Thaksin Will Return With Pride And Dignity

[hammered]

Just an aside guys and i'll leave you to argue the points but the middle class in Thailand is miniscule and therefore politcally irrelevent considering they lack any power. The main groups are the poor - huge - and admitterdly divided into rural and urabn poor that are ver different and the elite - small - but with immense poower -.

"The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining in favor of a view that middle-class support for democracy exists primarily when it coincides with class interests in curbing the power of government. This means that one cannot expect middle-class enthusiasm for democracy when it poses conflicts with private interests of the middle class. This latter view is expressed both by Laothamatas (1996), who argues that the 1991 coup could not have been sustained except for support from the middle class, and Samudavanija (1998), who notes that the role of the middle class in Thailand, vis- a-vis democracy, has been “reactive rather than proactive” (156) and that its primary interest in democracy has been “to safeguard their own freedom and the freedom of the market” (158). Similarly, the coup of 2006 is often conceived as a revolt of the Bangkok-middle-class against dominance of the government by populist politicians who gain their support from rural masses."

This is from the introduction to a research paper submitted to the journal, Asian Barometer- and a very interesting read. Some interesting tables- analysis- historical perspective. Worth bookmarking.

http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/p...apers/no.34.pdf

I think the small size of the Thai middle class also does not help plus the Chinese nature of it. Not so long ago they were being well persecuted. Not ideal circumstnaces for anyone theorising on the middle class making change. No i think they are more likely to want to keep a low profile and exist within whatever system exists if it doesnt overly harm them. They are neither good or bad just small and irrelevent and i think educated enough to know it

Edited December 12, 2007 by hammered

[John K]

If you ask me it looks like this thread has been hijacked by the same notorious hijackers that have done so before in attempts to continue to drive their point home about the junta and a few other off topics. It amazes me that they continue even when they have been fairly convincingly proven to have faulty information and or are viewing and presenting things in a prejudice way.

By they way I am still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to them on more than one occasion. If they answer them honestly, their answers will contradict their statements. I suspect that is why they remain unanswered. No need to remind them, they know what they are.

Meanwhile

[blaze]

Just an aside guys and i'll leave you to argue the points but the middle class in Thailand is miniscule and therefore politcally irrelevent considering they lack any power. The main groups are the poor - huge - and admitterdly divided into rural and urabn poor that are ver different and the elite - small - but with immense poower -.

"The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining in favor of a view that middle-class support for democracy exists primarily when it coincides with class interests in curbing the power of government. This means that one cannot expect middle-class enthusiasm for democracy when it poses conflicts with private interests of the middle class. This latter view is expressed both by Laothamatas (1996), who argues that the 1991 coup could not have been sustained except for support from the middle class, and Samudavanija (1998), who notes that the role of the middle class in Thailand, vis- a-vis democracy, has been “reactive rather than proactive” (156) and that its primary interest in democracy has been “to safeguard their own freedom and the freedom of the market” (158). Similarly, the coup of 2006 is often conceived as a revolt of the Bangkok-middle-class against dominance of the government by populist politicians who gain their support from rural masses."

This is from the introduction to a research paper submitted to the journal, Asian Barometer- and a very interesting read. Some interesting tables- analysis- historical perspective. Worth bookmarking.

http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/p...apers/no.34.pdf

I think the small size of the Thai middle class also does noit help plus the Chinese nature iof it. Not so lon gago thety were being weell persecuted. Not ideal circumstnaces for anyone theorising on the middle class makin gchnabge. No i think they are more likely to want to kep a low profile and exist within whatbveer system exists if it doesnt overly harm them. They are neither good or bad just small and irrelevent and i think educated enough to know it

First we would have to define middle class. If the mean (not average) income in Bangkok is 20000 a month- and that in the North East is 10000 (see above article)- does that give us something to work with? But regardless- the Bangok residents, those who call Bangkok their primary dwelling- are a force- Sonthi L recognized it. And so does Plus. But as you say Hammered, and I agree- and so does Sonthi L- and perhaps so does Plus- without the support of elements at the higher rungs of the pecking order- those earning around 20000 are grossly outnumbered by those earning around 10000 and hence, relatively insignificant. And I would submit that the bulk (though by no means all) of the PAD's active (not behind the scenes) participants- those on the streets- were in that 20 grand plus bracket and their principle residence was Bangkok- ie- they weren't the migrant workers across my alley.

