New Thai charter to contain built-in mechanisms to prevent parliamentary dictatorship

[northernjohn]

Not knowing the proposed details, I am left to speculate that this is will probably prevent or discourage democratic leadership

Please explain what you mean when mentioning 'democratic leadership'. Without further description I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing.

Rubi

There are instances where we hold different opinions, and I more than comfortable with this, however I take exception to " I can only speculate you write down a few terms which may comfort you in what you believe without knowing."

I did not realise that your approval is required

To answer your question, democratic leadership involves members being encouraged to discuss and share ideas about particular issues or problems, however there needs to be someone with overall authority to make ultimate decisions

You said and I agree

To answer your question, democratic leadership involves members being encouraged to discuss and share ideas about particular issues or problems, however there needs to be someone with overall authority to make ultimate decisions

Your description fits the present coup leaders far better than it does the PTP. By the way the PTP did not have the majority of the people behind them. 49% in not a majority. 51% is a majority. You of course know that.

So in effect we did not have a Democratic government to begin with.

Answer me this why is it so much more important to have a Democratic Government than an honest one working for the benefit of all of Thailand?

Edited February 21, 2015 by northernjohn

[djjamie]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0 because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way. I think the dictionary defines a dictatorship as an entity that refuses to relinquish power and will never allow democracy to flourish in the future. Maybe it is a dictatorship to threaten protestors with the RCM51 and call them garbage?

The democracy part of the previous government stopped when they held the most seats in parliament. Had they listened and reflected the majorities interested while there then that is good. When they didn't that is a dictatorship. The only principle of democracy you can ever use when describing the PTP is elections because there is no other principle they adhere too.

And as for this election in 2014. She did a great job to have it while ensuring it failed.

She knew and wanted those polls to fail so she could blame the PDRC for the non payments of the rice scheme. yingluck was even told that the commission candidates have been unable to register in some constituencies, meaning there would not be a quorum to open parliament even if voting went ahead. It is akin to knowing the future, but building a house in Phuket a day before the Tsunami. Why hold an election when you know that it won't be successful? She wanted those polls to fail because she knew she would have lost. The results that were tabulated proved that. All polls post failed rice scheme proved that as well.

Robert Amsterdam. the unelected leader of the PTP dictatorship and the PTP advisors made their money that day when they told her to drive this election to its doom. If she didn't want the polls to fail she would have ordered soldiers to all polling booths in her capacity of defense minister to ensure they proceeded successfully. She should have made sure the candidates can register. She had an army behind her for goodness sake. Never happened. Remember yingluck fanboys say she was the best leader Thailand had ever seen. If that was the case this soldiers would be jumping to the beat of her drum…She didn't even order them out. Not even on Facebook did she order them out.

yingluck was in the unique position of being the defense minister and PM and if she truly knew she would win that election she would use every tool she had to ensure peaceful polls. Yet that never happened. She did drive for elections, but not for peaceful ones. No soldiers in force defending polling stations while Chalerm on the other front was suggesting he would dress up in a Groucho mask to arrest Suthep…That aint the sign of a government that wants polls to go ahead. It is certainly not the sign of a sane government either.

It was a time wasting narratives to ensure it goes ahead and fails.

So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored. The previous government removed it (yes, yes elections, I get it) and offered no hope of a restoration of it.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0

so clearly the problem is that you don't recognize a dictatorship when you see one.

You forgot a bit..

because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way.

Your statement encapsulates the PTP ethos though and thank you for inadvertently proving me right. You have removed the bit regarding the majorities voice not being heard. That shows a lack of respect for the majority to favor the unelected criminal.

Thanks again...

[heybruce]

They should eliminate the Party List System completely.

If you want a seat in Parlament, then you stand for election and either win, or lose. No party list BS, as it is a sure path to corruption.

Might want to put something into the new charter that places the military under civilian control and makes coups an automatic death sentence.

Good one The general pulls off a coup then shoots himself because it is illegal.

if only it were that easy. Thailand will never be a stable democracy until the military is firmly under the control of the civilian government, though it's hard to imagine how that will be brought about.

Not hard at all honest elections and honest politicians. You need to broaden your imagination.

