achieves the ability to read, be the equal of the vote of another who can read in twenty-four languages, though reading is no criterion. I merely cite it as an example""

The Wrath of Grapes (aka The Mouse that Roared) - 1955 Leonard Wibberly

Is this an argument for only allowing the 'educated' to vote?

I have a Thai friend who is finishing her Masters Degree in Chemistry and is considering options for a PhD abroad, she is the daughter of a barely literate northern Thai woman who worked hard to put all three of her daughters through university. Do you think this woman should not be allowed to vote?

None of my grandparents finished high school, I have three university degrees and belong to two high IQ societies, and do not consider myself the equal of my grandparents who were denied opportunities they made available to me. Do you think my grandparents should have been denied the right to vote?

Are you presenting an argument for elitism that is both arrogant and ignorant?

The worst type of elitism is the one that is based on inheritance and descent.

[JAG]

What makes 'Thai-style democracy' globally palatable?

Perhaps it is hoped that the enthusiastic support of some expats who favour a military junta over an elected government will be sufficient?

Edited August 25, 2014 by JAG

[Robespiere]

Q. What makes Thai style democracy globally palatable?

A. Nothing - that's why it's not.

[Robespiere]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

... ...

Which reminds me

"Besides, continued Tully, as if he had not heard her last remark, I dont like Communism. I dont like to think that anyones my equal. Nobody is. Im superior to a great number of people and inferior to others, and for that reason Im not at all sure that Im in favour of democracy either. Its nonsense to have the vote of someone who only after enormous struggle achieves the ability to read, be the equal of the vote of another who can read in twenty-four languages, though reading is no criterion. I merely cite it as an example""

The Wrath of Grapes (aka The Mouse that Roared) - 1955 Leonard Wibberly

Is this an argument for only allowing the 'educated' to vote?

I have a Thai friend who is finishing her Masters Degree in Chemistry and is considering options for a PhD abroad, she is the daughter of a barely literate northern Thai woman who worked hard to put all three of her daughters through university. Do you think this woman should not be allowed to vote?

None of my grandparents finished high school, I have three university degrees and belong to two high IQ societies, and do not consider myself the equal of my grandparents who were denied opportunities they made available to me. Do you think my grandparents should have been denied the right to vote?

Are you presenting an argument for elitism that is both arrogant and ignorant?

The worst type of elitism is the one that is based on inheritance and descent.

Careful

[Eric Loh]

The Democrats have made no secret of the fact that they'd like to disenfranchise those they don't think are qualified to vote, meaning a great many of the Thai voters. I don't think the election will be that blatantly fixed. I think it will probably be a reasonably fair election, but the elected offices will have little real power under the constitution that is being written.

... ...

Which reminds me

"Besides, continued Tully, as if he had not heard her last remark, I dont like Communism. I dont like to think that anyones my equal. Nobody is. Im superior to a great number of people and inferior to others, and for that reason Im not at all sure that Im in favour of democracy either. Its nonsense to have the vote of someone who only after enormous struggle achieves the ability to read, be the equal of the vote of another who can read in twenty-four languages, though reading is no criterion. I merely cite it as an example""

The Wrath of Grapes (aka The Mouse that Roared) - 1955 Leonard Wibberly

Is this an argument for only allowing the 'educated' to vote?

I have a Thai friend who is finishing her Masters Degree in Chemistry and is considering options for a PhD abroad, she is the daughter of a barely literate northern Thai woman who worked hard to put all three of her daughters through university. Do you think this woman should not be allowed to vote?

None of my grandparents finished high school, I have three university degrees and belong to two high IQ societies, and do not consider myself the equal of my grandparents who were denied opportunities they made available to me. Do you think my grandparents should have been denied the right to vote?

Are you presenting an argument for elitism that is both arrogant and ignorant?

The worst type of elitism is the one that is based on inheritance and descent.

Also one that based on education as that do not equates to intelligence. No one should be denied the right to vote if they are eligible, period.

[tbthailand]

...

Also one that based on education as that do not equates to intelligence. No one should be denied the right to vote if they are eligible, period.

or denied the right to run for office if they are capable.

[lvr181]

Only an idiot believes that democracy is important. It's an irrelevance - and far too many in the west have fallen for the lie.

What makes it even more shameful is that most westerners have convinced themselves they live in democracies - an idiotic stance, embarrassing to behold.

The only thing that matters in any society is the rule of law.

if that is your definition of idiot, then call me 'stu-peey'

and proud of it.

I'll take democracy over the alternative any day of the week.

You've never lived in a democracy.

What is the proof of your assertion? Or is this just a meaningless or idiotic statement comment?

[Pattszero]

Only an idiot believes that democracy is important. It's an irrelevance - and far too many in the west have fallen for the lie.

What makes it even more shameful is that most westerners have convinced themselves they live in democracies - an idiotic stance, embarrassing to behold.

The only thing that matters in any society is the rule of law.

if that is your definition of idiot, then call me 'stu-peey'

and proud of it.

I'll take democracy over the alternative any day of the week.

You've never lived in a democracy.

What is the proof of your assertion? Or is this just a meaningless or idiotic statement comment?

It's a statement of fact - tell which democracy you have lived in.

The democracy lie is the greatest lie told to the masses.

Be careful of not making an idiot of yourself by replying something like the UK, or the USA - which are not democracies, and never have been.