As far as the middle class making change- well the paper linked above discusses that- it won't be change as we think of it- in the sense of 'progressive'- unless it benefits the middle class financially.

And it certainly won't involve sacrifice by the middle class for the country cousins. Not according to the authors of that paper anyway. I'd like to know your impression of the paper when you get a chance.

[Prakanong]

If you ask me it looks like this thread has been hijacked by the same notorious hijackers that have done so before in attempts to continue to drive their point home about the junta and a few other off topics. It amazes me that they continue even when they have been fairly convincingly proven to have faulty information and or are viewing and presenting things in a prejudice way.

By they way I am still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to them on more than one occasion. If they answer them honestly, their answers will contradict their statements. I suspect that is why they remain unanswered. No need to remind them, they know what they are.

Meanwhile

Is that in your professional opinion which you were giving out free somewhere on the thread

Most would not see discussions of Thai democracy, the rising middle class as off topic at all withing this thread - strange

Of course of you just want anti-Thaksin rants then you may find reasoned discussion of politics out of your league so to speak.

Just out of interest - did you take this much of an interest in politics back home?

I would wager you were a rabid anti-Clintonite

Single issue obsessions are not healthy by the way.

[hammered]

Just an aside guys and i'll leave you to argue the points but the middle class in Thailand is miniscule and therefore politcally irrelevent considering they lack any power. The main groups are the poor - huge - and admitterdly divided into rural and urabn poor that are ver different and the elite - small - but with immense poower -.

"The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining in favor of a view that middle-class support for democracy exists primarily when it coincides with class interests in curbing the power of government. This means that one cannot expect middle-class enthusiasm for democracy when it poses conflicts with private interests of the middle class. This latter view is expressed both by Laothamatas (1996), who argues that the 1991 coup could not have been sustained except for support from the middle class, and Samudavanija (1998), who notes that the role of the middle class in Thailand, vis- a-vis democracy, has been “reactive rather than proactive” (156) and that its primary interest in democracy has been “to safeguard their own freedom and the freedom of the market” (158). Similarly, the coup of 2006 is often conceived as a revolt of the Bangkok-middle-class against dominance of the government by populist politicians who gain their support from rural masses."

This is from the introduction to a research paper submitted to the journal, Asian Barometer- and a very interesting read. Some interesting tables- analysis- historical perspective. Worth bookmarking.

http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/p...apers/no.34.pdf

I think the small size of the Thai middle class also does not help plus the Chinese nature of it. Not so lon ago thety were being well persecuted. Not ideal circumstnaces for anyone theorising on the middle class makin change. No i think they are more likely to want to kep a low profile and exist within whatbveer system exists if it doesnt overly harm them. They are neither good or bad just small and irrelevent and i think educated enough to know it

First we would have to define middle class. If the mean (not average) income in Bangkok is 20000 a month- and that in the North East is 10000 (see above article)- does that give us something to work with? But regardless- the Bangok residents, those who call Bangkok their primary dwelling- are a force- Sonthi L recognized it. And so does Plus. But as you say Hammered, and I agree- and so does Sonthi L- and perhaps so does Plus- without the support of elements at the higher rungs of the pecking order- those earning around 20000 are grossly outnumbered by those earning around 10000 and hence, relatively insignificant. And I would submit that the bulk (though by no means all) of the PAD's active (not behind the scenes) participants- those on the streets- were in that 20 grand plus bracket and their principle residence was Bangkok- ie- they weren't the migrant workers across my alley.

As far as the middle class making change- well the paper linked above discusses that- it won't be change as we think of it- in the sense of 'progressive'- unless it benefits the middle class financially.

And it certainly won't involve sacrifice by the middle class for the country cousins. Not according to the authors of that paper anyway. I'd like to know your impression of the paper when you get a chance.