No election is ever perfect, but it it reflects the will of the people, as ANFREL stated the 2011 election did, then it is good enough. No one has come up with a reliable litmus test for honesty in politicians, if they did I think few politicians of any political persuasion would pass. And even with honest elections and honest politicians, if the military feels free to topple an elected government then democracy is not safe or stable.

[heybruce]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0 because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way. I think the dictionary defines a dictatorship as an entity that refuses to relinquish power and will never allow democracy to flourish in the future. Maybe it is a dictatorship to threaten protestors with the RCM51 and call them garbage?

The democracy part of the previous government stopped when they held the most seats in parliament. Had they listened and reflected the majorities interested while there then that is good. When they didn't that is a dictatorship. The only principle of democracy you can ever use when describing the PTP is elections because there is no other principle they adhere too.

And as for this election in 2014. She did a great job to have it while ensuring it failed.

She knew and wanted those polls to fail so she could blame the PDRC for the non payments of the rice scheme. yingluck was even told that the commission candidates have been unable to register in some constituencies, meaning there would not be a quorum to open parliament even if voting went ahead. It is akin to knowing the future, but building a house in Phuket a day before the Tsunami. Why hold an election when you know that it won't be successful? She wanted those polls to fail because she knew she would have lost. The results that were tabulated proved that. All polls post failed rice scheme proved that as well.

Robert Amsterdam. the unelected leader of the PTP dictatorship and the PTP advisors made their money that day when they told her to drive this election to its doom. If she didn't want the polls to fail she would have ordered soldiers to all polling booths in her capacity of defense minister to ensure they proceeded successfully. She should have made sure the candidates can register. She had an army behind her for goodness sake. Never happened. Remember yingluck fanboys say she was the best leader Thailand had ever seen. If that was the case this soldiers would be jumping to the beat of her drum…She didn't even order them out. Not even on Facebook did she order them out.

yingluck was in the unique position of being the defense minister and PM and if she truly knew she would win that election she would use every tool she had to ensure peaceful polls. Yet that never happened. She did drive for elections, but not for peaceful ones. No soldiers in force defending polling stations while Chalerm on the other front was suggesting he would dress up in a Groucho mask to arrest Suthep…That aint the sign of a government that wants polls to go ahead. It is certainly not the sign of a sane government either.

It was a time wasting narratives to ensure it goes ahead and fails.

So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored. The previous government removed it (yes, yes elections, I get it) and offered no hope of a restoration of it.

You are responding with quantity over quality again, I see.

Regarding your first paragraph: Check a dictionary.

Second paragraph: Do you expect the Parliament to take a poll before every vote?

Third and fourth paragraph: How did Yingluck obstruct the election? Did you forget that it was Suthep's minions that prevented candidates from registering?

Firfth paragraph and sixth paragraph: She had the army behind her? Can you support that claim? The only thing keeping Suthep's mob in place was the army's refusal to take sides--hardly the action of an army that is behind the government or PM. Had Prayuth made clear that he wanted elections and was prepared to take 2010 style street clearing actions then the July election would have happened.

You end with:

"So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored."

In spite of all the past coups and military governments you still believe the current one, which toppled the elected and prevented July elections, will restore democracy and elections.

[manarak]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You are right in the long run, but in the short term, your post is wishful thinking.

If the corrupt reds were allowed their way, how do you imagine the country could get rid of the corrupt kingpins?

I don't see it happening!

Thailand would be in for 20 or 30 years of corrupt looting of the country until... until... until something happens! but what? the system would progressively get rotten to its core, no investigators, no journalists would complain ...

Postponing democracy until red kingpins are gone is the best thing in my opinion.

[jayboy]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Parliamentary dictatorship is democratic in name only.

The problem with a democratic constitution is that it doesn't make voters democratic or understanding what democratic means. The CDC may do it's best, but education takes a wee bit longer.

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

[JAG]

deny them the right to vote for whom they wish

Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man.

"Many of them voted for who they were told to vote for by the village head man."

So many people post things like that. One even offered proof, in the form of stories he heard from his wife's cousin. Funny that ANFREL didn't find evidence of any irregularities on a scale that would have changed the 2011 election outcome, or that Abhisit didn't blame vote buying when he accepted responsibility for the humiliating defeat of the Democrats in that election.

