Thai report: Curbing populism divides critics

[webfact]

SPECIAL REPORT
Curbing populism divides critics
KRIS BHROMSUTHI
THE NATION


Paiboon

Academics and reformers split on how to counter policies such as rice scheme

BANGKOK: -- Academics, politicians and reformers yesterday lashed out at the political reform proposal to regulate "populist" policies promoted by parties during election campaigns, saying such a measure was impractical and anti-democratic.

"I disagree with using the term 'populist' to regulate political party policies because it can create confusion during implementation," said Paiboon Nititawan, a former senator and NRC member for political reform.

Nipit Intarasombat, a former Democrat MP, said: "The proposal would mean reducing the power of political parties to a very limited role. What's the point then of having political parties? Why not just let public servants run the country?"

The junta administration has made it clear that it would slap controls on what policies political parties can offer during elections. It views "populist" policies as a threat to the economy and has suggested measures are needed to curb them.

Article 35 of the provisional charter of 2014 outlines a 10-point framework for a new permanent constitution, including creation of an "efficient mechanism for restructuring and driving an economic and social system for inclusive and sustainable growth and preventing populist administrations that may damage the national economic system and the public in the long run".

The political reform agenda proposed by the Office of the Permanent Secretary of Defence also states the need to "prevent populist policies being promoted in general elections".

The suggested measure includes regulation of policies by the Election Commission before parties can promote them in their general election campaigns.

Alternatively, parties will have to declare to the public how much their policy would exceed the four-year budget limit set by the EC and Finance Ministry.

Innovative populist policies - such as the landmark Bt30 healthcare plan, the Village Fund and a four-year debt moratorium for farmers - were unveiled by Thaksin Shinawatra when his Thai Rak Thai Party contested its first election in 2001 and was key to the party's victory, which opened the door for him to become prime minister.

The success of political parties later linked to Thaksin - People's Power and Pheu Thai - was largely attributed to their populist policies, which made them very popular with the rural poor. They swept all general elections since 2001.

However, some populist policies were criticised for imposing long-term adverse effects on government coffers and the economy and for using "the central budget to buy electoral votes".

The rice-pledging scheme, at the forefront of Pheu Thai's populist platform that helped it win the 2011 election, was condemned by critics for creating massive public debt and allegedly being riddle with corruption.

The NACC found that the rice scheme overseen by Yingluck Shinawatra government caused a loss to the state of more than Bt500 billion. This was mainly because the government bought rice at 40 per cent above the market price.

Paiboon and Attasit Pankeaw, a political scientist at Thammasat University, both agree that there is no universally accepted definition of a "populist" policy, so measures to curb such policies are likely to create confusion and uncertainty among the regulators and political parties.

Some politicians have attempted to come up with their own definitions, but they differ with one another.

Nipit, the former Democrat MP, said a populist policy is "a policy whose sole purpose is to win votes and can cause severe damage to the country".

Korkaew Pikulthong, a former Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader, said a populist policy is "a policy that is popular among the people".

However he observed that "the universal definition of a populist policy remains very obscure".

Anek Laothamatas, a prominent political scientist and NRC member for political reform, wrote in his book, "Thaksina-Prachani-yom", there are in total five different definitions. In Russia and the US, it means a social development plan that emphasises the people, usually the poor or farmers, for social change.

In Latin America, it refers to a policy that focuses on helping the poor, who in return become the support base of a strong and charismatic leader.

In Western countries it refers to political parties that are supported by the people who like their policies and political ideology.

It could also mean a developmental policy focusing on rural and agricultural areas. And finally "populist" could mean policies aimed mainly at the people, especially the poor.

The suggestion that an independent organisation or the Finance Ministry should screen policies promoted in a general election is not welcomed by academics and politicians.

"I do not agree with the proposal to have an independent organisation or the Ministry of Finance regulate political parties' policies during campaigning, because that means we look down on ordinary voters, that they cannot make a good judgement," Attasit said.

He referred to the democratic principle where political parties and the people should be free to make their own decisions. The former design policies and the latter vote for parties with policies they prefer.

A body to help voters decide?

However, academics or the EC or another independent organisation should present the facts of policies to the public, such as their effect on the budget, "in order to help people to make a rational decision".

"People should get to choose freely. If they make a bad choice then they should suffer, so they learn."

Nipit said the proposal to regulate policies before an election goes against democratic principles because it will shift policy-making power to public servants, rather than political parties supported by the people.

The democratic principle is that politicians should direct the country's administration, including policies, and public servants should implement them, he said.

Korkaew pointed to the lack of democratic legitimacy and credibility of independent organisation officials to regulate policies.

"Independent organisations should not intervene in political parties' policies during an election campaign. People do not trust independent organisations, and who are they to screen policies? In fact, they were the cause of many political conflicts in the past," he said.

Paiboon suggested that measures for regulating policies should be narrowed to budget discipline, while Korkaew said measures should be put in place to limit policy expenditure to within a certain percentage of GDP.

