Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'

[lostoday]

Back to the title of this thread: "Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'"

Yep. Western democracies have degraded to where everyone has the vote, and where a voter's choice is influenced by unrealisitc promises -- and where so many voters don't have the ability to separate reality from hype. No, you have to stack the deck to insure only the wisest -- and most altruistic -- get elected. Something like the "managed democracy" of Singapore -- where, yes, only the elite have been elected -- but their altruism has never been in doubt. So what if chewing gum -- and sedition and adverse press -- are outlawed. Singapore is the least corrupt nation in Asia -- and not by accident, but by solid leadership. Is the man on the street upset by these non-Western restrictions to democracy? Nope. Those only annoyed by this lack of "pure" democracy are the non-productive professors in their ivory towers.

Anyway, looking at the American example: We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite, no? But it did go toward assuring -- hopefully -- that only well thought out decision making was involved in who got elected. Certainly not full-proof. But certainly better than giving the vote to anyone who could stagger to the voting booth. As now. With Congress full of self-serving idiots.

No, Thailand doesn't need this brand of Western crap. Just hope they can find -- and secure -- their educated and altruistic Lee Kuan Yew. As such, they do need some form of managed democracy.

You wrote, "We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite."

• Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) ; see: Jacksonian democracy

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions).

People living on welfare on paying no taxes should not be entitled to decide the country's policy.

I believe that is call an Plutoarchy.

[lostoday]

Perhaps if you could relate it to Thailand and democracy it might help.

Convincing someone they will get something for free is the point. The vote in the UK switched from left to right whilst voting for a reduction in social entitlement.

The left voted away its entitlements. Quite an endictment on the labour party.

And how is this related to Thailand and democracy?

[Thai at Heart]

Perhaps if you could relate it to Thailand and democracy it might help.

Convincing someone they will get something for free is the point. The vote in the UK switched from left to right whilst voting for a reduction in social entitlement.

The left voted away its entitlements. Quite an endictment on the labour party.

And how is this related to Thailand and democracy?

The point is, it isn't true the only way to get elected is to give something away. If the electorate becomes sophisticated enough you can get the electorate to give away it's entitlements for the so called good of the future of the country.

Thailand isn't there yet, but if they want the Thai electorate to stop behaving for the short term, is to have more transparency and analysis of policies not less.

[manarak]

Back to the title of this thread: "Full-fledged western-inspired democracy 'unfit for Thailand'"

Yep. Western democracies have degraded to where everyone has the vote, and where a voter's choice is influenced by unrealisitc promises -- and where so many voters don't have the ability to separate reality from hype. No, you have to stack the deck to insure only the wisest -- and most altruistic -- get elected. Something like the "managed democracy" of Singapore -- where, yes, only the elite have been elected -- but their altruism has never been in doubt. So what if chewing gum -- and sedition and adverse press -- are outlawed. Singapore is the least corrupt nation in Asia -- and not by accident, but by solid leadership. Is the man on the street upset by these non-Western restrictions to democracy? Nope. Those only annoyed by this lack of "pure" democracy are the non-productive professors in their ivory towers.

Anyway, looking at the American example: We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite, no? But it did go toward assuring -- hopefully -- that only well thought out decision making was involved in who got elected. Certainly not full-proof. But certainly better than giving the vote to anyone who could stagger to the voting booth. As now. With Congress full of self-serving idiots.

No, Thailand doesn't need this brand of Western crap. Just hope they can find -- and secure -- their educated and altruistic Lee Kuan Yew. As such, they do need some form of managed democracy.

You wrote, "We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite."

• Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) ; see: Jacksonian democracy

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions).

People living on welfare on paying no taxes should not be entitled to decide the country's policy.

I believe that is call an Plutoarchy.

No, plutocracy means government by the rich.

What I propose isn't plutocracy, since even base wage earners would be entitled to vote.

Edited August 31, 2015 by manarak

[lostoday]

You wrote, "We started out to insure only the educated had the vote (white, male, land owners only). Pretty elite."

• Abolition of property qualifications for white men, from 1792 (Kentucky) to 1856 (North Carolina) ; see: Jacksonian democracy

The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only free male adult property owners (of any ethnicity) to vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions).

People living on welfare on paying no taxes should not be entitled to decide the country's policy.

I believe that is call an Plutoarchy.

No, plutocracy means government by the rich.

What I propose isn't plutocracy, since even base wage earners would be entitled to vote.

You wrote, "I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions)" They would be richer than people on the dole.

[manarak]

I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions).

People living on welfare on paying no taxes should not be entitled to decide the country's policy.