True, true. The Pheu Thai party and maybe also other parties have grown beyong the simple, basic votebuying. Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs.

Also interesting that as some have it the Pheu Thai voters actually voted for Thaksin, the criminal fugitive. He who corrupted Thai democracy as no one else before. His party, his PM, his cabinet. skyping-in into cabinet meetings as if that's normal in democracies. Clearly a constitution should prevent such possibilities. Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs.

BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011. With lots of Thai still unhappy about the 2010 protests and a larger part of the electorate in North and NorthEast it is more of a miracle they still got so many seats.

But never mind, safeguards. Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army. Plus of course 'education, education, education'. The common people and the grass root organisations should really work on their self-entitlement, self-reliance.

"Now it's the promises of what will come with the support of local elite who still seem to regard their fellow Thai in the same manner as their great-great-grandfathers did regard his serfs."

Are you referring to populist spending and patronage politics? Surely with the majority of Thailand's government investment occurring in Bangkok where it benefits a minority of the population, the place to find and eliminate unaffordable populism and patronage politics would be in Bangkok. Bangkok is not a PTP stronghold, it is a Democrat and Suthep stronghold. While I disagree with some of the expensive programs initiated by the PTP, I do think much more government spending should go on programs that benefit the majority of Thais. Judging by how the majority of Thais have been voting, it seems the majority thinks the same.

"Also the "thanks for your vote, we have a mandate, please go home now" attitude of Pheu Thai shows the need for safeguards, independent watchdogs."

You and others keep posting statements like that, but fail to note that the people kept voting for the same party under its different names, suggesting the voters liked what the elected party was doing. You also fail to mention specific undemocratic actions taken while in office.

"BTW a defeat yes, but 'humiliating' ? Instead of 164 seats the Democrat party won in December 2007 they won 159 seats in July 2011."

I'll concede this point, I should have posted "another humiliating defeat". The Democrats demonstrated once again that they can't come close to winning an election. That's why they are so keen on coming to power through other means.

"Get democracy going and slowly work on a better and more democracies style incorporation of the army."

Huh? What is "more democracies style incorporation of the army."? In functioning democracies the military stays out of politics.

In fuctioning democracies the role of the military is to defend the state from external aggression, and to defend the state from internal non democratic insurrection. In this country its role is to defend a small but well entrenched feudal elite against the ambitions of the rest of the population to select their own government.

Edited February 21, 2015 by JAG

[heybruce]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You are right in the long run, but in the short term, your post is wishful thinking.

If the corrupt reds were allowed their way, how do you imagine the country could get rid of the corrupt kingpins?

I don't see it happening!

Thailand would be in for 20 or 30 years of corrupt looting of the country until... until... until something happens! but what? the system would progressively get rotten to its core, no investigators, no journalists would complain ...

Postponing democracy until red kingpins are gone is the best thing in my opinion.

Do you think corruption and kingpins only exist among redshirt politicians?

With democracy people can get tired of corruption and elect people who will change things. It doesn't happen quickly, and in some some democratic countries it hasn't happened yet, but at least there is hope. Autocracies use corruption to cement their hold on power, and the people can't do anything about it. Do you think Prayuth will allow investigations of suspicions about the military? http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/thai-junta-beset-by-corruption-scandals/

[halloween]

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0

so clearly the problem is that you don't recognize a dictatorship when you see one.

You may be right. It is much closer to a criminal conspiracy to ignore the conflict of interest in voting for an amnesty for yourself and the man paying your monthly bribes..

[djjamie]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

You believe anything the junta says without question, don't you?

Regarding your definition of dictatorship, you must be using the "djjamie Dictionary", because that definition doesn't exist anywhere else. You also ignore the fact that the elected government you call a dictatorship tried very hard to have elections, but your heroes wouldn't let them.

Well I define a dictatorship as a parliament that vote for an amnesty bill at 310 - 0 because an unelected criminal told them to vote that way even though the majority of Thai citizens asked them not to vote that way. I think the dictionary defines a dictatorship as an entity that refuses to relinquish power and will never allow democracy to flourish in the future. Maybe it is a dictatorship to threaten protestors with the RCM51 and call them garbage?

The democracy part of the previous government stopped when they held the most seats in parliament. Had they listened and reflected the majorities interested while there then that is good. When they didn't that is a dictatorship. The only principle of democracy you can ever use when describing the PTP is elections because there is no other principle they adhere too.

