Thai interview: Reforms 'could create another monopoly of power'

[webfact]

INTERVIEW
Reforms 'could create another monopoly of power'

BANGKOK: -- Chulalongkorn University political scientist Siripan Nogsuan Sawasdee, an expert on elections and democracy, talks to The Nation's Pravit Rojanaphruk about her hopes and trepidation about democracy and political reform in Thailand. Excerpts:

What do you expect from the current junta-driven political reform process by the junta-appointed National Reform Council (NRC)?

If we look at military coup-initiated political reform, experiences around the world have shown it to be a failure. Some countries have used a military coup as a breakthrough, however, but reform needs to be repeated.

Judging from the composition of the NRC, this particular reform bid has not incorporated partners from the political conflict or even people in the middle ground, however.

The second point is that Thailand has no common goal as to what direction the country should take.

What is needed is a consensus. However, the process seems to be dominated by one political side with no mass participation.

This risks undermining its own legitimacy.

It appears that the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) already has its own road map, although what we need is to achieve a social contract through a deliberative process.

What are the best and worst case scenarios for the current reform process?

The best-case scenario is that the reform would succeed in strengthening checks and balances and reduce political monopolisation. This would be a miracle.

The worst-case scenario is that it would end up creating political monopolisation by another group and there would not be any checks and balances. Under this latter scenario, Thailand would be trapped in a cycle of military coups and in developing country reforms.

What's your view on the idea of allowing an outsider to become prime minister?

The talk about allowing an outsider to become prime minister reflects the inconsistency of political reform. When political reform began in the aftermath of the May 1992 uprising, the most important issue was to prevent an outsider from becoming prime minister and to increase the power elected body. Even the 2007 [junta-sponsored] charter dared not do away with this, but if it is to be reversed this time it would be tantamount to a slap in the face of the people and symbolic of an attempt to preserve the pre-1992 status quo.

If this is to be realised, it would take a long time for Thailand to become a democracy and we would return to a half-democratic system of the 1980s.

How difficult is it to teach your students and communicate to the public about the importance of elections and democracy?

What I was surprised with was that many of my freshmen students say democracy breeds social disparity and corruption. The view that democracy is not equivalent to elections also devalues democracy itself.

Democracy is certainly not just about elections, but how can we have democracy without elections? Election is a necessary factor.

What's important is that these people are middle class, well-to-do, educated and influential. When we consider this, we can't forge a common democratic goal.

In order to reform and democratise, we need to have a consensus that we won't resort to other political systems and will resolve problems within the democratic boundaries. But people devalue democracy when they say the goal can be to have an unelected body or an authoritarian system. The problem is that they never learn that military coups cannot solve problems.

The other side of the coin is that there're people who believe people who are elected can do anything, or see elections as a panacea for everything.

There're still a good number of people who think poor and less educated Thais are either foolish or corrupted as they sell votes or are manipulated by politicians, thus the election is always fraudulent.

These people haven't managed to overcome their illusion that vote-buying is the decisive factor in elections. A number of academic studies have revealed that vote- buying is no longer the decisive factor in determining election outcome. No academic is denying that it still exists though.

What we discover is that local level elections tend to be most involved with vote-buying as voters have no other external reason to differentiate between candidates. At national elections, vote-buying has reduced drastically, however, because people have reasons to make deliberate decisions.

The problem with reformers who want to reduce the number of elected MPs and elections is that these members of the [junta-appointed] National Reform Council can't explain whom and which group in society an unelected body represents. History has shown that elections are not flawless but there's nothing better.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Reforms-could-create-another-monopoly-of-power-30246298.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-27

[englishoak]

The problem with reformers here is they understand the word reform about as well as they do democracy...............

[BSJ]

The problem with reformers here is they understand the word reform about as well as they do democracy...............

I got no argument to that! Pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

[StefanBBK]

A politician who sticks to facts and figures and refrains from promises that are impossible to keep (finance) becomes unelectable anywhere in the world.

Most people are more concerned with the price of Rice and gas, than political progress.

Just me thinking....

[aussieinthailand]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

As for reforms created by the selected few to benefit the select few same as before, it will be enforced then elections and new legislation will be put into place

so when these people wake up and see what the majority of people want is an end to corruption and fully transparent government this starts from the top to the bottom and REAL ACCOUNTABILLITY.

