Thai opinion: Democracy's fine, if it advertises less

[webfact]

STOPPAGE TIME
Democracy's fine, if it advertises less
Tulsathit Taptim

BANGKOK: -- If dictatorship is a forced marriage, democracy is an advertisement-based relationship. You woo the girl with promises and hope they beat those of your opponents. It's as simple as that. Which is why a few political reform ideas being floated at the moment don't seem too bad. Well, the more we can discourage politicians over-advertising themselves, the better.

The first idea calls for political parties to tell voters beforehand who will be in the Cabinet and in what position. This is an upgrade of the "party list" concept, in which voters are merely given hints about who will be prime minister and who may be in the government. The party list doesn't specifically tell you who will be the education minister, for instance, leaving you helpless if an alleged child abuser shows up for the job.

Let's stick with the relationship analogy. The new idea will require the boyfriend to take the girl to meet his parents, important relatives and all the friends he hangs out with. He can no longer say "my family's great and my friends are swell", then hide them from her and turn out to be a psychopath loner or drug peddlers' best pal afterwards.

Another idea would oblige political parties to give details on how they will find money for, say, a noble plan to give each Thai district a soccer stadium. In other words, the boyfriend can no longer just say, "I'll build you a big house with a bathtub that will make princesses green with envy and a wardrobe that supermodels would die for." He will also have to tell her what kind of loan he will seek, which bank he will go to, how he will repay the debts, and why the plan will not affect their future child's education.

Those advocating this idea insist they aren't against "populist" policies - they just want "populist" promises to be made in a totally responsible manner. If they have their way, political parties won't be bound merely by "what" election promises they make, but also by "how" they are going to fulfil them.

You may argue that in a romance, dreams and dreamers are all that count. And is it fair to compare democracy to a romance but take out romance's most crucial elements? As you can see, this is not about the boy. It's about the girl, the voters. Moreover, there's a fine line between romantic pledges and blatant lies.

Changes are always resisted, and a lot of reasons will be used to attack radical reform ideas. The first one, for example, may be described as impractical or unfair to small parties. The second idea, again, may be deemed too dependent on fiscal and financial vagaries to be effectively implemented. What if tax revenues suddenly plunge and a budget turmoil erupts, killing a truly worthy election promise? Critics will certainly ask these kinds of questions.

Reasonable flexibility is what we need. Both ideas promote honesty right back to the days of election campaigns, which means we apply solid principles from the beginning. It's up to the reformers to tweak the measures and add exceptions here and there to ensure fairness and prevent unscrupulous faultfinders from taking advantage of innocent shortcomings.

The bottom line is that if it takes a prime minister just two weeks to form a Cabinet after an election, it shouldn't be too hard for a political party to nominate a "Cabinet-in-waiting" with all the time that it has beforehand. And if the party in government can tell Parliament three weeks after an election how to implement a policy, shouldn't it have been able to tell voters beforehand how it would fund a drastically ambitious project?

The old system may have favoured dream merchants. The new one should make them do some more homework. It's consumer protection at the highest national level, so to speak. If they can ban over-advertising for beverages or insurance services, politicians, of all people, must not be allowed to promise everything under the sun.

What if the girl still falls for the "Mr Wrong" no matter what? Sometimes, romance is all about making foolish choices, isn't it? The answer is, it's okay, as long as everyone puts everything on the table. More importantly, if the wrong guy puts everything on the table, he basically wears his heart on his sleeve and thus stops being wrong. In effect, he starts being honest.

Honesty and accountability are what we should be aiming for, after all.

And make no mistake, the ideas can't slam the door shut on Mr Wrong. He could just win her heart on his looks only. He could take her to his poor parents and alcoholic friends, keep silent about his plans, but sweep her off her feet anyhow. Again, that's totally fine. At least the girl is neither forced to marry nor helplessly manipulated. She will still do what her heart tells her, but let's just say that more truthful information will enable her head to play a bigger role in the decision.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Democracys-fine-if-it-advertises-less-30246417.html


-- The Nation 2014-10-29

[noitom]

This Thai tripe writing dreamer is pontificating about democracy, leadership and government by comparing "wooing of a girl." How preposterous. What a ludicrous illustration of Thai editorial opinion. No mention of vision, passion, charisma, decisiveness, leadership, sense of purpose. Things Thais never consider as having value.

[tbthailand]

If dictatorship is a forced marriage, democracy is an advertisement-based relationship. You woo the girl with promises and hope they beat those of your opponents. It's as simple as that.

no, it is not as simple as that, but dear tulsathit, you are a true anti-democrat so we don't expect you to understand it or have any ability to talk intelligently about it.

With your second paragraph already, you already make a fool of yourself:

The party list doesn't specifically tell you who will be the education minister, for instance, leaving you helpless if an alleged child abuser shows up for the job.

Really, tulsathit, get a grip and at least pretend that you work for a newspaper.

[tbthailand]

This Thai tripe writing dreamer is pontificating about democracy, leadership and government by comparing "wooing of a girl." How preposterous. What a ludicrous illustration of Thai editorial opinion. No mention of vision, passion, charisma, decisiveness, leadership, sense of purpose. Things Thais never consider as having value.

tulsathit is a dweebie yellow/royalist/anti-democratic goof-ball and always has been.

[harrry]

Now just wait till Tulsathit gets his head around "Core" and "Non Core" political promises.

[chainarong]

What you first have to understand is Democracy, it takes hundred of years to develop democracy, not a set of reforms instituted by people who have never been under any form of democratic Government and within democracy there are standards which some in Thailand would not like introduced, hence the reinvention of Thai Democracy.

[selftaopath]

We might all agree that being part of a Democracy suggests being personally and collectively responsible. From what I've seen this does not exist in Lack of Sanctions (LOS) at any level.

[Orac]

A couple of badly thought out suggestions together with a load of ridiculous waffle and silly analogies.

If ministers are named before elections does this mean they can't be changed afterwards. What if the don't perform, are impeached, resign or die - do we have to have a new election?

As the article does acknowledge, it would effectively destroy small parties and coalition government since small parties would not be able to have ministers. Small parties would end up merging into larger parties and become factions inside them - Sound familiar??

With regards to parties making clear how they are going to finance their promises then when not get the press to do their job properly and provide the scrutiny needed.

[phantomfiddler]

Democracy is fine, unless it is abused, and unfortunately this is becoming the case to unmanageable levels. Give the poor (and the people who don,t want to work) free handouts in return for their vote to keep you in power. Great theory, and highly effective, until you run out of other people,s money. Could easily be solved by only allowing people who are gainfully employed to vote

[h90]

At the first sentence my nonsense-o-meter went into red. Did I miss something by not reading the rest of it?

[Lupatria]

In my h.o. the Thai opinion goes more in this direction:

Democracy is fine- as long as I benefit from it and others take responsibilities and the burden it comes with.

[Eric Loh]

I rather be in a relationship than a forced marriage. I can opt out of an relationship (election) but can't in a forced marriage (junta). Anyway Khun Tulsathit should be bold enough to declare that he hate democracy much in line with his campariot Senator Paiboon declaring that he hate election.

[Thai at Heart]

Tulsatit pulls another steaming pile of nonsense from the hat instead of a rabbit

[rickirs]

"In democracy one can dare to dream. In a dictaorship one can only dream to dare." - Rickirs