Somkiat Tangkitvanich, chairman of the TDRI, wrote in his research paper on a "Reform proposal to ease populism problems in democratic ways" that the election law could be amended to require political parties to declare the source of the budget that will be used to finance a policy project, for example, the type of tax or how they are taking out a loan.

Then voters become aware of the source of money, and responsibility is placed on political parties.

Once elected to government, there must be measures to prevent them from spending more than the declared budget.

Attawit Suwanpakdee, a former Democrat MP for Bangkok, suggested the passing of a fiscal disciplinary bill that requires political parties to project estimated government income, and whether the cost of populist projects would exceed the budget ceiling.

He stressed that there must be a "financial" income projection rather than an "economic" income projection, as the former had proved to be a more accurate gauge of budget income.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/politics/Curbing-populism-divides-critics-30246817.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-03

[mrjohndub]

What right should the Election Commission have to approve the Budget?

Anything can be deemed populist. The insane amount of money spent on the glorification of Mr. Rogers could be seen as wasteful, but only existing to please the public.

[Boxclever]

Only the Junta can implement populist policies like; rice farmer subsidies, mega infrastructure projects, rubber subsidies, free land for the poor....

[WitawatWatawit]

Only by properly educating voters can you keep the excesses of political parties in check. Sadly, that seems unlikely any time soon as instilling knowledge and communicating balanced opinions are extremely difficult in the Thai context. Some of the commentators above say civil servants cannot be allowed to judge political policies, and this is oh so true, but they can play a role in ensuring the media and civic response arms of government are protected from interference from political parties. That would help to prevent a lot of the kind of communication/civic manipulation that we have seen in the past to benefit the strongest parties. Otherwise it's business as usual - the rape and pillage of the coffers.

[RustBucket]

Korkaew Pikulthong, a former Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader, said a populist policy is "a policy that is popular among the people".

Serious?

How the hell did this idiot ever become an MP.

A populist policy is a way of harnessing public money to aim at buying the vote of a certain voting demographic by either promising to save them money in the pocket, or put money in their pockets.

The simple way to determine if something is a populist policy is to ask oneself if a certain policy is aimed at the good of the entire nation and not just a certain group (poor voters).

They should be restricted to policies that are proven to be an asset for the good of the entire population and for the economy, where nobody directly benefits for example over paying for rice, free tablets for their kids and discount on vehicle excise.

Edited November 3, 2014 by RustBucket

[comeondoit]

Which are possible criteria to define populist schemes? That is the real issue of this article

Of course should political parties make proposals what they want to do when in power...why to have them if not !. The problem is the party leaders who are seducing by their populist promesses know already, that these will be impossible to be fullfilled....That is a moral issue, political parties lying purposly to their potential voters to win their votes is an ethical problem (what often is the case in every democratic country). However the majority of an educated voters base can recognise the lie and not be lured by that. That is the base of a functioning democracy, "education". The men in power in Thailand have with intent made a mess of the educational system.....uneducated people can be used easily.

One criteria of a populist voter platform is. Promesses which are impossible to be fullfilled, which are unreal, running against the possibilities of the country and the finances. They are recognisable by simple common sense

The second criteria of a populist policy is: Promesses of actions who are only benefitting some parts of the population

The third criteria of a populist policy is: Promesses of what they want to do which will not create any sustainable values for the country and therefore for all people

And the worst of all this is, once in power, the populist promesses which have been made, are fullfilled against any common sense justified only by the one in power by "We promised it, therefore we doit!!!!!"

Looking back there is not one move of the passed governements which was not fullfilling all these criteria. I am really sorry for all honest and hard working Thai people. They lost, maybe some few people won and are not even ashamed of it !!!!

[robblok]

What right should the Election Commission have to approve the Budget?

Anything can be deemed populist. The insane amount of money spent on the glorification of Mr. Rogers could be seen as wasteful, but only existing to please the public.

Actually back in the Netherlands we got an independent comitty that calculates all the party their election programs on fiscal feasibility. last time I checked the Netherlands was still a Democracy.

If they had those rules before the rice program, it would never have happened. and would have saved the country loads of money. The thing is they did not budget for it. It was fake.. it was vote buying with money they did not have (they had a deficit already and said the rice program would be cost neutral.. 500billion baht is not cost neutral)

So having an agency check proposals and budgets is not that strange it happens in other countries. This way you can prevent people form making promises that damage the country.

[Krataiboy]

Wickipedia: "Populism is a political doctrine that appeals to the interests and conceptions (such as fears) of the general people, especially contrasting those interests with the interests of the elite.

No need to say more.

[blaze]

What right should the Election Commission have to approve the Budget?

Anything can be deemed populist. The insane amount of money spent on the glorification of Mr. Rogers could be seen as wasteful, but only existing to please the public.

apologies for 'f'd up post and edit-- interesting response though.

Edited November 3, 2014 by blaze

[robblok]

@blaze (your quoting is horrible)

Yes they can say that a election program is not sound and that they cant use these election promises. All programs are checked with different economic situations to see it they are financially viable and if it stays in budget.