And the statement that there are still a good number of people who think that the poor and less educated are foolish as they sell their votes, talk about a sanitized version of the extreme views that some people have which has on occasion been voiced very publicly by some hi-so's, even to the extreme point as calling for executions of the poor uneducated northerners.

But wait a second, didn't the tax payers just pay for a lovely European holiday (with Scotland thrown on) for a bunch of EC guy's to learn all about elections, democracy, and how it all works so they can enlighten us with their new found wisdom and fix this broken mess up once n for all

[NongKhaiKid]

The problem with the monopoly of power is that those who can control the' monopoly ' game don't like / want change as it's not in their interests.

This attitude isn't confined to Thailand and forgive me for going slightly off topic but look at the prevailing attitude in Hong Kong which isn't too far removed from the views here. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong, a Beijing puppet, said last week that poor people shouldn't he trusted with the vote and he suggested a minimum of HK$14,000 ( approx Bt 56,000 ) although salaries and cost of living cannot be compared with LoS.

[NongKhaiKid]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

As for reforms created by the selected few to benefit the select few same as before, it will be enforced then elections and new legislation will be put into place

so when these people wake up and see what the majority of people want is an end to corruption and fully transparent government this starts from the top to the bottom and REAL ACCOUNTABILLITY.

And the statement that there are still a good number of people who think that the poor and less educated are foolish as they sell their votes, talk about a sanitized version of the extreme views that some people have which has on occasion been voiced very publicly by some hi-so's, even to the extreme point as calling for executions of the poor uneducated northerners.

But wait a second, didn't the tax payers just pay for a lovely European holiday (with Scotland thrown on) for a bunch of EC guy's to learn all about elections, democracy, and how it all works so they can enlighten us with their new found wisdom and fix this broken mess up once n for all

Tut Tut, now go and wash your mouth out !

Where did you learn such bad words as ' transparency and accountability ' ?

[chainarong]

All this has for some time had the hallmarks of reforms for who , when you talk of reforms is it a new set of rules that prevent certain individuals entering the arena or is it a set of clear concise rules that apply for everybody , that is what is required and rules I might add that prevent military coups every seven years, but unless the military are prepared to give ground that will never become a reality, so in due course what reforms???

[rubl]

"The best-case scenario is that the reform would succeed in strengthening checks and balances and reduce political monopolisation. This would be a miracle."

Normally one doesn't expect such pragmatic realisations in academics. Unfortunately the lady is right. For the most part because humans are involved..

[Commerce]

There is no such thing as Western-style 'democracy' in Asia - never has been, never will be. Asian society does not place a value on the individual as an individual, and the concepts of objective truth, unbiased justice, and equality of opportunity do not exist in Asian culture.

Japan and the RoK merely hide the neo-feudal underpinnings of their societies better than countries like Thailand, largely due to long-term, continuous exposure to Westerners due to occupation/garrisoning. Although the mask does slip from time to time (i.e., the recent RoK push against online 'rumors' and criticism of the RoK president).

'Democracy' in Asia is intended to extract trade concessions and defense pacts from gullible Western liberals, and to provide a fig-leaf for the cynical ones, nothing more. Only Westernized Asian academics and a few political radicals advocate actual 'democracy' (or other genuinely representational models, like republics; republics are far more stable and desirable than democracies) in Asian societies.

Dead on! There is, so far, no middle ground between individualistic and collectivistic societies, the latter of which Thailand is one (as is most of Asia).

What is democratic in the West, when it comes to individual choices and applicable containment of such choices (i.e. Laws), in no way applies to the East, where family comes first, at all costs.

The monopoly game is well underway, and the Junta already has Pall Mall. When it gets 'advance to Mayfair' to complete the most expensive set, it will soon start charging high stakes if you step on its toes...

[longway]

People use the word democracy alot, but no-one actually bothers to define what it is. Perhaps what is needed is to define democracy first and then create reforms to meet that definition.

[rickirs]

Sawasdee sounds like the right kind of person who should be in the NRC and on the Constitutional Committee. But I can't see the NCPO appointing such an enlightened and independent person to either groups. Nor do I believe that Sawasdee would want such positions by knowing he would be a minnow among the sharks.

