Democracy in Thailand 'a work in progress'

[Bannum opinions]

"....Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake" (#48 - Pattjock)

Fake is one way to put it...Somebody said these Polls are "agenda laundering tools" for the Anti-democrats. They seek to legitimize their agenda's with a public opinion veneer......

As solid proof, I could cycle through all the major Public Opinion Polls such as NIDA, Dusit, etc. and link their ownership/executives to the Bangkok-centric elite.

As just one example....The President of NIDA is a senior operative in the current Govt.. He sits on one of their creations, I think the NLA.

Another way of contextualizing these things, all the Presidents of Universities are appointed by entities deep within the Bangkok-centric elite. It is only natural they and their faux public opinion polls would reflect that perspective....And they do.

[pattjock]

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?

Very true if applied to today’s governments with today’s politicians.

The problem with today’s system is that it has been designed by politicians so the biggest liars can get in to government, without impunity. They then have a fixed mandate period where they can solicit favors by making favorable decisions to lobbyists from minority groups against the will of the majority.

Many of today’s politicians are egocentric power junkies without any conscience. If the mandate period was on condition of majority approval and lying was punished there would be no place for this kind of people in a government.

This would open up government to people who genuinely would like to run the country in the best interest of the majority of the country and in the best interest of relations to other countries.

This kind of people would today not be interested in the fake popularity contest elections are today and they would not like to be involved in the constant scheming going on in the corridors of governments with lobbyists and other minority pressure groups.

[halloween]

"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.

You're right. They have abandoned their communist ideals in the pursuit of the purely capitalist occupation of mercenary propagandists for a power-crazed fugitive criminal with aspirations to be a dictator. The "red shirt leader" title is purely illusory, as the organisation they lead is a fabrication with no membership or structure, put in place to mouth the paymaster's words as allegedly coming from the "people".

[candide]

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?

Very true if applied to todays governments with todays politicians.

The problem with todays system is that it has been designed by politicians so the biggest liars can get in to government, without impunity. They then have a fixed mandate period where they can solicit favors by making favorable decisions to lobbyists from minority groups against the will of the majority.

Many of todays politicians are egocentric power junkies without any conscience. If the mandate period was on condition of majority approval and lying was punished there would be no place for this kind of people in a government.

This would open up government to people who genuinely would like to run the country in the best interest of the majority of the country and in the best interest of relations to other countries.

This kind of people would today not be interested in the fake popularity contest elections are today and they would not like to be involved in the constant scheming going on in the corridors of governments with lobbyists and other minority pressure groups.

I don't see why it would attract other types of politicians (if the current ones are as bad as you think). Just changing governments more frequently.

And anyway, as I said before, it's not the meaning of majority rule which is to chose between two alternatives: government A or B, policy A or B?

[pattjock]

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

Very true if applied to todays governments with todays politicians.

The problem with todays system is that it has been designed by politicians so the biggest liars can get in to government, without impunity. They then have a fixed mandate period where they can solicit favors by making favorable decisions to lobbyists from minority groups against the will of the majority.

Many of todays politicians are egocentric power junkies without any conscience. If the mandate period was on condition of majority approval and lying was punished there would be no place for this kind of people in a government.

This would open up government to people who genuinely would like to run the country in the best interest of the majority of the country and in the best interest of relations to other countries.

This kind of people would today not be interested in the fake popularity contest elections are today and they would not like to be involved in the constant scheming going on in the corridors of governments with lobbyists and other minority pressure groups.

I don't see why it would attract other types of politicians (if the current ones are as bad as you think). Just changing governments more frequently.

And anyway, as I said before, it's not the meaning of majority rule which is to chose between two alternatives: government A or B, policy A or B?

If you need to be a good liar to get into the government and do wheeling and dealing with lobbyists from minority groups making decisions against the majority that elected you, you need to be a certain type of politician.

If you are elected on what you say and have to keep this, ruling with the majority without wheeling and dealing against your conscience you will be a completely different type of politician.

If there is a conditional mandate, the government have an incentive to rule with the majority and there should not be any reason to change government or have elections during the normal mandate period.

In many countries it’s not a question about A or B, many countries have several parties that eventually form a coalition with a shared agenda that should get the approval of the majority.

Edited July 6, 2015 by pattjock

[pattjock]

"....Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake" (#48 - Pattjock)

Fake is one way to put it...Somebody said these Polls are "agenda laundering tools" for the Anti-democrats. They seek to legitimize their agenda's with a public opinion veneer......