I certainly agree that the middle calss wil change nothing although maybe for other reasons. The critical group is the working class - ie those who have left the rural areas and aint going back who exist in large numbers and are currently disenfrachised totally by all parties and groups. This cant go on forever,. As they exist as the younger people from the rural areas they will be here long after the traditional rural dwellers die. This is where i see the dynamic as being. Some try to argue that this group are middle calss by nature but that is wrong. Thailand has a devloping working class. Most try to deny this but the group will soon be bigger than the peasantry. Then to disenfranchise it is to court disaster. The middle class will look to its own interest naturally but because they are very small and ethnically different dont expect too much in Thailand. Expect more from the sons and daughters of the farmers. By the way little has ever ben said of the fact the PAD had a mass of the urban working class behind it, which is true but not analysed.

Edited December 12, 2007 by hammered

[John K]

If you ask me it looks like this thread has been hijacked by the same notorious hijackers that have done so before in attempts to continue to drive their point home about the junta and a few other off topics. It amazes me that they continue even when they have been fairly convincingly proven to have faulty information and or are viewing and presenting things in a prejudice way.

By they way I am still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to them on more than one occasion. If they answer them honestly, their answers will contradict their statements. I suspect that is why they remain unanswered. No need to remind them, they know what they are.

Meanwhile

Is that in your professional opinion which you were giving out free somewhere on the thread

Most would not see discussions of Thai democracy, the rising middle class as off topic at all withing this thread - strange

Of course of you just want anti-Thaksin rants then you may find reasoned discussion of politics out of your league so to speak.

Just out of interest - did you take this much of an interest in politics back home?

I would wager you were a rabid anti-Clintonite

Single issue obsessions are not healthy by the way.

Hmmm.... no names were mentioned. Did you think I was talking about you? Do you think you fit the criteria of my post? Is that why you are coming back with a personal attack that is not related to either the hijack or the thread topic? Hmmm....

[Prakanong]

If you ask me it looks like this thread has been hijacked by the same notorious hijackers that have done so before in attempts to continue to drive their point home about the junta and a few other off topics. It amazes me that they continue even when they have been fairly convincingly proven to have faulty information and or are viewing and presenting things in a prejudice way.

By they way I am still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to them on more than one occasion. If they answer them honestly, their answers will contradict their statements. I suspect that is why they remain unanswered. No need to remind them, they know what they are.

Meanwhile

Is that in your professional opinion which you were giving out free somewhere on the thread

Most would not see discussions of Thai democracy, the rising middle class as off topic at all withing this thread - strange

Of course of you just want anti-Thaksin rants then you may find reasoned discussion of politics out of your league so to speak.

Just out of interest - did you take this much of an interest in politics back home?

I would wager you were a rabid anti-Clintonite

Single issue obsessions are not healthy by the way.

Hmmm.... no names were mentioned. Did you think I was talking about you? Do you think you fit the criteria of my post? Is that why you are coming back with a personal attack that is not related to either the hijack or the thread topic? Hmmm....

Not personal at all - just wondered why anyone could think the thread had gone off topic.

Lots of hmmms ?????

hmmm

[John K]

If you ask me it looks like this thread has been hijacked by the same notorious hijackers that have done so before in attempts to continue to drive their point home about the junta and a few other off topics. It amazes me that they continue even when they have been fairly convincingly proven to have faulty information and or are viewing and presenting things in a prejudice way.

By they way I am still waiting for answers to the questions I posed to them on more than one occasion. If they answer them honestly, their answers will contradict their statements. I suspect that is why they remain unanswered. No need to remind them, they know what they are.

Meanwhile

Is that in your professional opinion which you were giving out free somewhere on the thread

Most would not see discussions of Thai democracy, the rising middle class as off topic at all withing this thread - strange

Of course of you just want anti-Thaksin rants then you may find reasoned discussion of politics out of your league so to speak.

Just out of interest - did you take this much of an interest in politics back home?

I would wager you were a rabid anti-Clintonite

Single issue obsessions are not healthy by the way.

Hmmm.... no names were mentioned. Did you think I was talking about you? Do you think you fit the criteria of my post? Is that why you are coming back with a personal attack that is not related to either the hijack or the thread topic? Hmmm....