[lomatopo]

For the NCPO/PDRC/CDC/NLA/RTA/Democratic party and their sponsors, the Amart, reforms mean turning the clock back to a simpler time, say 1805, when Good People enjoyed the rewards of their birthright, and the majority of the populace was satisfied with a sufficiency existence.

[55Jay]

This is what certain TVF members were saying all along.

[cocopops]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

That's a controversial statement. It's difficult to say exactly what Socrates himself thought about anything. Plato had him as opposing the idea of appointed philosophizer-kings, which might indicate a preference for something more egalitarian. As for Plato himself - although he said democracy was better than tyranny - spent a fair bit of time on the shortcomings of democracy. But what can we really read into that? Plato was pissed because democracy had just executed Socrates, and the only way we know what Socrates might have thought is via Plato.

One interesting thing about Greek democracy is that literally none of the ancients write positively about it. Of course, that might have more to do with who is doing the writing than anything else...

[aussieinthailand]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

That's a controversial statement. It's difficult to say exactly what Socrates himself thought about anything. Plato had him as opposing the idea of appointed philosophizer-kings, which might indicate a preference for something more egalitarian. As for Plato himself - although he said democracy was better than tyranny - spent a fair bit of time on the shortcomings of democracy. But what can we really read into that? Plato was pissed because democracy had just executed Socrates, and the only way we know what Socrates might have thought is via Plato.

One interesting thing about Greek democracy is that literally none of the ancients write positively about it. Of course, that might have more to do with who is doing the writing than anything else...

Controversial it maybe but as Socrates didn't write to much down it's difficult to prove exactly what he thought only that others recorded his thoughts and idea's, As for "democracy had just executed Socrates" I think that is more controversial statement, as I believe it was people in power that he pissed off had him executed. and not democracy. But then he did like the idea of ethics something politicians have a hard time with here in my view, hmmm democracy hasn't come to fat in the last 2400 years or so. anyone for a cup of hemlock?

[Fat Haggis]

Surprised Ginjag hasn't been all over this article claiming it's all lies and Ill written ?

[Acharn]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

As for reforms created by the selected few to benefit the select few same as before, it will be enforced then elections and new legislation will be put into place

so when these people wake up and see what the majority of people want is an end to corruption and fully transparent government this starts from the top to the bottom and REAL ACCOUNTABILLITY.

And the statement that there are still a good number of people who think that the poor and less educated are foolish as they sell their votes, talk about a sanitized version of the extreme views that some people have which has on occasion been voiced very publicly by some hi-so's, even to the extreme point as calling for executions of the poor uneducated northerners.

But wait a second, didn't the tax payers just pay for a lovely European holiday (with Scotland thrown on) for a bunch of EC guy's to learn all about elections, democracy, and how it all works so they can enlighten us with their new found wisdom and fix this broken mess up once n for all

Funny, I thought Plato's solution was to select the children of genius parents, isolate them from society, train them in logical thought until they were grown, and then impose them as "philosopher kings" on the unprotesting populace. Kind of like what I understand the Thai elite propose, except they call them "good people" rather than "philosopher kings." Of course they're thinking of themselves and their friends as the "good people" and everyone else as unworthy.

[heybruce]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

As for reforms created by the selected few to benefit the select few same as before, it will be enforced then elections and new legislation will be put into place

so when these people wake up and see what the majority of people want is an end to corruption and fully transparent government this starts from the top to the bottom and REAL ACCOUNTABILLITY.

And the statement that there are still a good number of people who think that the poor and less educated are foolish as they sell their votes, talk about a sanitized version of the extreme views that some people have which has on occasion been voiced very publicly by some hi-so's, even to the extreme point as calling for executions of the poor uneducated northerners.

But wait a second, didn't the tax payers just pay for a lovely European holiday (with Scotland thrown on) for a bunch of EC guy's to learn all about elections, democracy, and how it all works so they can enlighten us with their new found wisdom and fix this broken mess up once n for all

Funny, I thought Plato's solution was to select the children of genius parents, isolate them from society, train them in logical thought until they were grown, and then impose them as "philosopher kings" on the unprotesting populace. Kind of like what I understand the Thai elite propose, except they call them "good people" rather than "philosopher kings." Of course they're thinking of themselves and their friends as the "good people" and everyone else as unworthy.