And as for this election in 2014. She did a great job to have it while ensuring it failed.

She knew and wanted those polls to fail so she could blame the PDRC for the non payments of the rice scheme. yingluck was even told that the commission candidates have been unable to register in some constituencies, meaning there would not be a quorum to open parliament even if voting went ahead. It is akin to knowing the future, but building a house in Phuket a day before the Tsunami. Why hold an election when you know that it won't be successful? She wanted those polls to fail because she knew she would have lost. The results that were tabulated proved that. All polls post failed rice scheme proved that as well.

Robert Amsterdam. the unelected leader of the PTP dictatorship and the PTP advisors made their money that day when they told her to drive this election to its doom. If she didn't want the polls to fail she would have ordered soldiers to all polling booths in her capacity of defense minister to ensure they proceeded successfully. She should have made sure the candidates can register. She had an army behind her for goodness sake. Never happened. Remember yingluck fanboys say she was the best leader Thailand had ever seen. If that was the case this soldiers would be jumping to the beat of her drum…She didn't even order them out. Not even on Facebook did she order them out.

yingluck was in the unique position of being the defense minister and PM and if she truly knew she would win that election she would use every tool she had to ensure peaceful polls. Yet that never happened. She did drive for elections, but not for peaceful ones. No soldiers in force defending polling stations while Chalerm on the other front was suggesting he would dress up in a Groucho mask to arrest Suthep…That aint the sign of a government that wants polls to go ahead. It is certainly not the sign of a sane government either.

It was a time wasting narratives to ensure it goes ahead and fails.

So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored. The previous government removed it (yes, yes elections, I get it) and offered no hope of a restoration of it.

You are responding with quantity over quality again, I see.

Regarding your first paragraph: Check a dictionary.

Second paragraph: Do you expect the Parliament to take a poll before every vote?

Third and fourth paragraph: How did Yingluck obstruct the election? Did you forget that it was Suthep's minions that prevented candidates from registering?

Firfth paragraph and sixth paragraph: She had the army behind her? Can you support that claim? The only thing keeping Suthep's mob in place was the army's refusal to take sides--hardly the action of an army that is behind the government or PM. Had Prayuth made clear that he wanted elections and was prepared to take 2010 style street clearing actions then the July election would have happened.

You end with:

"So I prefer a government that at least offer a hope that democracy (as well as elections) will be restored."

In spite of all the past coups and military governments you still believe the current one, which toppled the elected and prevented July elections, will restore democracy and elections.

1st paragraph - Checked it and it states that an unlelected criminal running a country from abroad is a definition of a dictatorship.

2nd - No of coarse not. I expect the minister for their electorate to represent the people that voted for them from that electorate…To even ask this question shows a lack of understanding of democratic principles.

3rd and 4th - Agreed. Suthep stopped candidates from registering, BUT she still went ahead with elections knowing they would fail. Remember the Tsunami? Would you build a house on the coast knowing it will fall when the waves came?

5th and 6th - She had an army behind her because she was the Defense Minister. Your peers stated she was the best and most wonderful leader Thailand hs ever seen. If that was the case her army would be jumping to her every command…Did she give any orders to them they ignored? Just one would be a great example that they were not behind her. If she was so incapable as the defense minister because she could not command HER army then what does that say about her ability to be PM or rice chairwomen?

My last comment illustrates that democracy was never "on tap" from 1 minute after the 2011 elections. There are a 13 dead farmers and 28 dead protestors and 700 injured families that can attest to this.

Ignore them too while your on your drive to ensure an unelelected criminal rules the country.

Edited February 21, 2015 by djjamie

[ExPratt]

"CDC spokesman General Lertrat Rattanavanich, meanwhile, said that the new charter would prevent political parties from fielding their candidates to run independently and later on, after having won the election, incorporating them into the parties to increase their seats in the parliament so as to take control of the parliament."

So a coalition is still allowed? but the people joining in the coalition can not jump from one party to another? Unless they are going to ban coalitions I don't see the reasoning of this. A vote is a vote in Parliament doesn't matter who you represent when you do vote

[ExPratt]

<scripdemocracy and elections.