As solid proof, I could cycle through all the major Public Opinion Polls such as NIDA, Dusit, etc. and link their ownership/executives to the Bangkok-centric elite.

As just one example....The President of NIDA is a senior operative in the current Govt.. He sits on one of their creations, I think the NLA.

Another way of contextualizing these things, all the Presidents of Universities are appointed by entities deep within the Bangkok-centric elite. It is only natural they and their faux public opinion polls would reflect that perspective....And they do.

OK, so all polls made anywhere are completely useless as they all only refect what the owner of the poll thinks

If you forget any actions or criticisms regarding the principles of democracy and then take a look at what the current government has done and are in the process of doing.

You will find that pretty much everything is positive for the majority of the people. Most approval ratings published are regarding questions on the government performance in running the country and should not be confused with how they got into power or related to principles of democracy.

[Bannum opinions]

"....Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake" (#48 - Pattjock)

Fake is one way to put it...Somebody said these Polls are "agenda laundering tools" for the Anti-democrats. They seek to legitimize their agenda's with a public opinion veneer......

As solid proof, I could cycle through all the major Public Opinion Polls such as NIDA, Dusit, etc. and link their ownership/executives to the Bangkok-centric elite.

As just one example....The President of NIDA is a senior operative in the current Govt.. He sits on one of their creations, I think the NLA.

Another way of contextualizing these things, all the Presidents of Universities are appointed by entities deep within the Bangkok-centric elite. It is only natural they and their faux public opinion polls would reflect that perspective....And they do.

OK, so all polls made anywhere are completely useless as they all only refect what the owner of the poll thinks

If you forget any actions or criticisms regarding the principles of democracy and then take a look at what the current government has done and are in the process of doing.

You will find that pretty much everything is positive for the majority of the people. Most approval ratings published are regarding questions on the government performance in running the country and should not be confused with how they got into power or related to principles of democracy.

OK, so all polls made anywhere are completely useless as they all only refect what the owner of the poll thinks

Certainly the major Thai Polls do. And yes, they only reflect what the anti-democrats want. That is where they originate. Just watch the reaction here, when one of these things comes out...The Posters here who normally defend that side of the political divide are seldom critical. Instead, will discuss the results with great gravitas as if they were legit. Perhaps that is why you wish to legitimize them. Coming from my perspective, what jumps out at me is the "propaganda"

"If you forget any actions or criticisms regarding the principles of democracy and then take a look at what the current government has done and are in the process of doing"

I don't suspend considerations regarding Democracy. I am not criticizing the current Govt..........I am mindful of what a popularly elected Govt. could have done, and would be in the process of doing. And how all Thai's would have a universal sense of ownership having a stake in its' selection...and yes, the opportunity to turf them. I also recognize how an elected Govt. would presumably be mindful of the election platform it was elected on, that was tailored to what they perceived as the demands of the electorate. A nation-wide, all-inclusive electorate...Not catering to a narrow slice of a Bangkok-centric elitist electorate exclusively, unrepresentative of the nation at large.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[pattjock]

"....Until you can come up with solid proof that all polls are complete fake" (#48 - Pattjock)

Fake is one way to put it...Somebody said these Polls are "agenda laundering tools" for the Anti-democrats. They seek to legitimize their agenda's with a public opinion veneer......

As solid proof, I could cycle through all the major Public Opinion Polls such as NIDA, Dusit, etc. and link their ownership/executives to the Bangkok-centric elite.

As just one example....The President of NIDA is a senior operative in the current Govt.. He sits on one of their creations, I think the NLA.

Another way of contextualizing these things, all the Presidents of Universities are appointed by entities deep within the Bangkok-centric elite. It is only natural they and their faux public opinion polls would reflect that perspective....And they do.

OK, so all polls made anywhere are completely useless as they all only refect what the owner of the poll thinks

If you forget any actions or criticisms regarding the principles of democracy and then take a look at what the current government has done and are in the process of doing.

You will find that pretty much everything is positive for the majority of the people. Most approval ratings published are regarding questions on the government performance in running the country and should not be confused with how they got into power or related to principles of democracy.

