Democracy in Thailand 'a work in progress'

[baboon]

Well US really need Prayut in their effort to contain Chinese hegemony in Southern asia and be sure Thailand remain ally of US

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of few or the one

Which sources did you use to form your opinion?

[pattjock]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

I assume you are trusting polls taken under censorship, when criticism of the government is not just banned, it is against the junta orders and can lead to a closed trial without appeal in a military court. Is it any wonder the government gets approval ratings similar to North Korea's?

The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve. They also like that it is peace and quiet again and that the social order has been restored. Most probably have some small grievances but the good being done by far outweighs the bad.

Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected.

I’m sure that most of these complaints are fueled and sponsored by politicians/business men, from both camps, that have lost their power and means to steal from the country. If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again.

Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea

[baboon]

^^

Yes it can, in a good number of ways.

[heybruce]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

I assume you are trusting polls taken under censorship, when criticism of the government is not just banned, it is against the junta orders and can lead to a closed trial without appeal in a military court. Is it any wonder the government gets approval ratings similar to North Korea's?

The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve. They also like that it is peace and quiet again and that the social order has been restored. Most probably have some small grievances but the good being done by far outweighs the bad.

Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected.

I’m sure that most of these complaints are fueled and sponsored by politicians/business men, from both camps, that have lost their power and means to steal from the country. If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again.

Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea

"The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve."

In view of the fact that polls in this environment can't be trusted and there are no elections, your claim is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. Unless, of course, you have actually talked to the vast majority of the population in an environment in which they felt they could safely speak honestly.

"Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected."

Not true, the moderators delete any criticism of the coup. Most of the criticism has to do with suppression of basic rights, military involvement in activities such as people smuggling, the bad economy, purchase of unneeded submarines, etc.

"If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again."

A coup and military rule is going back to the old days. Don't you know anything about Thai history?

"Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea"

That's an interesting comment. Are you trying to get a fix on my location so you can report me to the thought police?

[pattjock]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

I assume you are trusting polls taken under censorship, when criticism of the government is not just banned, it is against the junta orders and can lead to a closed trial without appeal in a military court. Is it any wonder the government gets approval ratings similar to North Korea's?

The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve. They also like that it is peace and quiet again and that the social order has been restored. Most probably have some small grievances but the good being done by far outweighs the bad.

Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected.

I’m sure that most of these complaints are fueled and sponsored by politicians/business men, from both camps, that have lost their power and means to steal from the country. If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again.

Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea

"The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve."

In view of the fact that polls in this environment can't be trusted and there are no elections, your claim is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. Unless, of course, you have actually talked to the vast majority of the population in an environment in which they felt they could safely speak honestly.

"Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected."

Not true, the moderators delete any criticism of the coup. Most of the criticism has to do with suppression of basic rights, military involvement in activities such as people smuggling, the bad economy, purchase of unneeded submarines, etc.

"If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again."

A coup and military rule is going back to the old days. Don't you know anything about Thai history?

"Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea"

That's an interesting comment. Are you trying to get a fix on my location so you can report me to the thought police?

My claims a based on numerous polls conducted by a number of different organizations and on what I hear from people daily. Not sure how you can substantiate a single one of your claims, but everyone have the right to an opinion.

Again, the only criticism is the lack of democracy. Fair enough criticism but unfortunately democracy where everyone has a vote does not guarantee that everyone will be happy.

In Thailand democracy will probably just re-instate the big division among the people as we had before. At least now all the people have a common agency to blame the problems on and as far as I can see they are trying to fairly sort out the problems, most which are leftovers from previous flawed, corrupted governments of all colors.

Before corruption is curtailed to manageable level politicians/business men would go back to their old ways (I never said anything about old days!!!)

Well, you cannot live in Thailand if you feel that the population here is under the same pressure as in North Korea. That is just as big exaggeration as the rest of your un-substantiated claims.

[rametindallas]

What? No condemnation of the anti-democrat government? Has the US joined Switzerland and is 'working side by side' with Thailand's 'illegal' government? /sarc

I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all the Thaksin Brigade (you know who you are and so do I) getting their panties in a twist. Take heart, Thaksin Brigade, at least the PM, whom you despise for taking away Thaksin's 'permit to steal', wasn't invited.