1st paragraph - Checked it and it states that an unlelected criminal running a country from abroad is a definition of a dictatorship.

2nd - No of coarse not. I expect the minister for their electorate to represent the people that voted for them from that electorate…To even ask this question shows a lack of understanding of democratic principles.

3rd and 4th - Agreed. Suthep stopped candidates from registering, BUT she still went ahead with elections knowing they would fail. Remember the Tsunami? Would you build a house on the coast knowing it will fall when the waves came?

5th and 6th - She had an army behind her because she was the Defense Minister. Your peers stated she was the best and most wonderful leader Thailand hs ever seen. If that was the case her army would be jumping to her every command…Did she give any orders to them they ignored? Just one would be a great example that they were not behind her. If she was so incapable as the defense minister because she could not command HER army then what does that say about her ability to be PM or rice chairwomen?

My last comment illustrates that democracy was never "on tap" from 1 minute after the 2011 elections. There are a 13 dead farmers and 28 dead protestors and 700 injured families that can attest to this.

Ignore them too while your on your drive to ensure an unelelected criminal rules the country.

I actually agree with some of your post.

However I think item 3 and 4 are a bit of a reach

The elections were disrupted because it was quite clear she would have of won it and in doing so given a mandate to continue. To say she should have cancelled the election because she knew there would be disruption is not a valid statement. Democracy continues all over the world despite the threats of violence , bombings attacks on voters and general intimidation. If countries cancelled elections because of threats there would be no Democracy in the world and minority groups would then hold the rest of the world to Ransom .

[Plowman]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You are right in the long run, but in the short term, your post is wishful thinking.

If the corrupt reds were allowed their way, how do you imagine the country could get rid of the corrupt kingpins?

I don't see it happening!

Thailand would be in for 20 or 30 years of corrupt looting of the country until... until... until something happens! but what? the system would progressively get rotten to its core, no investigators, no journalists would complain ...

Postponing democracy until red kingpins are gone is the best thing in my opinion.

The real Kingpins, the ones with the power to overthrow multiple elected governments are all yellow to the core, "postponing" democracy is what keeps these Kingpins their power. Your cure is worse than the disease!

[rubl]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Parliamentary dictatorship is democratic in name only.

The problem with a democratic constitution is that it doesn't make voters democratic or understanding what democratic means. The CDC may do it's best, but education takes a wee bit longer.

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

My dear boy, before making childish remarks you might read a bit on history and democracy.

It would seem that educational development of a populace and growth in democracy go step by step and hand in hand. Till the moment even women can vote

In Thailand we have a situation where the population knows how to vote. Seems some steps were deemed unnecessary. Like explaining what democracy means in rights and duties. Maybe not in the interest of powers that be, both the central as well as the region ones. Reminds of England in the 19th Century when Engels and Marx wrote their books.

[Briggsy]

What it means in effect is that the new parliamentary will have a strong bias towards the wealthy Bangkok-centric elite to prevent the large swathe of the population that votes in Isaan and the North using its weight of numbers to vote in future governments as traditionally has been the case.

[rubl]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You are right in the long run, but in the short term, your post is wishful thinking.

If the corrupt reds were allowed their way, how do you imagine the country could get rid of the corrupt kingpins?

I don't see it happening!

Thailand would be in for 20 or 30 years of corrupt looting of the country until... until... until something happens! but what? the system would progressively get rotten to its core, no investigators, no journalists would complain ...

Postponing democracy until red kingpins are gone is the best thing in my opinion.

The real Kingpins, the ones with the power to overthrow multiple elected governments are all yellow to the core, "postponing" democracy is what keeps these Kingpins their power. Your cure is worse than the disease!

Thailand fight for democracy should be over before the Democrat Party wins an election. Why would 'winning' be important for a democracy? Is a situation with a single party having a majority of seats so democratic, so important? Are human beings in a real democracy so conforming to vote en-masse for a single party?

[manarak]

It is good to see the current government who through reform is offering democracy so electoral dictatorships whose desire for reform or embracing democracy is non existent.

I could not see the PTP being in a position when they ran their dictatorship (defined as listening to an unelelected criminal over the majority) stating "This is wrong. SO we will reform ourselves"

The future looks bright where the majority will no longer be ignored. Ironically brought to fruition through a military government because of an elected dictatorship.