OK, so all polls made anywhere are completely useless as they all only refect what the owner of the poll thinks

Certainly the major Thai Polls do. And yes, they only reflect what the anti-democrats want. That is where they originate. Just watch the reaction here, when one of these things comes out...The Posters here who normally defend that side of the political divide are seldom critical. Instead, will discuss the results with great gravitas as if they were legit. Perhaps that is why you wish to legitimize them. Coming from my perspective, what jumps out at me is the "propaganda"

"If you forget any actions or criticisms regarding the principles of democracy and then take a look at what the current government has done and are in the process of doing"

I don't suspend considerations regarding Democracy. I am not criticizing the current Govt..........I am mindful of what a popularly elected Govt. could have done, and would be in the process of doing. And how all Thai's would have a universal sense of ownership having a stake in its' selection...and yes, the opportunity to turf them. I also recognize how an elected Govt. would presumably be mindful of the election platform it was elected on, that was tailored to what they perceived as the demands of the electorate. A nation-wide, all-inclusive electorate...Not a narrow slice of a Bangkok-centric elitist electorate exclusively.

I know that polls with questions that are designed to make the government bad are banned. Polls with objective questions regarding what the government is doing are allowed and all positive.

Anyway, I noticed that you would not be bothered to check what the government has done and objectively judge how that would have been perceived by the majority of the population. To me it looks like they are doing what previous governments should have done and what most western governments did many years ago.

Regarding what a democratically elected government COULD do in Thailand I recommend that you take a look at what they have done and learn from history.

Pretty much every elected government in Thailand has ruled using the divide and conquer approach. No matter what colour shirt they have been wearing they have stolen from the country and given parts of the spoils to their supporters without any thoughts about the remaining large portion of the population. In their minds it’s always them first, supporters next and forget the rest and the country.

If you live by principles you live a life without thinking. Principles are fine as guidelines but you need to take reality into account and evaluate the principle accordingly.

Edited July 6, 2015 by pattjock

[Bannum opinions]

"No matter what colour shirt they have been wearing they have stolen from the country and given parts of the spoils to their supporters without any thoughts about the remaining large portion of the population. In their minds it’s always them first, supporters next and forget the rest and the country"

I have discarded the notion of 'coloured shirts' as designating political context. I never realized how much that served the purposes of the anti-democrats to hide their political impulses..Much of Thailand's political 'to' and 'fro' has been between pro and anti-democratic entities. It explains the repetitive coups and re-electability success of those the coup's deposed.

With respect to those charges you reference above, it is true that elected Govts. recognize their electoral base in their governing mandate. They also happened to be the electoral majority enabling them to do that. To callously dismiss the minority electorate would have been done at their own political peril. Do so to the degree you suggest, would certainly imperil their re-electability. But when elections are nullified by anti-democratic Election Commissions, it upsets that political flow.

I think what you are advocating, is the anti-democratic notion denigrating Parliament and a Parliamentary majority as being a "Parliamentary dictatorship"...Plus the anti-politician ideology of the anti-democrats.

So that leaves one with either a Democratic, electoral system of governance, or one that is not.

You seem to prefer the latter.....I the former.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[candide]

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

Very true if applied to todays governments with todays politicians.

The problem with todays system is that it has been designed by politicians so the biggest liars can get in to government, without impunity. They then have a fixed mandate period where they can solicit favors by making favorable decisions to lobbyists from minority groups against the will of the majority.

Many of todays politicians are egocentric power junkies without any conscience. If the mandate period was on condition of majority approval and lying was punished there would be no place for this kind of people in a government.

This would open up government to people who genuinely would like to run the country in the best interest of the majority of the country and in the best interest of relations to other countries.

This kind of people would today not be interested in the fake popularity contest elections are today and they would not like to be involved in the constant scheming going on in the corridors of governments with lobbyists and other minority pressure groups.

I don't see why it would attract other types of politicians (if the current ones are as bad as you think). Just changing governments more frequently.

And anyway, as I said before, it's not the meaning of majority rule which is to chose between two alternatives: government A or B, policy A or B?

If you need to be a good liar to get into the government and do wheeling and dealing with lobbyists from minority groups making decisions against the majority that elected you, you need to be a certain type of politician.

If you are elected on what you say and have to keep this, ruling with the majority without wheeling and dealing against your conscience you will be a completely different type of politician.

If there is a conditional mandate, the government have an incentive to rule with the majority and there should not be any reason to change government or have elections during the normal mandate period.

In many countries it’s not a question about A or B, many countries have several parties that eventually form a coalition with a shared agenda that should get the approval of the majority.