"If the shoe fits, wear it"

On a more serious note, the US charge d'affaires is being pragmatic. He has no choice, if he wants to retain any presence/influence in Thailand, but to cooperate with the current Thai government. Since when has the US allowed morals or principle to stand in the way of pragmatism? If Thaksin were to step back into power tomorrow, the US would just as easily 'work side by side' with him. The US charge d'affaires showed the US's displeasure by his invitation snub of the Thai PM.

.

[jesimps]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

The current nondemocratic govt SAYS it has an approval rating of over 80%.

[pattjock]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

The current nondemocratic govt SAYS it has an approval rating of over 80%.

They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this.

Agree that most people would prefer a democratically elected government if that would lead to stability, peace and a well-run government, as would not be the case in present Thailand most people here seems to be happy with the present government.

US presidency approval rating is 30%, US congress 8%, French president 25%, UK government 32%

If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern.

[than]

Well US really need Prayut in their effort to contain Chinese hegemony in Southern asia and be sure Thailand remain ally of US

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of few or the one

Which sources did you use to form your opinion?

The diplomatic world !

[pattjock]

The government is definitely not clamping down on free speech.

The government has open up several ways where people can voice their grievances and suggestions. There are websites, apps, phone lines and other means available. The government is very open to all suggestions to help them lead the country in a way that will benefit the most of the population.

What they are clamping down on are people who are trying to force early elections so the corrupt politicians/business men can get back the chicken that laid the golden eggs for them.

These previously powerful people try to use any means like social media and students to get back to their old ways and to again polarize the Thai society for their own benefit.

The polls are clear, people prefer this to what they had before, and they hope that when the time is right democracy could be the next step, but not now.

[billd766]

"Red-shirt leaders Thida Thavornseth, Weng Tojirakarn and Veerakarn Musikapong were also there"

Good on the USA to invite those from the side of the Political Divide, advocating Democracy and Democratic elections.

Too bad this author is still hung up on hiding the political context of these people behind non-political terminology, such as affinity clothing colors.

Too bad that they didn't invite Abhisit and some members of the Cemocratic Party to show BOTH sides of the political divide.

This way they have shown that they are politically biased.

[brucec64]

The government is definitely not clamping down on free speech.

The government has open up several ways where people can voice their grievances and suggestions. There are websites, apps, phone lines and other means available. The government is very open to all suggestions to help them lead the country in a way that will benefit the most of the population.

What they are clamping down on are people who are trying to force early elections so the corrupt politicians/business men can get back the chicken that laid the golden eggs for them.

These previously powerful people try to use any means like social media and students to get back to their old ways and to again polarize the Thai society for their own benefit.

The polls are clear, people prefer this to what they had before, and they hope that when the time is right democracy could be the next step, but not now.

I guess the old expression is true:

You CAN fool some of the people all of the time.

Propoganda is an effective tool because some people just lap it up.

[candide]

"Red-shirt leaders Thida Thavornseth, Weng Tojirakarn and Veerakarn Musikapong were also there"

Good on the USA to invite those from the side of the Political Divide, advocating Democracy and Democratic elections.

Too bad this author is still hung up on hiding the political context of these people behind non-political terminology, such as affinity clothing colors.

Too bad that they didn't invite Abhisit and some members of the Cemocratic Party to show BOTH sides of the political divide.

This way they have shown that they are politically biased.

They have invited NCPO members, so both sides are there....

[Bannum opinions]

The government is definitely not clamping down on free speech.

The government has open up several ways where people can voice their grievances and suggestions. There are websites, apps, phone lines and other means available. The government is very open to all suggestions to help them lead the country in a way that will benefit the most of the population.

What they are clamping down on are people who are trying to force early elections so the corrupt politicians/business men can get back the chicken that laid the golden eggs for them.

These previously powerful people try to use any means like social media and students to get back to their old ways and to again polarize the Thai society for their own benefit.