Not personal at all - just wondered why anyone could think the thread had gone off topic.

Lots of hmmms ?????

hmmm

Every time you use the word ‘you’ it becomes personal particularly so when off topic.

[jbowman1993]

Thaksin Will Return With Pride And Dignity, If and when, his lawyer says

No He Won't

[Plus]

I talked about middle class not in terms of income but in political terms, as people who make their voting decisions based on the interests of the whole country and not in exchange for the sack of rice.

In that paper they had one table fairly close to it. Bangkokians look for "capabilities" of the candidates while non-Bangkokians look for "local interests" and "personal characteristics".

I personally think it's a no-brainer what really is important in choosing candidates, a friend of my cousin who I really like or the guy who will do his job, but, as the paper rightly stresses, non-Bangkokians have their own view of what democracy is or should be. They support the word but not its meaning (there was a quote on that somewhere). Maybe they've learned what democracy is from Thaksin, he used to talk a lot it.

Bangkokians, on the other hand, have a far more cynical attitude towards democracy but stronger support for underlying principles, the fact that the paper seems to overlook while harping on about their desired conclusion - rurals love democracy but middle classes love dictatorships.

There's also one common flaw present in all those leftist propaganda pieces - that Thaksin somehow represented the interests of the poor. That's a very important point, because from there the leftists always jump to their main accusation - Bangkokians opposed the rurals taking away their power, that the campaign against Thaksin was a campaign against the majority of the population.

Absolute nonsense. During six years of Thaksin's rule the poor had been kept as far away from power as possible. People were outraged over Thaksin abuse of the mandate, not the aspirations of villagers who voted for him (if they exist at all beyond voting for their buddies).

>>>>

Relying on views of one academic turned politician (and a loser one at that) as a basis for a paper on a whole country is lame, imo, and I doubt Anek himself would agree with some of their conculsions. Tirayuth Boonme (who they quote in a disparaging and sarcastical tone) has proven to have a far better grip on what's going on in the country, but he is not leftist so he doesn't count.

Altogether it's just another example of twisting data to suit one's preconcieved notions. Confirms a general rule of research - if you try hard enough, you will find support for anything. Finding holes and gaps and inconsistencies in such "research" is a major work in itself, but in this paper they are glaring. They have the data, I even agree with most of their interpretations, but at the stage where they have to draw conclusions they show a clear bias and turn irrational.

[Tony Clifton]

[hammered]

Just an aside guys and i'll leave you to argue the points but the middle class in Thailand is miniscule and therefore politcally irrelevent considering they lack any power. The main groups are the poor - huge - and admitterdly divided into rural and urabn poor that are ver different and the elite - small - but with immense poower -.

"The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining in favor of a view that middle-class support for democracy exists primarily when it coincides with class interests in curbing the power of government. This means that one cannot expect middle-class enthusiasm for democracy when it poses conflicts with private interests of the middle class. This latter view is expressed both by Laothamatas (1996), who argues that the 1991 coup could not have been sustained except for support from the middle class, and Samudavanija (1998), who notes that the role of the middle class in Thailand, vis- a-vis democracy, has been “reactive rather than proactive” (156) and that its primary interest in democracy has been “to safeguard their own freedom and the freedom of the market” (158). Similarly, the coup of 2006 is often conceived as a revolt of the Bangkok-middle-class against dominance of the government by populist politicians who gain their support from rural masses."

This is from the introduction to a research paper submitted to the journal, Asian Barometer- and a very interesting read. Some interesting tables- analysis- historical perspective. Worth bookmarking.

http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/p...apers/no.34.pdf

I think the small size of the Thai middle class also does noit help plus the Chinese nature iof it. Not so lon gago thety were being weell persecuted. Not ideal circumstnaces for anyone theorising on the middle class makin gchnabge. No i think they are more likely to want to kep a low profile and exist within whatbveer system exists if it doesnt overly harm them. They are neither good or bad just small and irrelevent and i think educated enough to know it