It's a question of simple mathematics. You can only have a majority rule between two alternatives. Example: Government A (party, coalition, president.... whatever) only gets 45% approval at mid-mandate. Following your proposed system they should resign and new elections be organised. However citizen still prefer A compared to the main alternative B, so A is re-elected with, say, 53% of votes. Waste of time and money for nothing. And this type of situation is probably the most frequent one in real life.

It could work if the approval is based on fully rational assessment, but it's far from reality. Example: in Europe because of the economic crisis, most governments have not been reelected (not because they were particularly bad or incompetent). If you look at the opinion polls one or two years after the change of government, they nearly all have an approval rate under 50%. And it's mainly because the structural strenght/weakness of their economy (i.e. Germany strong, France or Spain less strong).

And if you take structural policies (i.e. education, innovation, competitiveness, etc...), they need several years to show any effect, at least the full mandate duration.

[pattjock]

"No matter what colour shirt they have been wearing they have stolen from the country and given parts of the spoils to their supporters without any thoughts about the remaining large portion of the population. In their minds it’s always them first, supporters next and forget the rest and the country"

I have discarded the notion of 'coloured shirts' as designating political context. I never realized how much that served the purposes of the anti-democrats to hide their political impulses..Much of Thailand's political 'to' and 'fro' has been between pro and anti-democratic entities. It explains the repetitive coups and re-electability success of those the coup's deposed.

With respect to those charges you reference above, it is true that elected Govts. recognize their electoral base in their governing mandate. They also happened to be the electoral majority enabling them to do that. To callously dismiss the minority electorate would have been done at their own political peril. Do so to the degree you suggest, would certainly imperil their re-electability. But when elections are nullified by anti-democratic Election Commissions, it upsets that political flow.

I think what you are advocating, is the anti-democratic notion denigrating Parliament and a Parliamentary majority as being a "Parliamentary dictatorship"...Plus the anti-politician ideology of the anti-democrats.

So that leaves one with either a Democratic, electoral system of governance, or one that is not.

You seem to prefer the latter.....I the former.

I think we both want the same; A functioning democracy that can satisfy most of the population without causing a big rift in the population as we have had during the last few governments.

Our differences lie in the timing.

I prefer that the present government sort out the ground work such as get the level of corruption down and get a constitution together that can satisfy the majority. They should also take the opportunity to sort out the mis management of various projects left by previous governments.

You seem to be happy to plunge strait back in to the chaos that be have suffered the last few decades.

[Bannum opinions]

"No matter what colour shirt they have been wearing they have stolen from the country and given parts of the spoils to their supporters without any thoughts about the remaining large portion of the population. In their minds it’s always them first, supporters next and forget the rest and the country"

I have discarded the notion of 'coloured shirts' as designating political context. I never realized how much that served the purposes of the anti-democrats to hide their political impulses..Much of Thailand's political 'to' and 'fro' has been between pro and anti-democratic entities. It explains the repetitive coups and re-electability success of those the coup's deposed.

With respect to those charges you reference above, it is true that elected Govts. recognize their electoral base in their governing mandate. They also happened to be the electoral majority enabling them to do that. To callously dismiss the minority electorate would have been done at their own political peril. Do so to the degree you suggest, would certainly imperil their re-electability. But when elections are nullified by anti-democratic Election Commissions, it upsets that political flow.

I think what you are advocating, is the anti-democratic notion denigrating Parliament and a Parliamentary majority as being a "Parliamentary dictatorship"...Plus the anti-politician ideology of the anti-democrats.

So that leaves one with either a Democratic, electoral system of governance, or one that is not.

You seem to prefer the latter.....I the former.

I think we both want the same; A functioning democracy that can satisfy most of the population without causing a big rift in the population as we have had during the last few governments.

Our differences lie in the timing.

I prefer that the present government sort out the ground work such as get the level of corruption down and get a constitution together that can satisfy the majority. They should also take the opportunity to sort out the mis management of various projects left by previous governments.

You seem to be happy to plunge strait back in to the chaos that be have suffered the last few decades.

"You seem to be happy to plunge strait back in to the chaos that be have suffered the last few decades"

What chaos?

Because anti-democrats cannot win an election, does not chaos make.

They feel so entitled, that they have attacked electoral results via means other than elections. That is true. They cannot seem to get their head around the fact they may not be perfect...And heaven forbid, need to adapt their perfection to the needs of an electoral majority they arrogantly dismiss as lesser citizens. If they had their way, many Thai citizens would be disenfranchised. Made ineligible to vote.