I believe that is call an Plutoarchy.

No, plutocracy means government by the rich.

What I propose isn't plutocracy, since even base wage earners would be entitled to vote.

You wrote, "I say voting rights should be given to persons who pay more taxes than they receive direct social transfers (general rule, with exceptions)" They would be richer than people on the dole.

"richer" doesn't mean wealthy. Plutos, in latin means wealth.

and indeed, I do not think people receiving aid should be able to decide on the aid.

and I also think that this could be a solution for Thailand too.

Edited August 31, 2015 by manarak

[tomacht8]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

absolute consent.

Democracy also means more equal distribution of wealth and equal rights.

In the past, in the transition from feudal to democratic forms, there were historically two ways.

- Revolution, the oppressed against the oppressors. (And after the revolution are not always democracies emerged.)

- Or transformation in the process over time, where the oppressed increasingly get more rights, more justice and increased wealth.

Which way Thailand wants to go, is unclear.

[lostoday]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

absolute consent.

Democracy also means more equal distribution of wealth and equal rights.

In the past, in the transition from feudal to democratic forms, there were historically two ways.

- Revolution, the oppressed against the oppressors. (And after the revolution are not always democracies emerged.)

- Or transformation in the process over time, where the oppressed increasingly get more rights, more justice and increased wealth.

Which way Thailand wants to go, is unclear.

You are confusing democracy with socialism or communism. Democracy says nothing about equal distribution of wealth.

[tomacht8]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

absolute consent.

Democracy also means more equal distribution of wealth and equal rights.

In the past, in the transition from feudal to democratic forms, there were historically two ways.

- Revolution, the oppressed against the oppressors. (And after the revolution are not always democracies emerged.)

- Or transformation in the process over time, where the oppressed increasingly get more rights, more justice and increased wealth.

Which way Thailand wants to go, is unclear.

You are confusing democracy with socialism or communism. Democracy says nothing about equal distribution of wealth.

more equal of wealth.

Please do not misquote!

Opposite feudal dominions and more democratic forms, a different (flatter curve) is observed regarding the distribution of wealth.

Look the list of coutries measured with gini koeffizient of wealth inequality.

You'll be amazed what countries you'll find there.

And after you can rate the extent to which countries are democratic.

Edited September 2, 2015 by tomacht8

[lostoday]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

absolute consent.

Democracy also means more equal distribution of wealth and equal rights.

In the past, in the transition from feudal to democratic forms, there were historically two ways.

- Revolution, the oppressed against the oppressors. (And after the revolution are not always democracies emerged.)

- Or transformation in the process over time, where the oppressed increasingly get more rights, more justice and increased wealth.

Which way Thailand wants to go, is unclear.

You are confusing democracy with socialism or communism. Democracy says nothing about equal distribution of wealth.

more equal of wealth.

Please do not misquote!

Opposite feudal dominions and more democratic forms, a different (flatter curve) is observed regarding the distribution of wealth.

Look the list of coutries measured with gini koeffizient of wealth inequality.

You'll be amazed what countries you'll find there.

And after you can rate the extent to which countries are democratic.

OK democracy says nothing about the more equal distribution of wealth. You are talking about economic systems not political systems.

[atyclb]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

Magna Carta

On a foundation of feudal patronage(thai style) you simply cannot build a democratic structure

[cumgranosalum]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

Magna Carta

On a foundation of feudal patronage(thai style) you simply cannot build a democratic structure

...except that ALL democracies grew out of feudal societies or similar. It is a matter of when and how power is moved from the few to the masses. Naturally the "few" are usually a bit reluctant to let go.

[cumgranosalum]

On a foundation of feudal patronage you simply cannot build a democratic structure

Magna Carta

On a foundation of feudal patronage(thai style) you simply cannot build a democratic structure

...except that ALL democracies grew out of feudal societies or similar. It is a matter of when and how power is moved from the few to the masses. Naturally the "few" are usually a bit reluctant to let go.

[elliss]

Western democracy., Labour party icons, telling its members , not to support Jeremy Corbun . the dully elected member .

Democracy ?,, not have, dream on .

Edited September 30, 2015 by elliss

[PaPiPuPePo]

Absolute drivel in this article. Trying to justify the ruling elite to stay in power because they can't win a majority in a democratic elected government. Also these people re as corrupt as anyone. Why don't you make populist policies and the people may vote for you. Don't use the excuse of we have had corrupt governments. This article is an embarrassment to Thai people. They know what is going on and this is just more propaganda to justify not have free elections. Thailand is ready for democracy. Get rid of corruption from all sides.