First we would have to define middle class. If the mean (not average) income in Bangkok is 20000 a month- and that in the North East is 10000 (see above article)- does that give us something to work with? But regardless- the Bangok residents, those who call Bangkok their primary dwelling- are a force- Sonthi L recognized it. And so does Plus. But as you say Hammered, and I agree- and so does Sonthi L- and perhaps so does Plus- without the support of elements at the higher rungs of the pecking order- those earning around 20000 are grossly outnumbered by those earning around 10000 and hence, relatively insignificant. And I would submit that the bulk (though by no means all) of the PAD's active (not behind the scenes) participants- those on the streets- were in that 20 grand plus bracket and their principle residence was Bangkok- ie- they weren't the migrant workers across my alley.

As far as the middle class making change- well the paper linked above discusses that- it won't be change as we think of it- in the sense of 'progressive'- unless it benefits the middle class financially.

And it certainly won't involve sacrifice by the middle class for the country cousins. Not according to the authors of that paper anyway. I'd like to know your impression of the paper when you get a chance.

I think the paper makes some intersting points as far as it goes. To my mind though there is a need to recognize the urban poor group as being distinct from the rural poor and ther middle class. With this years estimate that now 50% of the Thai population are living (even if not registerd) in urban areas this group is already very large. Admittedly as many are registered in rural areas that they no longer live in they end up being classified as rural poor in these kind of studies which ignore ther fact their interests lie elsewhere. The fact that this group is also very very young probably doesnt help with recognition.

Having siad all that I would like to se rersearch papers that actually take a look at the semi-permamnant rural poor group of mostly youngsters abnd what their values, opinions, etc are. Having spoken to many in this situatuion personally I woyuld estimate it to be some way off the rural groups but also not with the middle class groups.

Another comment on the papaer is that there are probbaly as many if niot more middle class people living outside of Bangkok as in it, so there may be flaws in just using the tired old Thai assessment of Bangkok and the rural areas, which usually excludes the south too. I am always wary of academic work knowing that it always stems from an assumption to start with, which often results in things being fitted to what suits the assumption. Having said that this paper is intersting in what it does cover but neds to be fitted into the wider context of what it omits. A careful reading of this together with other research that covers other segments of society and with different core assumptions and different agendas would probbaly give a rounded picture for someone to draw conclusuions. So useful when considered with other material.

[Plus]

I don't understand how they talk about democracy without pausing even for a second to define it, and it's absolutely necessary as they mentioned "tale of two democracies" at least a dozen times. If there are two distinct perceptions of what democracy is, the first thing is to define what they mean themselves when they say "support for democracy is higher among rural population".

How can they ignore the often repeated (Bangkokian) argument that Thaskin destroyed democracy?

Another thing that is completely out of place - after analysing research data on Bangkok vs nonBangkok population for some thirty pages they suddenly declare that "Asian values" do not exist! I understand their ideological need to insert a damning sentence against Asian values, but why here? This paper has nothing to do with it.

[Prakanong]

I don't understand how they talk about democracy without pausing even for a second to define it, and it's absolutely necessary as they mentioned "tale of two democracies" at least a dozen times. If there are two distinct perceptions of what democracy is, the first thing is to define what they mean themselves when they say "support for democracy is higher among rural population".

How can they ignore the often repeated (Bangkokian) argument that Thaskin destroyed democracy?

Another thing that is completely out of place - after analysing research data on Bangkok vs nonBangkok population for some thirty pages they suddenly declare that "Asian values" do not exist! I understand their ideological need to insert a damning sentence against Asian values, but why here? This paper has nothing to do with it.

Why do you not give us your definition of democracy then?

As for Asian Values - that was put to bed years ago after Harry Lee brought it up and Amyarta Sen pulled it apart.

[Plus]

Why should I give MY definition of democracy? It's not my paper. You can ask me about it when I start talking about how villagers don't understand democracy or how urbanites don't value it very much.

Asian values as pulled apart by Amartya Sen have nothing to do with this paper either, they mention them only because they need to validate their marxist theory that does not have any space for so called Asian values.

Most other points in Amartya Sen's theory look ridiculously off mark now, ten years since it's been published. Old Lee is the one having the last laugh at the moment, not Sen.