Their only recourse to attain their governing entitlement, was to create situations that would enable them to gain control without elections, or chaos as you call it.That is what the Lumpini PDRC was all about, and they were successful. Although they hid that motive via self-righteous indignation about one issue or another.

Pro-democracy elements fought back in 2010...But the unelected anti-democratic powers-that-be, would not stoop to have an election. They preferred to kill in order to preserve their Governing entitlement, the cynical non-offer AV made notwithstanding.

The anti-democrats would like to call all of that chaos and legitimize their seizure of unelected power, but no-one is fooled, unless they want to be. Elections would have taken care of any problems, and losers accepted the people choice. Elections regulate such things and prevent what the anti-democrats did. Causing chaos as they like to exaggerate about.

An afterthought on that Yellow/Red thing and about the anti-democrats hiding their motives behind affinity clothing colors. What that also does, is deny their opposites a political context....Very convenient for them and obtuse. Best to talk politics politically, and contextualize everyone. Colors don't do that. I have a clear idea who the anti-democrats are, and who falls into the pro-democracy camp.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Bannum opinions

[pattjock]

Very true if applied to todays governments with todays politicians.

The problem with todays system is that it has been designed by politicians so the biggest liars can get in to government, without impunity. They then have a fixed mandate period where they can solicit favors by making favorable decisions to lobbyists from minority groups against the will of the majority.

Many of todays politicians are egocentric power junkies without any conscience. If the mandate period was on condition of majority approval and lying was punished there would be no place for this kind of people in a government.

This would open up government to people who genuinely would like to run the country in the best interest of the majority of the country and in the best interest of relations to other countries.

This kind of people would today not be interested in the fake popularity contest elections are today and they would not like to be involved in the constant scheming going on in the corridors of governments with lobbyists and other minority pressure groups.

I don't see why it would attract other types of politicians (if the current ones are as bad as you think). Just changing governments more frequently.

And anyway, as I said before, it's not the meaning of majority rule which is to chose between two alternatives: government A or B, policy A or B?

If you need to be a good liar to get into the government and do wheeling and dealing with lobbyists from minority groups making decisions against the majority that elected you, you need to be a certain type of politician.

If you are elected on what you say and have to keep this, ruling with the majority without wheeling and dealing against your conscience you will be a completely different type of politician.

If there is a conditional mandate, the government have an incentive to rule with the majority and there should not be any reason to change government or have elections during the normal mandate period.

In many countries it’s not a question about A or B, many countries have several parties that eventually form a coalition with a shared agenda that should get the approval of the majority.

It's a question of simple mathematics. You can only have a majority rule between two alternatives. Example: Government A (party, coalition, president.... whatever) only gets 45% approval at mid-mandate. Following your proposed system they should resign and new elections be organised. However citizen still prefer A compared to the main alternative B, so A is re-elected with, say, 53% of votes. Waste of time and money for nothing. And this type of situation is probably the most frequent one in real life.

It could work if the approval is based on fully rational assessment, but it's far from reality. Example: in Europe because of the economic crisis, most governments have not been reelected (not because they were particularly bad or incompetent). If you look at the opinion polls one or two years after the change of government, they nearly all have an approval rate under 50%. And it's mainly because the structural strenght/weakness of their economy (i.e. Germany strong, France or Spain less strong).

And if you take structural policies (i.e. education, innovation, competitiveness, etc...), they need several years to show any effect, at least the full mandate duration.

I think there are a few flaws in your reasoning:

First, for this to work well we need good politicians, not the current crop of crooks.

If the mandate is conditional the government will take much more care to not get anywhere near the 50%.

Economical crisis should not have any affect. Populations are smart enough to realize what is going on and have to decide if they think that the present government can ride it out better than the others. If they like "A" they will not poll them out of government.

Most governments have low ratings one to two years after elections because by then they have broken every promise they gave before the election. Just before the next election they will boost the rating by promising better things if they get re-elected.

Structural policies should be ok as the government will have the pressure of the mandate condition to keep the policies on track.

[pattjock]

"No matter what colour shirt they have been wearing they have stolen from the country and given parts of the spoils to their supporters without any thoughts about the remaining large portion of the population. In their minds it’s always them first, supporters next and forget the rest and the country"

I have discarded the notion of 'coloured shirts' as designating political context. I never realized how much that served the purposes of the anti-democrats to hide their political impulses..Much of Thailand's political 'to' and 'fro' has been between pro and anti-democratic entities. It explains the repetitive coups and re-electability success of those the coup's deposed.