The polls are clear, people prefer this to what they had before, and they hope that when the time is right democracy could be the next step, but not now.

I guess the old expression is true:

You CAN fool some of the people all of the time.

Propoganda is an effective tool because some people just lap it up.

"Propoganda is an effective tool because some people just lap it up"

As they do Opposition noise, considering it gospel truth and ignoring the source.

[Bannum opinions]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

The current nondemocratic govt SAYS it has an approval rating of over 80%.

They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this.

Agree that most people would prefer a democratically elected government if that would lead to stability, peace and a well-run government, as would not be the case in present Thailand most people here seems to be happy with the present government.

US presidency approval rating is 30%, US congress 8%, French president 25%, UK government 32%

If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern.

"They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this".

As someone so succinctly pointed out, Polls in Thailand are "Agenda laundering tools" for the anti-democrats.

One doesn't need to scratch far below the surface, to see that almost all Polls that the media so breathlessly reports upon, are solidly linked to the Bangkok-centric Elite, and are used to put a faux public opinion face on their agenda.

"If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern"

Huh?

Doesn't make sense.

So what alternative do you suggest?

Who should govern instead?

Edited July 5, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[heybruce]

I assume you are trusting polls taken under censorship, when criticism of the government is not just banned, it is against the junta orders and can lead to a closed trial without appeal in a military court. Is it any wonder the government gets approval ratings similar to North Korea's?

The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve. They also like that it is peace and quiet again and that the social order has been restored. Most probably have some small grievances but the good being done by far outweighs the bad.

Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected.

I’m sure that most of these complaints are fueled and sponsored by politicians/business men, from both camps, that have lost their power and means to steal from the country. If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again.

Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea

"The vast majority of the population likes what the government is doing, what they are aiming for and what they are trying to achieve."

In view of the fact that polls in this environment can't be trusted and there are no elections, your claim is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. Unless, of course, you have actually talked to the vast majority of the population in an environment in which they felt they could safely speak honestly.

"Most, if not the only, criticism you hear is about the way they took power and that they are not elected."

Not true, the moderators delete any criticism of the coup. Most of the criticism has to do with suppression of basic rights, military involvement in activities such as people smuggling, the bad economy, purchase of unneeded submarines, etc.

"If “Democratic” elections were held in Thailand today they would only go back to their old ways and society would be divided again."

A coup and military rule is going back to the old days. Don't you know anything about Thai history?

"Maybe if you visited Thailand you would see that it cannot be compared with North Korea"

That's an interesting comment. Are you trying to get a fix on my location so you can report me to the thought police?

My claims a based on numerous polls conducted by a number of different organizations and on what I hear from people daily. Not sure how you can substantiate a single one of your claims, but everyone have the right to an opinion.

Again, the only criticism is the lack of democracy. Fair enough criticism but unfortunately democracy where everyone has a vote does not guarantee that everyone will be happy.

In Thailand democracy will probably just re-instate the big division among the people as we had before. At least now all the people have a common agency to blame the problems on and as far as I can see they are trying to fairly sort out the problems, most which are leftovers from previous flawed, corrupted governments of all colors.

Before corruption is curtailed to manageable level politicians/business men would go back to their old ways (I never said anything about old days!!!)

Well, you cannot live in Thailand if you feel that the population here is under the same pressure as in North Korea. That is just as big exaggeration as the rest of your un-substantiated claims.

"My claims a based on numerous polls conducted by a number of different organizations and on what I hear from people daily. Not sure how you can substantiate a single one of your claims, but everyone have the right to an opinion."

My claim is that polls conducted under censorship when there are harsh penalties for criticizing the government can't be trusted. Imagine this: You live in a country where criticism of the government is banned and people are routinely tried in closed military courts with no right to appeal if they violate this ban. Your receive a phone call from someone who knows who you are and who asks you if you support the government. What is the safe answer?

"Again, the only criticism is the lack of democracy."

Are you joking or are you in denial of reality? Students arrested for peaceful protests, plans to buy unneeded Chinese submarines, a sluggish economy, high debts, increasing cost of corruption, government involvement in people smuggling, and many other things are being criticized, with good reason.