Democracy is self correcting, that's why it is the best system that humans have developed when it comes to governing nations. If one party wins a crushing victory over its opponents this defeat informs the losers that they must improve, evolve and reform to make themselves and their policies more palatable to the electorate, in defeat the seeds of victory are sown. Thailands' problem is that one side of the equation will not accept democracies verdict - they refuse to accept the will of the people and at every turn seek to undermine and eradicate democracy so that they can steal power for themselves, instead of making themselves worthy of ruling, they send out the courts or the military to crush the people. The Democrats are a woeful political party, the only thing they are good at is losing elections and they will never get better because they continue to choose to destroy the system instead of improving themselves - they are the reason Thailand is suffering now, they are to blame - their ineptitude and willingness to take shortcuts to power at the nations expense.

For 15 years the Reds have had a substantially greater number of supporters than the Democrats, often an outright majority. The majority are being ignored right now under this coup government but fear not, the majority will win out in the long run, democracy will return and a new, balanced and fair constitution will be enacted. Unfortunately for you and those with views similar to you - right now is as good as it gets, as good as it will ever get - so enjoy it while you can than start making plans to move to perhaps the only place in the world where you'll be welcomed - the hermit kingdom of NK.

BTW - Thailands fight for democracy will be over when, sometime in the (probably distant) future, the Democrats actually win an election based on merit and power changes hands in a cordial and civilised manner - the only ones delaying that day are the Democrats themselves and their behind the scenes puppet masters.

You are right in the long run, but in the short term, your post is wishful thinking.

If the corrupt reds were allowed their way, how do you imagine the country could get rid of the corrupt kingpins?

I don't see it happening!

Thailand would be in for 20 or 30 years of corrupt looting of the country until... until... until something happens! but what? the system would progressively get rotten to its core, no investigators, no journalists would complain ...

Postponing democracy until red kingpins are gone is the best thing in my opinion.

The real Kingpins, the ones with the power to overthrow multiple elected governments are all yellow to the core, "postponing" democracy is what keeps these Kingpins their power. Your cure is worse than the disease!

I don't think so.

Red criminals carry the risk of bringing the country beyond the point of no return in terms of policies, and then the only cure for it will be a civil war.

[ExPratt]

<script ty

The real Kingpins, the ones with the power to overthrow multiple elected governments are all yellow to the core, "postponing" democracy is what keeps these Kingpins their power. Your cure is worse than the disease!

I don't think so.

Red criminals carry the risk of bringing the country beyond the point of no return in terms of policies, and then the only cure for it will be a civil war.

I think given the choice many people would prefer "Red Criminals" To subservient little Fascists who support Military Juntas

Edited February 22, 2015 by ExPratt

[rubl]

The real Kingpins, the ones with the power to overthrow multiple elected governments are all yellow to the core, "postponing" democracy is what keeps these Kingpins their power. Your cure is worse than the disease!

I don't think so.

Red criminals carry the risk of bringing the country beyond the point of no return in terms of policies, and then the only cure for it will be a civil war.

I think given the choice many people would prefer "Red Criminals" To subservient little Fascists who support Military Juntas

Personally if someone asked me such loaded question I'd answer "I prefer none of the two". I can also think of other 'nice descriptives' type of people I wouldn't prefer.

[rubl]

What it means in effect is that the new parliamentary will have a strong bias towards the wealthy Bangkok-centric elite to prevent the large swathe of the population that votes in Isaan and the North using its weight of numbers to vote in future governments as traditionally has been the case.

'the new parliamentary'? Do you mean the parliamentary system, or the parliament?

BTW 'the large swathe of population that votes in Isaan and North' should probably be rephrased to "the Isaan and North electorate'"

[dominique355]

Will the new charter prevent military dictatorship?

Interesting question.

Legally speaking, coups are of course illegal and considered as high treason with death penalty. Top ranking military take an oath to protect the Constitution and Monarchy.

But who argues when a gun is pointed at him? And the Junta always drafts a new Constitution with a built-in amnesty for themselves.

So the answer to you question is "No".

As long as there is this attitude among the top brass that they know everything much better than the common people, as long as this paternalistic, condescending attitude prevails, we will have more coups. That I am sure of.