Until a place gets at least somewhat close to having rule of law INCLUDING a manageable corruption problem, as in developed countries, Thailand probably can't have a functioning democracy, there's just too much money floating around. But since the current PTB can pretty much dictate anything, a coordinated effort at rooting out a lot of the corruption could probably be done during those five years. Or less. At least so a functioning democracy can get stabilised.

But IMO if there's just a kind-of democratic system in place, it's likely to become the status-quo or lead to more internal strife and back to square one.

So in a way the author has a point, but I rather doubt that was his intended meaning. His whole argument sounds like a pretty blatant excuse.

[MaxLee]

Absolute drivel in this article. Trying to justify the ruling elite to stay in power because they can't win a majority in a democratic elected government. Also these people re as corrupt as anyone. Why don't you make populist policies and the people may vote for you. Don't use the excuse of we have had corrupt governments. This article is an embarrassment to Thai people. They know what is going on and this is just more propaganda to justify not have free elections. Thailand is ready for democracy. Get rid of corruption from all sides.

Until a place gets at least somewhat close to having rule of law INCLUDING a manageable corruption problem, as in developed countries, Thailand probably can't have a functioning democracy, there's just too much money floating around. But since the current PTB can pretty much dictate anything, a coordinated effort at rooting out a lot of the corruption could probably be done during those five years. Or less. At least so a functioning democracy can get stabilised.

But IMO if there's just a kind-of democratic system in place, it's likely to become the status-quo or lead to more internal strife and back to square one.

So in a way the author has a point, but I rather doubt that was his intended meaning. His whole argument sounds like a pretty blatant excuse.

Unless high profile influential personalities in Thailand are getting jailed, nothing will ever change. Thailand is a prisoners of its own FACE

[gk10002000]

Democracy is overrated.

England, Australia, the USA - all democracies, all overregulated nanny states where inequality is increasing, the government follows the will of big business, and it's boring.

Democracy? Meh.

uninformed and uneducated post, so you prefer military juntas huh? western democracy ain't perfect but it's the best we got

The one thing about a democracy is people do get to vote. Sure there is fraud, deception, corruption and all those things. Sure there are some horrible laws, some horrible judge and court decisions. But much more often than not, the common man and average person has a say in things. The ability to speak and write without undue fear of prosecution is something you have to experience to appreciate. The idea of not being able to vote against a dictator or junta, or in any way criticize the government is horrible and always leads to unjust persecution and prosecution and abuse of power as the dictators try to remain in power by suppressing so called "dissidents".

Now, to the counter point. There have been some very benevolent dictators throughout history. A central undivided government can often get things done more efficiently and effectively than other types of governments. But more often then not, the dictator and non-elected government has more abuses than democratic governments. The old saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" still holds true and will as long as humans are around.

[gk10002000]

The one thing about a democracy is people do get to vote. Sure there is fraud, deception, corruption and all those things. Sure there are some horrible laws, some horrible judge and court decisions. But much more often than not, the common man and average person has a say in things. The ability to speak and write without undue fear of prosecution is something you have to experience to appreciate. The idea of not being able to vote against a dictator or junta, or in any way criticize the government is horrible and always leads to unjust persecution and prosecution and abuse of power as the dictators try to remain in power by suppressing so called "dissidents".

Now, to the counter point. There have been some very benevolent dictators throughout history. A central undivided government can often get things done more efficiently and effectively than other types of governments. But more often then not, the dictator and non-elected government has more abuses than democratic governments. The old saying "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" still holds true and will as long as humans are around.

[elliss]

The one thing about a democracy is people do get to vote.

IF, a vote made any significant changes , a vote would not be allowed .

Dream on , democracy 5555

Edited October 1, 2015 by elliss

[gk10002000]

The one thing about a democracy is people do get to vote.

IF, a vote made any significant changes , a vote would not be allowed .

Dream on , democracy 5555

Well of course one single vote doesn't have much if any significance. Tough nuts. With millions of people voting, one person doesn't do much

[Thai at Heart]

Until the law.......................

[TomJoad]

Someday Thailand can afford to have a REAL democracy like we have in the West.*

__________________________________

*Campaigns that now last over 1.5 years and resemble carnival side-shows. Send in the clowns (Donald Trump).

Need to raise around $1 billion just to run for president.

[lostoday]

The one thing about a democracy is people do get to vote.

IF, a vote made any significant changes , a vote would not be allowed .

Dream on , democracy 5555

35 million people vote in Thailand tis you who are dreaming. Dictatorship 555.

[gk10002000]

Pretty bunch of silly posters complaining that their one vote is not significant. So would you rather live in a place where nobody has a vote as in a dictatorship?