"...unfortunately democracy where everyone has a vote does not guarantee that everyone will be happy."

Huh? Who made that claim and what's your point?

"Before corruption is curtailed to manageable level politicians/business men would go back to their old ways (I never said anything about old days!!!)"

Ok, then a coup and military government is going back to the old ways. It's been done many times before, it's never improved things in Thailand, and it certainly never reduced corruption. Are you completely blind to the fact that the military is as corrupt as any institution in Thailand? Can you identify any meaningful systemic changes, in particular transparency in operations and financial disclosures at all level of government (including the military) that the junta is taking to stem corruption?

"Well, you cannot live in Thailand if you feel that the population here is under the same pressure as in North Korea."

You can't argue with what I posted so you're arguing with imagined postings, that's not a good sign. What I posted was:

"Is it any wonder the government gets approval ratings similar to North Korea's?"

It's a valid question in view of this thin skinned Article 44-ship http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/814367-orders-issued-under-article-44/?hl=%2Barticle

"That is just as big exaggeration as the rest of your un-substantiated claims."

What unsubstantiated claims have I made? All I have done is challenge your unsubstantiated, thoroughly ridiculous claims. Why don't you try and substantiate this ludicrous claim of yours?:

"The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,"

By that definition, and with your unquestioning acceptance of polls taken under a repressive government, North Korea has an exceptional democracy.

[mikemac]

In 2006 the Thaksin government was reeling, the sale of Shincorp shares, exempt from taxes, as a result of a law that the party passed, had rioting citizens in the street. Political experts stated that there was no way the party would be reelected. The army intervened in the form of a coup. What it accomplished was a bailout, if they had let democracy run it's course, we may not have had the riots in 2010. Along came Yingluck and the unmitigated rice disaster, almost everyone in the country was dissatisfied with PTT, they had accrued a massive debt. If they had had to face election, based on their record, they would have certainly been defeated. Once again the army executes a coup, once again it bails out the government. Democracy can not thrive unless it allowed to deal with it's failures. Thailand is a more peaceful place than it was, there are not armed conflicts in the streets, children are safe from grenade attacks. It will probably only last as long as the army rules.....because nobody has learned anything, they didn't have to.

Political experts stated that there was no way the party would be reelected.

If they had had to face election, based on their record, they would have certainly been defeated.

Really!

If that was the case, wouldn't an election back then, have been better than a coup?

Your listing of all the transgressions leading you to the conclusions in above quotes, were all Opposition noise.

Short of dissecting them all individually, this demonstrates again how people take Opposition noise as if it came from the Bible or the Koran.

I consider the source and judge it accordingly.

We will never know how many of these Opposition charges and innuendo's had merit. They were certainly expressed with great over-the-top self-righteous indignation. They avoided trying to persuade the electorate of their veracity however...Why is that?...... They chose instead to incite like-minded acolytes onto the street where they wouldn't be confused with facts, and put up stages where they could 'preach to the choir"....Not exactly nation-wide electoral scrutiny.

Undoubtedly some of their complaints had merit, but they were afraid to test that notion via an election....Even as late as last February, they did everything in their power to obstruct an election.

Doesn't that tell you something. It tells me a lot, and puts everything in perspective.

But bottom line,,,Let's not fool ourselves...We all know what their objectives were, issues be damned.

Yes, an election would have been better that was my point. As for you, your username is wrong, it should have been Bannums opinion. because you only have one; Thaksin and all proxies good, everyone else bad.

Don't know about you ramrod711, but I find reading his posts very hard work. By the time I have reached the end, if I make it that far, I have forgotten what the post was all about.

And as far as his username goes, I would have thought "Anti-Democratic" would be more apt.

Edited July 5, 2015 by mikemac

[pattjock]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

The current nondemocratic govt SAYS it has an approval rating of over 80%.

They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this.

Agree that most people would prefer a democratically elected government if that would lead to stability, peace and a well-run government, as would not be the case in present Thailand most people here seems to be happy with the present government.