[ExPratt]

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

The real Kingpins, the ones with the power to overthrow multiple elected governments are all yellow to the core, "postponing" democracy is what keeps these Kingpins their power. Your cure is worse than the disease!

I don't think so.

Red criminals carry the risk of bringing the country beyond the point of no return in terms of policies, and then the only cure for it will be a civil war.

I think given the choice many people would prefer "Red Criminals" To subservient little Fascists who support Military Juntas

Personally if someone asked me such loaded question I'd answer "I prefer none of the two". I can also think of other 'nice descriptives' type of people I wouldn't prefer.

Agreed , so I don't believe using the term , "Red Criminals " is warranted

[rubl]

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

I think given the choice many people would prefer "Red Criminals" To subservient little Fascists who support Military Juntas

Personally if someone asked me such loaded question I'd answer "I prefer none of the two". I can also think of other 'nice descriptives' type of people I wouldn't prefer.

Agreed , so I don't believe using the term , "Red Criminals " is warranted

Maybe a bit pedantic, but whether or not one prefers has nothing to do with using a term.

[ExPratt]

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

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

I think given the choice many people would prefer "Red Criminals" To subservient little Fascists who support Military Juntas

Personally if someone asked me such loaded question I'd answer "I prefer none of the two". I can also think of other 'nice descriptives' type of people I wouldn't prefer.

Agreed , so I don't believe using the term , "Red Criminals " is warranted

Maybe a bit pedantic, but whether or not one prefers has nothing to do with using a term.

I dont think its pedantic at all, Most of the "Red Criminals" voted for a Government that has been deposed by force , so they are not the Criminals in this case

[rubl]

Personally if someone asked me such loaded question I'd answer "I prefer none of the two". I can also think of other 'nice descriptives' type of people I wouldn't prefer.

Agreed , so I don't believe using the term , "Red Criminals " is warranted

Maybe a bit pedantic, but whether or not one prefers has nothing to do with using a term.

I dont think its pedantic at all, Most of the "Red Criminals" voted for a Government that has been deposed by force , so they are not the Criminals in this case

If the term 'red' criminals' is not warranted, why still use it yourself?

People voted for political party candidates (constituency candidates) and for political parties (party list). As such they didn't vote for a coalition government, not even one which included former coupleader turned decent MP Gen Sondhi. As such there is no (direct) relation between red criminals/non-criminals and the government, nor with how the caretaker government was made to resign.

[jayboy]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Parliamentary dictatorship is democratic in name only.

The problem with a democratic constitution is that it doesn't make voters democratic or understanding what democratic means. The CDC may do it's best, but education takes a wee bit longer.

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

My dear boy, before making childish remarks you might read a bit on history and democracy.

It would seem that educational development of a populace and growth in democracy go step by step and hand in hand. Till the moment even women can vote

In Thailand we have a situation where the population knows how to vote. Seems some steps were deemed unnecessary. Like explaining what democracy means in rights and duties. Maybe not in the interest of powers that be, both the central as well as the region ones. Reminds of England in the 19th Century when Engels and Marx wrote their books.

You are obviously ignorant or ill informed about the reasons for the growth of democracy across the world.The pressure for the franchise came from below and was generally resisted by those who benefited from the status quo.This is what we see in Thailand with the twist that, although universal franchise exists, the establishment refuses to accept results that are not to its liking.You also make the schoolboy error of confusing formal education and intelligence.Regardless of formal education all the evidence of recent elections in Thailand suggest that people of every class vote for what they perceive to be their own best interests.Nobody in India for example would accept your foolish premise.

The lecture in rights and duties you seem to think is necessary is an area that we can agree on.However it should not be delivered to ordinary decent Thais but to the generals, feudalists, corporate fatcats and myopic largely Sino Thai middle class ranged against them.

Edited February 22, 2015 by jayboy

[northernjohn]

Good one The general pulls off a coup then shoots himself because it is illegal.

if only it were that easy. Thailand will never be a stable democracy until the military is firmly under the control of the civilian government, though it's hard to imagine how that will be brought about.

Not hard at all honest elections and honest politicians. You need to broaden your imagination.