[Prakanong]

Why should I give MY definition of democracy? It's not my paper. You can ask me about it when I start talking about how villagers don't understand democracy or how urbanites don't value it very much.

Asian values as pulled apart by Amartya Sen have nothing to do with this paper either, they mention them only because they need to validate their marxist theory that does not have any space for so called Asian values.

Most other points in Amartya Sen's theory look ridiculously off mark now, ten years since it's been published. Old Lee is the one having the last laugh at the moment, not Sen.

You are arguing about democracy in Thailand just as the article is - maybe you should define your meaning of the ideology "Democracy" so people have basis for discussion?

how is Harry Lee laughing - Sen argued that Asian Values were not exactly what Lee spoke about and that it was not all about authoritarianism etc - he effectively proved him wrong.

http://www.brainsnchips.org/hr/sen.htm

"Abstract: A wide-ranging historical and economic survey of Asia reveals little substance in Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew's defense of authoritarianism: it is not helpful in rapid economic development. Civil rights and tolerance have roots in both Asian and Western traditions. "

Asian Values was featured on the front of either Foreign Affairs or one of the others as a passing theory that came and went and meant nothing.

Edited December 13, 2007 by Prakanong

[hammered]

Avudh ahs a new blog entry up on scare mongers running the race. Worth a read imho

http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/topboot/2007/12/11/entry-1

[Plus]

I'm not arguing about democracy in Thailand in this thread, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the article quoted by Blaze, especially the part saying that "The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining".

I'm saying that it "appears to be declining" because the defintion of democracy has shifted. Authors DO KNOW that but chose to ignore it while making sweeping statements like that.

"...Kuan Yew's defense of authoritarianism: it is not helpful in rapid economic development." You can't seriosly tell that about Chinese or Vietnamese economy. Ten years ago he predicted that China will embrace democracy when it embraces capitalism, he couldn't be more wrong.

[Prakanong]

" Does authoritarianism really work so well? It is certainly true that some relatively authoritarian states (such as South Korea, Lee's Singapore, and post-reform China) have had faster rates of economic growth than many less authoritarian ones (such as India, Costa Rica or Jamaica). But the "Lee hypothesis" is based on very selective and limited information, rather than on any general statistical testing over the wide-ranging data that are available. We cannot really take the high economic growth of China or South Korea in Asia as "proof positive" that authoritarianism does better in promoting economic growt"

Its not authoriantarianism in itself that supplies the conditions for the growth - those conditions can be in both a country that is authoritarian or a open democracy

[Plus]

Well yes, while Vietnam is puffing away at 10% Burma is shrinking at the same rate. I don't think Lee ever argued that authoritarianism garantee high growth.

Sen's followers, on the other hand, quickly assumed that without democracy high growth is impossible and China's success is unsustainable. Ten years, two wars, a dozen of corporate scandals and economic slowdown later one wonders if "democracy" is really an example for developing world to follow.

Lee is having the last laugh when he sees how the west quickly surrendered its"democratic" values when presented with business opportunities. His Singapore is hardly any more democratic than it was in Sen's time, on the other hand.

We are getting off topic, btw. Asian values have absolutely nothing to do with research presented in the paper, it's a red herring and we took the bait.

[blaze]

I'm not arguing about democracy in Thailand in this thread, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the article quoted by Blaze, especially the part saying that "The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining".

I'm saying that it "appears to be declining" because the defintion of democracy has shifted. Authors DO KNOW that but chose to ignore it while making sweeping statements like that.

"...Kuan Yew's defense of authoritarianism: it is not helpful in rapid economic development." You can't seriosly tell that about Chinese or Vietnamese economy. Ten years ago he predicted that China will embrace democracy when it embraces capitalism, he couldn't be more wrong.

Plus, please explain what you mean when you say the definition of democracy has shifted. I think it is and always has been an ideal wherein the citizenry assumes responsiblity for the governing of the state.

And for as long as the term democracy has been used to apply to political systems, this has translated into majority rule- (with minority rights defined- and contstitutionally protected) and from there, in mass societies, into representational democracy.

But I don't understand when you say there has been a shift in definitions.