US presidency approval rating is 30%, US congress 8%, French president 25%, UK government 32%

If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern.

"They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this".

As someone so succinctly pointed out, Polls in Thailand are "Agenda laundering tools" for the anti-democrats.

One doesn't need to scratch far below the surface, to see that almost all Polls that the media so breathlessly reports upon, are solidly linked to the Bangkok-centric Elite, and are used to put a faux public opinion face on their agenda.

"If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern"

Huh?

Doesn't make sense.

So what alternative do you suggest?

Who should govern instead?

Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake, so far you are just quoting others and your own suspicions, I stand by my opinion that the vast majority are happy with the progress of the government, especially with all the problems from the last decades fresh in mind.

Obviously a government must have more than 50% approval rating if they want to call themself democratic. The very basic definition of democracy is majority rule. If less than 50% of the population don’t agree on how the country is ruled then its minority ruled and by definition no longer a democracy.

The main reason so many so called democratic countries are ruled by a minority is that politicians promise too much and don’t hold their promises after elections.

Any country, pretty much all, that allows the politicians to break their verbal contact with the voting population after election should not be called a democracy. If this is allowed I cannot see any purpose what so ever with an election.

Who should govern instead?

Good question. But one thing is for sure; if whoever is governing get an approval rating lower than 60-70% they should be made to pack their bags and leave and let someone else who can rule by the will of the great majority of the people.

[candide]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

The current nondemocratic govt SAYS it has an approval rating of over 80%.

They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this.

Agree that most people would prefer a democratically elected government if that would lead to stability, peace and a well-run government, as would not be the case in present Thailand most people here seems to be happy with the present government.

US presidency approval rating is 30%, US congress 8%, French president 25%, UK government 32%

If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern.

"They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this".

As someone so succinctly pointed out, Polls in Thailand are "Agenda laundering tools" for the anti-democrats.

One doesn't need to scratch far below the surface, to see that almost all Polls that the media so breathlessly reports upon, are solidly linked to the Bangkok-centric Elite, and are used to put a faux public opinion face on their agenda.

"If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern"

Huh?

Doesn't make sense.

So what alternative do you suggest?

Who should govern instead?

Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake, so far you are just quoting others and your own suspicions, I stand by my opinion that the vast majority are happy with the progress of the government, especially with all the problems from the last decades fresh in mind.

Obviously a government must have more than 50% approval rating if they want to call themself democratic. The very basic definition of democracy is majority rule. If less than 50% of the population dont agree on how the country is ruled then its minority ruled and by definition no longer a democracy.

The main reason so many so called democratic countries are ruled by a minority is that politicians promise too much and dont hold their promises after elections.

Any country, pretty much all, that allows the politicians to break their verbal contact with the voting population after election should not be called a democracy. If this is allowed I cannot see any purpose what so ever with an election.

Who should govern instead?

Good question. But one thing is for sure; if whoever is governing get an approval rating lower than 60-70% they should be made to pack their bags and leave and let someone else who can rule by the will of the great majority of the people.

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

[Bannum opinions]

When the red shirts were running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

When the yellow shirts was running the country the government approval rating was below 50%

Most western governments have a government approval rating below 50%

The current "non democratic" government have an approval rating of over 80%

The goal of democracy is to have as much of the population as possible approve of the government,

Everything else, like elections, are just additional bits that can be added to the definition of democracy or ways of reaching the goal of democracy.

The current nondemocratic govt SAYS it has an approval rating of over 80%.

They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this.

Agree that most people would prefer a democratically elected government if that would lead to stability, peace and a well-run government, as would not be the case in present Thailand most people here seems to be happy with the present government.

US presidency approval rating is 30%, US congress 8%, French president 25%, UK government 32%

If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern.

"They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this".

As someone so succinctly pointed out, Polls in Thailand are "Agenda laundering tools" for the anti-democrats.

One doesn't need to scratch far below the surface, to see that almost all Polls that the media so breathlessly reports upon, are solidly linked to the Bangkok-centric Elite, and are used to put a faux public opinion face on their agenda.

"If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern"

Huh?