No election is ever perfect, but it it reflects the will of the people, as ANFREL stated the 2011 election did, then it is good enough. No one has come up with a reliable litmus test for honesty in politicians, if they did I think few politicians of any political persuasion would pass. And even with honest elections and honest politicians, if the military feels free to topple an elected government then democracy is not safe or stable.

Well you say

 
No election is ever perfect, but it it reflects the will of the people,

How is it reflecting the will of the people when 51% of them do not want it?

[TheDiva]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Parliamentary dictatorship is democratic in name only.

The problem with a democratic constitution is that it doesn't make voters democratic or understanding what democratic means. The CDC may do it's best, but education takes a wee bit longer.

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

What I find curious that many posters (who presumably have a background of living in a western democracy for some period in their lives) are willing to suspend belief in that system when they speak on behalf of the Thai system of government and use any excuse they can think of to back up that "argument", hence the facile "the Thais aren't educated enough about democracy to be allowed it" reasoning.

Supposedly, according to these same commentators, there was a period of time (between December 2008 and August 2011) that democracy flourished but somehow, miraculously, all this changed overnight and the system that had been working OK for that period (and in reality for some time before that) suddenly was broken and needed to be overhauled.

Can any of the pro militarists please explain to me just why the system that was accepted by them as perfectly reasonable during the Abhisit years (and working under a military written constitution) needed to have that constitution ripped up and rewritten and followed by a complete reform of the political system?

Other than the obvious answer that it is being carried out to establish the conditions necessary to ensure the chosen ones achieve power (again).

Edited February 22, 2015 by TheDiva

[northernjohn]

"CDC spokesman General Lertrat Rattanavanich, meanwhile, said that the new charter would prevent political parties from fielding their candidates to run independently and later on, after having won the election, incorporating them into the parties to increase their seats in the parliament so as to take control of the parliament."

So a coalition is still allowed? but the people joining in the coalition can not jump from one party to another? Unless they are going to ban coalitions I don't see the reasoning of this. A vote is a vote in Parliament doesn't matter who you represent when you do vote

Beg to differ It does matter who you represent when you vote.

You should always vote for the people who elected you. That is presuming they elected you and were not bought or forced to vote for you.

Under the present system you for the most part do not owe them any loyalty. It is owed to the party you belong to and your constituent's don't count.

[northernjohn]

This nonsense with "parliamentary dictatorship" is just another example of this 'CDC' showing it's true colors...

They have no intention of creating a democratic constitution, but they do intend to create a constitution which is democratic in name only...

Parliamentary dictatorship is democratic in name only.

The problem with a democratic constitution is that it doesn't make voters democratic or understanding what democratic means. The CDC may do it's best, but education takes a wee bit longer.

This tired feeble mantra has been repeated over the centuries as democracy emerges - by those who detest it.The underlying thought is that the ordinary people lack the sophistication and education to understand what democracy is all about.It assumes that the ignorant masses will be swayed by populist policies and corrupt politicians.How much better it would be if politicians could be dispensed with and be replaced by "good people".

But as history shows this infantile vision had been proven wrong again and again.In Thailand the only question is whether there will be a historic compromise or whether the resolution will be a rather terrible thing.

What I find curious that many posters (who presumably have a background of living in a western democracy for some period in their lives) are willing to suspend belief in that system when they speak on behalf of the Thai system of government and use any excuse they can think of to back up that "argument", hence the facile "the Thais aren't educated enough about democracy to be allowed it" reasoning.

Supposedly, according to these same commentators, there was a period of time (between December 2008 and August 2011) that democracy flourished but somehow, miraculously, all this changed overnight and the system that had been working OK for that period (and in reality for some time before that) suddenly was broken and needed to be overhauled.

Can any of the pro militarists please explain to me just why the system that was accepted by them as perfectly reasonable during the Abhisit years (and working under a military written constitution) needed to have that constitution ripped up and rewritten and followed by a complete reform of the political system?

Other than the obvious answer that it is being carried out to establish the conditions necessary to ensure the chosen ones achieve power (again).

Interesting

You only mention the Abhist government. They also accepted it under the two previous governments both owned by Thaksin. Any particular reason for omitting 2/3 of the ownership?

As for the need to rip it up well time showed the holes in it and even Yingluck admitted it needed reworking. But she said that the PTP would do it. The very people abusing it.