[hammered]

I'm not arguing about democracy in Thailand in this thread, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the article quoted by Blaze, especially the part saying that "The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining".

I'm saying that it "appears to be declining" because the defintion of democracy has shifted. Authors DO KNOW that but chose to ignore it while making sweeping statements like that.

"...Kuan Yew's defense of authoritarianism: it is not helpful in rapid economic development." You can't seriosly tell that about Chinese or Vietnamese economy. Ten years ago he predicted that China will embrace democracy when it embraces capitalism, he couldn't be more wrong.

Plus, please explain what you mean when you say the definition of democracy has shifted. I think it is and always has been an ideal wherein the citizenry assumes responsiblity for the governing of the state.

And for as long as the term democracy has been used to apply to political systems, this has translated into majority rule- (with minority rights defined- and contstitutionally protected) and from there, in mass societies, into representational democracy.

But I don't understand when you say there has been a shift in definitions.

You should probably also include the seperation of powers that all too often get left out of democracy particulalrly when appliesd to Thailand

[Prakanong]

Chalerm is going back to get him

"Thai poll becomes referendum on Thaksin

By Amy Kazmin in Khon Buri, Thailand

Published: December 11 2007 16:35 | Last updated: December 11 2007 16:35

In a fiery speech, Mr Chalerm said that supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra – the former prime minister ousted in last year’s military coup – should vote for the PPP in parliamentary elections on December 23 so that they could help bring the exiled populist home.

“If PPP is the government . . . will bring Thaksin back to Thailand,” Mr Chalerm declared to cheers. “I, Chalerm, will fly, myself, to get him. But whether or not I can do it is up to you. If you want Thaksin back, vote PPP.”

In Thailand’s rural ­villages, the constituency from which Mr Thaksin ­garnered much of his support thanks to his development policies, it is a message that resonates.

“Thaksin did what he promised and his party members worked hard in their areas,” said a teacher listening in but too fearful of potential repercussions to give her name. “Life is harder in so many ways after the coup.”"

Edited December 13, 2007 by Prakanong

[blaze]

I'm not arguing about democracy in Thailand in this thread, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the article quoted by Blaze, especially the part saying that "The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining".

I'm saying that it "appears to be declining" because the defintion of democracy has shifted. Authors DO KNOW that but chose to ignore it while making sweeping statements like that.

"...Kuan Yew's defense of authoritarianism: it is not helpful in rapid economic development." You can't seriosly tell that about Chinese or Vietnamese economy. Ten years ago he predicted that China will embrace democracy when it embraces capitalism, he couldn't be more wrong.

Plus, please explain what you mean when you say the definition of democracy has shifted. I think it is and always has been an ideal wherein the citizenry assumes responsiblity for the governing of the state.

And for as long as the term democracy has been used to apply to political systems, this has translated into majority rule- (with minority rights defined- and contstitutionally protected) and from there, in mass societies, into representational democracy.

But I don't understand when you say there has been a shift in definitions.

You should probably also include the seperation of powers that all too often get left out of democracy particulalrly when appliesd to Thailand

I'm not sure that separation of powers is universally accepted as an essential component of a democracy- but democracy is ultimately conerned with governance- that may be important to remember.

But I wanted to add that the conditions which are viewed as rendering the philosophical democratic ideal into reality are not universal- and maybe this is what Plus is referring to.

For instance- conditions such as education of the citizenry, freedom of the press, government transparency, freedom of association, effective functioning of checks and balances (this one's for you Plus)- are all nescessary to the maximizing of the potential of a democratic state to attain the ideals of democracy. Though each of those can be carried to an extreme that hinders the goals of democracy. And it is in that range that we find various and changing attitudes- ie- how much transparency? How much freedom of association? etc etc. These will vary from place to place and time to time.

There is also a dynamic in the balance wherein an elected government leads as opposed to represents- (and in an increasingly complex world, we tend more to elect governments to lead us in some ways- than simply represent us- for instance we understand the basic principles of party A and then tell them- ok- there's a little conflab blows up in Kyrghistan- you guys figure out how the nation should respond- just stay true to the principles you proclaimed prior to the election).