So are these the children of the elite being groomed to lead the nation http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/721086-future-leaders-ferrari-driving-rich-thai-kids-make-fools-of-themselves-in-vice-video/?hl=%2Brich? The description "good people" is not the one that comes to mind.

[Fatty123]

Feel sorry for Thai academics. Particularly those involved in Political Science. They and their students need to watch their tongues at every step. Even the above article is a risky one by the author. A lot of 'Thaispeak' involved in this and many other statements from Thai Academics/authorities. Let's call a spade a spade.

Thainess: An excuse for doing what we want. We're Thai, what we are experiencing no other nation has ever experienced (like problems with democracy/political systems) so butt out! Guess what, Thailand? Most nations have been through many of your experiences too. Stop patronising us!

Good People: The elite. To hell with the poor!

Happiness: Smile, love me or I'll make you, goddamit!

Any more?

[Robespiere]

Fantastic interview that ends a few myths once and for all:

1. The current regime has no interest in finding common ground and uniting the country - it has only it's own best interests in mind with its reform process.

Judging from the composition of the NRC, this particular reform bid has not incorporated partners from the political conflict or even people in the middle ground, however.

2. The current regime lacks mass support which is why it has excluded the masses from the reform process.

What is needed is a consensus. However, the process seems to be dominated by one political side with no mass participation.

3. The current regime is not concerned about stopping corruption and in fact looks to be setting up a system with less checks and balances. What they care about is WHO gets to exploit the system. Their reforms are aimed at creating a system that they, and only they can use to rip off the nation unquestioned (just like the good old days).

The worst-case scenario is that it would end up creating political monopolisation by another group and there would not be any checks and balances. Under this latter scenario, Thailand would be trapped in a cycle of military coups and in developing country reforms.

4. The current regimes goal is to ensure democracy never takes hold in Thailand because it would spell their demise. So intent are they of achieving this goal that they are contradicting their own former selves.

The talk about allowing an outsider to become prime minister reflects the inconsistency of political reform......If this is to be realised, it would take a long time for Thailand to become a democracy and we would return to a half-democratic system of the 1980s.

5. The current regime's indoctrination of children through the education system has stepped up a gear. Young Thais are being taught a version of democracy unrecognisable to Westerners with the sole aim of the propaganda being to defame democracy and prevent its establishment in Thailand.

What I was surprised with was that many of my freshmen students say democracy breeds social disparity and corruption. The view that democracy is not equivalent to elections also devalues democracy itself. Democracy is certainly not just about elections, but how can we have democracy without elections? Election is a necessary factor.

6. The current regime has a very narrow supporter base, thus their extreme opposition to one man, one vote democracy.

What's important is that these people are middle class, well-to-do, educated and influential. When we consider this, we can't forge a common democratic goal.

7. The biggest kick in the nuts for many a TVF yellow. Vote buying is, and always has been, a non issue in Thaksin's repeated electoral victories. Anyone claiming otherwise from here on in deserves to be disregarded as a wilfully blind, prejudicial, ignorant, bigoted, kool aid drinking, right wing fanatical yellow stooge.

These people haven't managed to overcome their illusion that vote-buying is the decisive factor in elections. A number of academic studies have revealed that vote- buying is no longer the decisive factor in determining election outcome. No academic is denying that it still exists though.
What we discover is that local level elections tend to be most involved with vote-buying as voters have no other external reason to differentiate between candidates. At national elections, vote-buying has reduced drastically, however, because people have reasons to make deliberate decisions.

[55Jay]

Fantastic interview that ends a few myths once and for all:

1. The current regime has no interest in finding common ground and uniting the country - it has only it's own best interests in mind with its reform process.

Judging from the composition of the NRC, this particular reform bid has not incorporated partners from the political conflict or even people in the middle ground, however.

2. The current regime lacks mass support which is why it has excluded the masses from the reform process.

What is needed is a consensus. However, the process seems to be dominated by one political side with no mass participation.

3. The current regime is not concerned about stopping corruption and in fact looks to be setting up a system with less checks and balances. What they care about is WHO gets to exploit the system. Their reforms are aimed at creating a system that they, and only they can use to rip off the nation unquestioned (just like the good old days).