With respect to those charges you reference above, it is true that elected Govts. recognize their electoral base in their governing mandate. They also happened to be the electoral majority enabling them to do that. To callously dismiss the minority electorate would have been done at their own political peril. Do so to the degree you suggest, would certainly imperil their re-electability. But when elections are nullified by anti-democratic Election Commissions, it upsets that political flow.

I think what you are advocating, is the anti-democratic notion denigrating Parliament and a Parliamentary majority as being a "Parliamentary dictatorship"...Plus the anti-politician ideology of the anti-democrats.

So that leaves one with either a Democratic, electoral system of governance, or one that is not.

You seem to prefer the latter.....I the former.

I think we both want the same; A functioning democracy that can satisfy most of the population without causing a big rift in the population as we have had during the last few governments.

Our differences lie in the timing.

I prefer that the present government sort out the ground work such as get the level of corruption down and get a constitution together that can satisfy the majority. They should also take the opportunity to sort out the mis management of various projects left by previous governments.

You seem to be happy to plunge strait back in to the chaos that be have suffered the last few decades.

"You seem to be happy to plunge strait back in to the chaos that be have suffered the last few decades"

What chaos?

Because anti-democrats cannot win an election, does not chaos make.

They feel so entitled, that they have attacked electoral results via means other than elections. That is true. They cannot seem to get their head around the fact they may not be perfect...And heaven forbid, need to adapt their perfection to the needs of an electoral majority they arrogantly dismiss as lesser citizens. If they had their way, many Thai citizens would be disenfranchised. Made ineligible to vote.

Their only recourse to attain their governing entitlement, was to create situations that would enable them to gain control without elections, or chaos as you call it.That is what the Lumpini PDRC was all about, and they were successful. Although they hid that motive via self-righteous indignation about one issue or another.

Pro-democracy elements fought back in 2010...But the unelected anti-democratic powers-that-be, would not stoop to have an election. They preferred to kill in order to preserve their Governing entitlement, the cynical non-offer AV made notwithstanding.

The anti-democrats would like to call all of that chaos and legitimize their seizure of unelected power, but no-one is fooled, unless they want to be. Elections would have taken care of any problems, and losers accepted the people choice. Elections regulate such things and prevent what the anti-democrats did. Causing chaos as they like to exaggerate about.

An afterthought on that Yellow/Red thing and about the anti-democrats hiding their motives behind affinity clothing colors. What that also does, is deny their opposites a political context....Very convenient for them and obtuse. Best to talk politics politically, and contextualize everyone. Colors don't do that. I have a clear idea who the anti-democrats are, and who falls into the pro-democracy camp.

The chaos I was talking about was the complete mis-management by any and all governments for the past few decades. No matter what side is in the government they buy their way in from one side or the other. They then steal from the country and split the spoils with their supporters. What happens with the country seems to be of no consequence.

Number one problem by far in Thailand is the blatant corruption and the apparent approval by the population of this corruption. Before this is taken care of there can never be a functioning democracy in Thailand.

[candide]

Very true if applied to todays governments with todays politicians.

The problem with todays system is that it has been designed by politicians so the biggest liars can get in to government, without impunity. They then have a fixed mandate period where they can solicit favors by making favorable decisions to lobbyists from minority groups against the will of the majority.

Many of todays politicians are egocentric power junkies without any conscience. If the mandate period was on condition of majority approval and lying was punished there would be no place for this kind of people in a government.

This would open up government to people who genuinely would like to run the country in the best interest of the majority of the country and in the best interest of relations to other countries.

This kind of people would today not be interested in the fake popularity contest elections are today and they would not like to be involved in the constant scheming going on in the corridors of governments with lobbyists and other minority pressure groups.

I don't see why it would attract other types of politicians (if the current ones are as bad as you think). Just changing governments more frequently.

And anyway, as I said before, it's not the meaning of majority rule which is to chose between two alternatives: government A or B, policy A or B?

If you need to be a good liar to get into the government and do wheeling and dealing with lobbyists from minority groups making decisions against the majority that elected you, you need to be a certain type of politician.

If you are elected on what you say and have to keep this, ruling with the majority without wheeling and dealing against your conscience you will be a completely different type of politician.

If there is a conditional mandate, the government have an incentive to rule with the majority and there should not be any reason to change government or have elections during the normal mandate period.

