Drafting a charter for Thai-style democracy a challenge: Meechai

[JAG]

Winston Churchill said: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

He also said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

He was a democratic politician throughout his life, and a great defender of parliamentary democracy, whatever you may think of his politics. He had his moments which made Boris Johnson look mainstream!

[GAZZPA]

Hahaha. I knew it. Thailand is going to reinvent democracy....

Ha, ha ha ha,,, brilliant. Democracy, invented by the Ancient Greeks thousands of years ago and in all the time since the brightest minds have not come up with an alternative way of trying to create a fair and peaceful society.

But don't worry, Prayuth and his boys are now on the case,,, get ready for Thaimocracy!

[sawadee1947]

a challenge?

copy any of western countries........oh, I see, it's not Thai-style.....

[Thai at Heart]

Assuming the draft Charter gets accepted at referendum then (according to the roadmap), the path to democratic elections in mid-2017 should be clear.

Drafting the Charter is going to be the easy part. Getting it accepted by the Thai people, and then getting them to accept its rules, is going to be the real challenge for Thailand.

Constitutions are nothing more than rules that governments and their citizens should follow.

As has been the case on 19 previous occasion, Thailand had had a Constitution, but its rules have been broken (and the democratic process fails).

Clearly, Thai-style democratic is quite different to that which most farang are familiar with.

Quote As has been the case on 19 previous occasion, Thailand had had a Constitution, but its rules have been broken (and the democratic process fails). This is exactly what the for Thailand only constitution is all about.

It isn't the people that have a problem with constitutions. It is the army at the request of political factions who keep ripping them up, not the people.

[waldroj]

Thai at Heart,

As I see it, the Thai Army's role during political turmoil, is to ensure the security of the Monarchy (please tell me if I'm wrong). I still argue that, if the Thai people would allow governments to run full term, the Constitution does its job. When public disobedience against the elected government of the day ensures, the Constitution fails (because the rules have been broken). Then, the Army has no option other than to step in and try to restore some order.

[heybruce]

Thai at Heart,

As I see it, the Thai Army's role during political turmoil, is to ensure the security of the Monarchy (please tell me if I'm wrong). I still argue that, if the Thai people would allow governments to run full term, the Constitution does its job. When public disobedience against the elected government of the day ensures, the Constitution fails (because the rules have been broken). Then, the Army has no option other than to step in and try to restore some order.

The constitutions written for the army clearly state that the army serves the monarchy, not the Thai people.

Regarding the problem of disorder, it is the misnamed Democrats that won't accept the result of elections--disrupting elected government and elections they don't think they'll win. If the army would deal with the Democrats instead of routinely overthrowing elected governments then order would be restored, the constitution could stay in place and democracy could establish a foothold.

[noitom]

What's so difficult? Write down anything and call it a charter, then do whatever you want anyway. Simple really.

This is known as "Thai style democracy."

[Thai at Heart]

Thai at Heart,

As I see it, the Thai Army's role during political turmoil, is to ensure the security of the Monarchy (please tell me if I'm wrong). I still argue that, if the Thai people would allow governments to run full term, the Constitution does its job. When public disobedience against the elected government of the day ensures, the Constitution fails (because the rules have been broken). Then, the Army has no option other than to step in and try to restore some order.

When the army obviously becomes partial to one side or the other of the political divide and enables the overthrow of an elected govt, that is even worse.

Public disobedience by a small minority particularly when it interferes with elections should be stopped.

Until the army is forced to back out of politics forever there will never be a solution.

[Praematura]

Thai style democracy = vote disenfranchisement for non elites

[scorecard]

Thai at Heart,

As I see it, the Thai Army's role during political turmoil, is to ensure the security of the Monarchy (please tell me if I'm wrong). I still argue that, if the Thai people would allow governments to run full term, the Constitution does its job. When public disobedience against the elected government of the day ensures, the Constitution fails (because the rules have been broken). Then, the Army has no option other than to step in and try to restore some order.

Interesting points.

[scorecard]

Lets See now This must be charter # 6 or 7 When I first started coming here in the 1980s they had a charter then chucked it Then wrote another one and chucked that one then another.

The whole idea behind a charter is once it is written its law That is it . Just because you don't like the law does not mean you cancel a charter and write a new one .

Haven't Thais heard of Amendments? This cycle of re writing charters will never stop and the internal crisis will continue because no one has respect for the law or the charter.

One of the serious problem areas is to get all Thais to respect:

- Their is law, and it's serious and it's important to build a civil society and it applies to all.

There's a number of critical discussion points, right there!

[jayboy]

Winston Churchill said:

“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Churchill was an outdated right-wing prig, though I believe he was mainly joking in this case.

Voters are only expected to know what is best for themselves in their particular circumstances, and everybody knows what is best for themselves. Assuming all human beings are have equal rights, everyone should have the right to express that in a vote.

Voters aren't expected to know everything about law and economics and governance and foreign policy etc. They elect parliamentary representatives who understand those things better. That's the system.

Either you believe everyone has equal rights or your don't. This government doesn't.

Churchill in his long life was descibed as many things - soldier, radical, rebel, conservative, adventurer, artist, opportunist and saviour of his nation.

But I have never ever heard before him described as a prig.Indeed he seems to represent in his character the complete opposite of priggishness.