The worst-case scenario is that it would end up creating political monopolisation by another group and there would not be any checks and balances. Under this latter scenario, Thailand would be trapped in a cycle of military coups and in developing country reforms.

4. The current regimes goal is to ensure democracy never takes hold in Thailand because it would spell their demise. So intent are they of achieving this goal that they are contradicting their own former selves.

The talk about allowing an outsider to become prime minister reflects the inconsistency of political reform......If this is to be realised, it would take a long time for Thailand to become a democracy and we would return to a half-democratic system of the 1980s.

5. The current regime's indoctrination of children through the education system has stepped up a gear. Young Thais are being taught a version of democracy unrecognisable to Westerners with the sole aim of the propaganda being to defame democracy and prevent its establishment in Thailand.

What I was surprised with was that many of my freshmen students say democracy breeds social disparity and corruption. The view that democracy is not equivalent to elections also devalues democracy itself. Democracy is certainly not just about elections, but how can we have democracy without elections? Election is a necessary factor.

6. The current regime has a very narrow supporter base, thus their extreme opposition to one man, one vote democracy.

What's important is that these people are middle class, well-to-do, educated and influential. When we consider this, we can't forge a common democratic goal.

7. The biggest kick in the nuts for many a TVF yellow. Vote buying is, and always has been, a non issue in Thaksin's repeated electoral victories. Anyone claiming otherwise from here on in deserves to be disregarded as a wilfully blind, prejudicial, ignorant, bigoted, kool aid drinking, right wing fanatical yellow stooge.

These people haven't managed to overcome their illusion that vote-buying is the decisive factor in elections. A number of academic studies have revealed that vote- buying is no longer the decisive factor in determining election outcome. No academic is denying that it still exists though.

What we discover is that local level elections tend to be most involved with vote-buying as voters have no other external reason to differentiate between candidates. At national elections, vote-buying has reduced drastically, however, because people have reasons to make deliberate decisions.

Interesting comments, thanks.

That last part about vote buying... not the universal answer, it can't be, there never is one, but at the village level, I think it's pretty close.

[aussieinthailand]

Socrates himself was not a fan of democracy, yet Plato did see the positives in it.

As for reforms created by the selected few to benefit the select few same as before, it will be enforced then elections and new legislation will be put into place

so when these people wake up and see what the majority of people want is an end to corruption and fully transparent government this starts from the top to the bottom and REAL ACCOUNTABILLITY.

And the statement that there are still a good number of people who think that the poor and less educated are foolish as they sell their votes, talk about a sanitized version of the extreme views that some people have which has on occasion been voiced very publicly by some hi-so's, even to the extreme point as calling for executions of the poor uneducated northerners.

But wait a second, didn't the tax payers just pay for a lovely European holiday (with Scotland thrown on) for a bunch of EC guy's to learn all about elections, democracy, and how it all works so they can enlighten us with their new found wisdom and fix this broken mess up once n for all

Funny, I thought Plato's solution was to select the children of genius parents, isolate them from society, train them in logical thought until they were grown, and then impose them as "philosopher kings" on the unprotesting populace. Kind of like what I understand the Thai elite propose, except they call them "good people" rather than "philosopher kings." Of course they're thinking of themselves and their friends as the "good people" and everyone else as unworthy.

your thoughts seem well rounded, and well read, I ask you this, did I not say Socrates was not a fan of democracy, and Plato saw positives in it???

Your first sentence, isn't that the very thing that Socrates was accused of??? corrupting the youth of Athens???? Funny I thought I was talking about Socratese, and democracry, my bad

[Acharn]

<snip>

So are these the children of the elite being groomed to lead the nation http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/721086-future-leaders-ferrari-driving-rich-thai-kids-make-fools-of-themselves-in-vice-video/?hl=%2Brich? The description "good people" is not the one that comes to mind.

Well, perhaps we don't see them as such, but that's how they refer to themselves -- and see themselves. It's like the people in the U.S. who believe the country should be controlled by the rich (it already is) because they are naturally superior, better educated, harder working, and self-disciplined. Remember that Phibulsongkhram, Sarit, Thanom, Prapass, Suchinda, whom I think of as military dictators, viewed themselves as striving to save the country and the people from grave dangers. They knew their intentions were good, so how could their actions not be good if they were properly understood?

[sawadee1947]

selected few are making new laws/reforms for selected few