Doesn't make sense.

So what alternative do you suggest?

Who should govern instead?

Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake, so far you are just quoting others and your own suspicions, I stand by my opinion that the vast majority are happy with the progress of the government, especially with all the problems from the last decades fresh in mind.

Obviously a government must have more than 50% approval rating if they want to call themself democratic. The very basic definition of democracy is majority rule. If less than 50% of the population dont agree on how the country is ruled then its minority ruled and by definition no longer a democracy.

The main reason so many so called democratic countries are ruled by a minority is that politicians promise too much and dont hold their promises after elections.

Any country, pretty much all, that allows the politicians to break their verbal contact with the voting population after election should not be called a democracy. If this is allowed I cannot see any purpose what so ever with an election.

Who should govern instead?

Good question. But one thing is for sure; if whoever is governing get an approval rating lower than 60-70% they should be made to pack their bags and leave and let someone else who can rule by the will of the great majority of the people.

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

"Who should govern instead?"

Still waiting

[pattjock]

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

It’s not my definition.

All definitions I have seen include that “democracy is rule by majority”. The definition of majority is more than 50%. When less than 50% of the population agrees with their government it’s no longer a democracy, could not be simpler than that!!

My approval rating for this definition among the normal population will probably be at least 60-70%, among politicians probably 0%

[candide]

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

Its not my definition.

All definitions I have seen include that democracy is rule by majority. The definition of majority is more than 50%. When less than 50% of the population agrees with their government its no longer a democracy, could not be simpler than that!!

My approval rating for this definition among the normal population will probably be at least 60-70%, among politicians probably 0%

You just forgot one important detail: the majority rule is a binary decision rule, between two alternatives.That's why democratic countries apply plurality rule, allow coalitions, or have polls with two ballots. Practically the two ballots system is the only one that allows the majority rule to be used in all cases.

The other (practical) point is that elected representatives have a mandate for a given duration. Of course if there are serious hints that their mandate is heavily contested, it is considered as fair that the assembly be disolved and early elections organised.

[candide]

Sorry double posting!

Edited July 5, 2015 by candide

[pmarlowe]

thai visa uninforumed

[pattjock]

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

Its not my definition.

All definitions I have seen include that democracy is rule by majority. The definition of majority is more than 50%. When less than 50% of the population agrees with their government its no longer a democracy, could not be simpler than that!!

My approval rating for this definition among the normal population will probably be at least 60-70%, among politicians probably 0%

You just forgot one important detail: the majority rule is a binary decision rule, between two alternatives.That's why democratic countries apply plurality rule, allow coalitions, or have polls with two ballots. Practically the two ballots system is the only one that allows the majority rule to be used in all cases.

The other (practical) point is that elected representatives have a mandate for a given duration. Of course if there are serious hints that their mandate is heavily contested, it is considered as fair that the assembly be disolved and early elections organised.

The fundamental problem here is that it’s assumed, mainly by politicians, that the end goal of elections is to pick someone to run the country. It is essentially a popularity contest where what they promise means little or nothing and they are certainly not legally obliged to stick to this verbal contract they have with the voters.

The true end goal of elections is to select HOW the country should be run not by whom. If the HOW promised by the politicians means nothing then elections means nothing.

If whoever wins an election cannot adapt enough policy from his competition to get a majority approval on how the country is run he should have to go. Any population in any country should have enough in common to make this possible given a good enough leader.

[candide]

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

Its not my definition.

All definitions I have seen include that democracy is rule by majority. The definition of majority is more than 50%. When less than 50% of the population agrees with their government its no longer a democracy, could not be simpler than that!!

My approval rating for this definition among the normal population will probably be at least 60-70%, among politicians probably 0%

You just forgot one important detail: the majority rule is a binary decision rule, between two alternatives.That's why democratic countries apply plurality rule, allow coalitions, or have polls with two ballots. Practically the two ballots system is the only one that allows the majority rule to be used in all cases.

The other (practical) point is that elected representatives have a mandate for a given duration. Of course if there are serious hints that their mandate is heavily contested, it is considered as fair that the assembly be disolved and early elections organised.