In many countries its not a question about A or B, many countries have several parties that eventually form a coalition with a shared agenda that should get the approval of the majority.

It's a question of simple mathematics. You can only have a majority rule between two alternatives. Example: Government A (party, coalition, president.... whatever) only gets 45% approval at mid-mandate. Following your proposed system they should resign and new elections be organised. However citizen still prefer A compared to the main alternative B, so A is re-elected with, say, 53% of votes. Waste of time and money for nothing. And this type of situation is probably the most frequent one in real life.

It could work if the approval is based on fully rational assessment, but it's far from reality. Example: in Europe because of the economic crisis, most governments have not been reelected (not because they were particularly bad or incompetent). If you look at the opinion polls one or two years after the change of government, they nearly all have an approval rate under 50%. And it's mainly because the structural strenght/weakness of their economy (i.e. Germany strong, France or Spain less strong).

And if you take structural policies (i.e. education, innovation, competitiveness, etc...), they need several years to show any effect, at least the full mandate duration.

I think there are a few flaws in your reasoning:

First, for this to work well we need good politicians, not the current crop of crooks.

If the mandate is conditional the government will take much more care to not get anywhere near the 50%.

Economical crisis should not have any affect. Populations are smart enough to realize what is going on and have to decide if they think that the present government can ride it out better than the others. If they like "A" they will not poll them out of government.

Most governments have low ratings one to two years after elections because by then they have broken every promise they gave before the election. Just before the next election they will boost the rating by promising better things if they get re-elected.

Structural policies should be ok as the government will have the pressure of the mandate condition to keep the policies on track.

A lot of "should" that don't seem to me would happen in real life. The world you describe mixes over negative views (politicians break every promise because they are not serious) with over optimistic views ( serious politicians would be selected in the system you describe and able to keep population's approval over time). We obviously have different perceptions of reality. It has been an interesting discussion but let's now switch to another topic.

[pattjock]

We will never know it will work as a change would reqire that politicians changed the system and as this would not suit them it will never happen.

[heybruce]

The chaos I was talking about was the complete mis-management by any and all governments for the past few decades. No matter what side is in the government they buy their way in from one side or the other. They then steal from the country and split the spoils with their supporters. What happens with the country seems to be of no consequence.

Number one problem by far in Thailand is the blatant corruption and the apparent approval by the population of this corruption. Before this is taken care of there can never be a functioning democracy in Thailand.

"The chaos I was talking about was the complete mis-management by any and all governments for the past few decades. No matter what side is in the government they buy their way in from one side or the other. They then steal from the country and split the spoils with their supporters. What happens with the country seems to be of no consequence."

Quite true. I assume you realize that the past few decades include many years of military rule, which were noted for corruption and incompetence.

"Number one problem by far in Thailand is the blatant corruption and the apparent approval by the population of this corruption. Before this is taken care of there can never be a functioning democracy in Thailand."

And the number one solution to corruption is transparency. What has the junta done, or even talked about doing, to increase transparency?

[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.

You're right. They have abandoned their communist ideals in the pursuit of the purely capitalist occupation of mercenary propagandists for a power-crazed fugitive criminal with aspirations to be a dictator. The "red shirt leader" title is purely illusory, as the organisation they lead is a fabrication with no membership or structure, put in place to mouth the paymaster's words as allegedly coming from the "people".

well, at least you are consistently ignorant.

[tbthailand]

The chaos I was talking about was the complete mis-management by any and all governments for the past few decades. No matter what side is in the government they buy their way in from one side or the other. They then steal from the country and split the spoils with their supporters. What happens with the country seems to be of no consequence.

Number one problem by far in Thailand is the blatant corruption and the apparent approval by the population of this corruption. Before this is taken care of there can never be a functioning democracy in Thailand.

"The chaos I was talking about was the complete mis-management by any and all governments for the past few decades. No matter what side is in the government they buy their way in from one side or the other. They then steal from the country and split the spoils with their supporters. What happens with the country seems to be of no consequence."

Quite true. I assume you realize that the past few decades include many years of military rule, which were noted for corruption and incompetence.

"Number one problem by far in Thailand is the blatant corruption and the apparent approval by the population of this corruption. Before this is taken care of there can never be a functioning democracy in Thailand."

And the number one solution to corruption is transparency. What has the junta done, or even talked about doing, to increase transparency?

to say that Thailand must solve corruption before she can have democracy is putting the cart in front of the horse.