The rice program would never have been allowed in the Dutch system as the PTP had not budgeted for it. In the Dutch system they would have said change your program or budget for it as this is unrealistic. So then they could not use that program for the election.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Only by properly educating voters can you keep the excesses of political parties in check. Sadly, that seems unlikely any time soon as instilling knowledge and communicating balanced opinions are extremely difficult in the Thai context. Some of the commentators above say civil servants cannot be allowed to judge political policies, and this is oh so true, but they can play a role in ensuring the media and civic response arms of government are protected from interference from political parties. That would help to prevent a lot of the kind of communication/civic manipulation that we have seen in the past to benefit the strongest parties. Otherwise it's business as usual - the rape and pillage of the coffers.

You don't educate voters by denying them the right to choose. Provide them with expert opinions, "factual" (in the eye of the beholder") information, debates, opportunity to question, etc. but not by someone acting as a lord over his fiefdom to decide how, what, when and where a voter should become "educated." Treat voters as you would have yourself treated - with respect.

A voter should have unrestricted access to any source of information regardless as to the source's quality or accuracy. A voter should have the right to REFUSE being educated, exercise seemingly arbitrary and capricious decisions, ie., vote for a handsome or pretty candidate, for an elderly or young candidate, for a candidate with military service, etc.

Then you shall have a democratic institution in all its complex, vibrant, and individualistic form.

[Thai at Heart]

Simple.

Just set up an office of National Statistics.

Cap the budget deficit to which ever number you like per year. 3%, 4%,2%.

Even with all thaksin supposed populism, the debt still isn't over 50%. Populism is the new liberal it seems.

Once tarred, a policy can never be talked about in public.

[Emster23]

"slap controls on what policies political parties can offer during elections. It views "populist" policies as a threat to the economy and has suggested measures are needed to curb them." Just keep business as usual, allow elites to steal with impunity.

How about another rule, this one perhaps "Political parties may only propose policies which would be unpopular and result in loss of votes."

I do like idea of independent body determining economic impact of policy and having that widely distributed before election. Of course a few problems with that: could any committee be independent? And would a realistic figure even be attainable?

[Balance]

It would appear that the only rational objection to "populist" policies has to do with the national budget and the fear that they will cost money. However, in most democracies the government that is elected has the right to establish its own budget and balance the budget in the normal ways: finding ways to cut waste and fraud (corruption in Thailand); eliminate government programs that are not achieving their goals; and finally to raise taxes.

I will leave it to others to comment on the definition of a democracy to include the ability to tell political parties what they can believe in.

[RubbaJohnny]

100 Pipers Partial Polemic's pisspoor performance prevents preposterous postulating populist political policies previously perceived partisan, parently ?

[Leung Falang]

Korkaew Pikulthong, a former Pheu Thai MP and red-shirt leader, said a populist policy is "a policy that is popular among the people".

Serious?

How the hell did this idiot ever become an MP.

A populist policy is a way of harnessing public money to aim at buying the vote of a certain voting demographic by either promising to save them money in the pocket, or put money in their pockets.

The simple way to determine if something is a populist policy is to ask oneself if a certain policy is aimed at the good of the entire nation and not just a certain group (poor voters).

They should be restricted to policies that are proven to be an asset for the good of the entire population and for the economy, where nobody directly benefits for example over paying for rice, free tablets for their kids and discount on vehicle excise.

There are few policies that benefit everyone. Social Security is for old people and is popular with them and with those nearly old. Government supported education is popular with young people. Guaranteed loans are popular with teachers. Pensions are popular with elected people, and so on. There is no universal policy accepted by all parties, and in fact, that is what drives multiple parties in any society. Limiting populism isn't feasible, and like some have said, it is even practiced by the current junta.

[Acharn]

Only by properly educating voters can you keep the excesses of political parties in check. Sadly, that seems unlikely any time soon as instilling knowledge and communicating balanced opinions are extremely difficult in the Thai context. Some of the commentators above say civil servants cannot be allowed to judge political policies, and this is oh so true, but they can play a role in ensuring the media and civic response arms of government are protected from interference from political parties. That would help to prevent a lot of the kind of communication/civic manipulation that we have seen in the past to benefit the strongest parties. Otherwise it's business as usual - the rape and pillage of the coffers.

It seems to me the problem is that "populist" is essentially undefined except as a pejorative. In the U.S., Republicans blocked moves to spend Federal funds to build roads, repair bridges, build new schools and government office buildings on the grounds that the spending would lead to ruinous debt and the collapse of the nation. Liberals on the other hand pointed out that these policies would mean borrowing when interest rates were at historically low levels, there was massive unemployment so you could hire workers at reasonable wages, that reducing government spending would lead to years of stagnation, and that stimulating the economy would increase tax revenue so that in the long run the stimulus would be paid for from increased economic growth. So far it seems the liberals who were urging stimulus spending were right, but if the person judging policy was conservative he/she would surely call "stimulus" spending a "populist" policy. This is not a good way to choose policies. Leave it to the voters to throw out parties which actually harm the country.