The fundamental problem here is that it’s assumed, mainly by politicians, that the end goal of elections is to pick someone to run the country. It is essentially a popularity contest where what they promise means little or nothing and they are certainly not legally obliged to stick to this verbal contract they have with the voters.

The true end goal of elections is to select HOW the country should be run not by whom. If the HOW promised by the politicians means nothing then elections means nothing.

If whoever wins an election cannot adapt enough policy from his competition to get a majority approval on how the country is run he should have to go. Any population in any country should have enough in common to make this possible given a good enough leader.

I understand your concern, but from a practical point of view, how do you organise it? What's applicable apart from giving a mandate for a given time to elected representatives? And eventually, in case of strong apparent disagreement with the population, resign/dissolve assembly/etc... and organise early elections before the end of the mandate. So that citizens can decide if they want him/them to stay in power or go.

Ok you have the Swiss way of governing by referendum which may raise other problems....

[heybruce]

They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this.

Agree that most people would prefer a democratically elected government if that would lead to stability, peace and a well-run government, as would not be the case in present Thailand most people here seems to be happy with the present government.

US presidency approval rating is 30%, US congress 8%, French president 25%, UK government 32%

If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern.

"They SAY so because all the different polls have proven this".

As someone so succinctly pointed out, Polls in Thailand are "Agenda laundering tools" for the anti-democrats.

One doesn't need to scratch far below the surface, to see that almost all Polls that the media so breathlessly reports upon, are solidly linked to the Bangkok-centric Elite, and are used to put a faux public opinion face on their agenda.

"If a democratically elected government have less than 50% approval rating it should not call itself a democratic government, at the most it is a democratically elected government. The important thing is that such a government does not have a democratic mandate to govern"

Huh?

Doesn't make sense.

So what alternative do you suggest?

Who should govern instead?

Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake, so far you are just quoting others and your own suspicions, I stand by my opinion that the vast majority are happy with the progress of the government, especially with all the problems from the last decades fresh in mind.

Obviously a government must have more than 50% approval rating if they want to call themself democratic. The very basic definition of democracy is majority rule. If less than 50% of the population don’t agree on how the country is ruled then its minority ruled and by definition no longer a democracy.

The main reason so many so called democratic countries are ruled by a minority is that politicians promise too much and don’t hold their promises after elections.

Any country, pretty much all, that allows the politicians to break their verbal contact with the voting population after election should not be called a democracy. If this is allowed I cannot see any purpose what so ever with an election.

Who should govern instead?

Good question. But one thing is for sure; if whoever is governing get an approval rating lower than 60-70% they should be made to pack their bags and leave and let someone else who can rule by the will of the great majority of the people.

"Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake, so far you are just quoting others and your own suspicions, I stand by my opinion that the vast majority are happy with the progress of the government, especially with all the problems from the last decades fresh in mind."

The fact that polls taken in an atmosphere of censorship and oppression can't be trusted isn't good enough for you, you insist on proof they are wrong. Some people are rational skeptics, others are irrational believers.

"if whoever is governing get an approval rating lower than 60-70% they should be made to pack their bags and leave and let someone else who can rule by the will of the great majority of the people."

In real world democracies this could lead to several changes of government a year. However non-democratic governments that bias the polls would love this--they could stay in power indefinitely by banning critical polls, as the junta has done http://www.khaosodenglish.com/detail.php?newsid=1424762688&section=11&typecate=06.

Edited July 5, 2015 by heybruce

[tbthailand]

"Red-shirt leaders Thida Thavornseth, Weng Tojirakarn and Veerakarn Musikapong were also there"

Good on the USA to invite those from the side of the Political Divide, advocating Democracy and Democratic elections.

Too bad this author is still hung up on hiding the political context of these people behind non-political terminology, such as affinity clothing colors.

I suppose calling them communists might be a bit too McCarthy.

no, that would be ignorant.

[pattjock]

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

Its not my definition.

All definitions I have seen include that democracy is rule by majority. The definition of majority is more than 50%. When less than 50% of the population agrees with their government its no longer a democracy, could not be simpler than that!!

My approval rating for this definition among the normal population will probably be at least 60-70%, among politicians probably 0%

You just forgot one important detail: the majority rule is a binary decision rule, between two alternatives.That's why democratic countries apply plurality rule, allow coalitions, or have polls with two ballots. Practically the two ballots system is the only one that allows the majority rule to be used in all cases.

The other (practical) point is that elected representatives have a mandate for a given duration. Of course if there are serious hints that their mandate is heavily contested, it is considered as fair that the assembly be disolved and early elections organised.

The fundamental problem here is that it’s assumed, mainly by politicians, that the end goal of elections is to pick someone to run the country. It is essentially a popularity contest where what they promise means little or nothing and they are certainly not legally obliged to stick to this verbal contract they have with the voters.

The true end goal of elections is to select HOW the country should be run not by whom. If the HOW promised by the politicians means nothing then elections means nothing.

If whoever wins an election cannot adapt enough policy from his competition to get a majority approval on how the country is run he should have to go. Any population in any country should have enough in common to make this possible given a good enough leader.

I understand your concern, but from a practical point of view, how do you organise it? What's applicable apart from giving a mandate for a given time to elected representatives? And eventually, in case of strong apparent disagreement with the population, resign/dissolve assembly/etc... and organise early elections before the end of the mandate. So that citizens can decide if they want him/them to stay in power or go.

Ok you have the Swiss way of governing by referendum which may raise other problems....

A mandate period is essential but not without conditions. The Swiss way of several referendums per year is probably a good idea but instead of referendums on specific questions there should be 2-4 referendums on the performance of the government.

If the government fails two consecutive referendums they should be made to leave. This would keep the government in touch with reality and give them time to adjust the policies to the will of the people.

This will also keep the influence of lobbyists and influential people/business groups in check between elections.

[candide]

Sorry but what's your legitimacy for defining what should be called a democracy or not?

And if I re-use your argument, do you have a 60-70% approval rating for this definition?

Its not my definition.

All definitions I have seen include that democracy is rule by majority. The definition of majority is more than 50%. When less than 50% of the population agrees with their government its no longer a democracy, could not be simpler than that!!

My approval rating for this definition among the normal population will probably be at least 60-70%, among politicians probably 0%

You just forgot one important detail: the majority rule is a binary decision rule, between two alternatives.That's why democratic countries apply plurality rule, allow coalitions, or have polls with two ballots. Practically the two ballots system is the only one that allows the majority rule to be used in all cases.

The other (practical) point is that elected representatives have a mandate for a given duration. Of course if there are serious hints that their mandate is heavily contested, it is considered as fair that the assembly be disolved and early elections organised.

The fundamental problem here is that its assumed, mainly by politicians, that the end goal of elections is to pick someone to run the country. It is essentially a popularity contest where what they promise means little or nothing and they are certainly not legally obliged to stick to this verbal contract they have with the voters.

The true end goal of elections is to select HOW the country should be run not by whom. If the HOW promised by the politicians means nothing then elections means nothing.

If whoever wins an election cannot adapt enough policy from his competition to get a majority approval on how the country is run he should have to go. Any population in any country should have enough in common to make this possible given a good enough leader.

I understand your concern, but from a practical point of view, how do you organise it? What's applicable apart from giving a mandate for a given time to elected representatives? And eventually, in case of strong apparent disagreement with the population, resign/dissolve assembly/etc... and organise early elections before the end of the mandate. So that citizens can decide if they want him/them to stay in power or go.

Ok you have the Swiss way of governing by referendum which may raise other problems....

A mandate period is essential but not without conditions. The Swiss way of several referendums per year is probably a good idea but instead of referendums on specific questions there should be 2-4 referendums on the performance of the government.

If the government fails two consecutive referendums they should be made to leave. This would keep the government in touch with reality and give them time to adjust the policies to the will of the people.

This will also keep the influence of lobbyists and influential people/business groups in check between elections.

The risk is to have governements change nearly every year, hence preventing consistent policies. Zapping as political system?