But the constant is that the sole authority in the govenance of the state rests with the people. And that as a political system in a mass society, no other means of coming even close to that ideal has ever successfully supplanted the idea of majority rule.

I think though that not enough attention is paid to the philosophical foundations for democracy- namely that all citizens are born equal- that no one citizen has more of an inheriant right to determine the direction that the state takes than does his dumb assed brother in law down t'the trailor park.

And that's why any one looking for perfect governance in democracy- would do well to look elsewhere. Which is exactly what some of the Europeans did do after it sank in that democracy is not a guarantee of brilliant governance. They chose fascism and communism.

I sometimes feel that because democracy is new in Thailand- that many Thais have an idealized picture of what it can and will yield- that they confuse democracy with good governance. And you can have, as Anand showed several years ago- and, some would argue dictators like Castro continue to show- good governance without democracy.

Edited December 13, 2007 by blaze

[hammered]

I'm not arguing about democracy in Thailand in this thread, I'm pointing out inconsistencies in the article quoted by Blaze, especially the part saying that "The traditional emphasis on the “middle class” (that characterizes Bangkok “culture”), as an engine of democracy appears to be declining".

I'm saying that it "appears to be declining" because the defintion of democracy has shifted. Authors DO KNOW that but chose to ignore it while making sweeping statements like that.

"...Kuan Yew's defense of authoritarianism: it is not helpful in rapid economic development." You can't seriosly tell that about Chinese or Vietnamese economy. Ten years ago he predicted that China will embrace democracy when it embraces capitalism, he couldn't be more wrong.

Plus, please explain what you mean when you say the definition of democracy has shifted. I think it is and always has been an ideal wherein the citizenry assumes responsiblity for the governing of the state.

And for as long as the term democracy has been used to apply to political systems, this has translated into majority rule- (with minority rights defined- and contstitutionally protected) and from there, in mass societies, into representational democracy.

But I don't understand when you say there has been a shift in definitions.

You should probably also include the seperation of powers that all too often get left out of democracy particulalrly when appliesd to Thailand

I'm not sure that separation of powers is universally accepted as an essential component of a democracy- I wanted to add- to the above- that the conditions which are viewed as rendering the ideal into reality have changed over the centuries- and maybe this is what Plus is referring to.

For instance- Certainly conditions such as education of the citizenry, freedom of the press, transparency, freedom of association etc, effective functioning of checks and balances (this one's for you Plus)- are all nescessary to the maximizing of the potential of a democratic state to attain the ideals of democracy. Though each of those can be carried to an extreme that hinders the goals of democracy. And it is in that range that we find various and changing attitudes- ie- how much transparency? How much freedom of association? etc etc. These will vary from place to place and time to time.

But the constant is that the sole authority in the govenance of the state rests with the people. And that as a political system in a mass society, no other means of coming even close to that ideal has ever successfully supplanted the idea of majority rule.

I think though that not enough attention is paid to the philosophical foundations for democracy- namely that all citizens are born equal- that no one citizen has more of an inheriant right to determine the direction that the state takes than does his dumb assed brother in law down t'the trailor park.

And that's why any one looking for perfect governance in democracy- would do well to look elsewhere. Which is exactly what some of the Europeans did do after it sank in that democracy is not a guarantee of brilliant governance. They chose fascism and communism.

I sometimes feel that because democracy is new in Thailand- that many Thais have an idealized picture of what it can and will yield- that they confuse democracy with good governance. And you can have, as Anand showed several years ago- and, some would argue dictators like Castro continue to show- good governance without democracy.

It is interesting for us to be debating this on the positives of democracy and how they apply to Thailand when elsewhere there are debates going on about the failings of democracy in terms of illegal war agauinst the will of the people in certain places and how the will of the people ios now quite secondary to the will of money in determining what is done. Intersting times ahead if you are right an dpeoplein Thailand expect too much from democracy.

By the way I agre with the formal equality in th eeyes of the law being critical for true functioning democracy. Thailand needs to work on thast a bit

[Plus]

"Voting in farming areas is not guided by political principles, policy issues, or what is perceived to be in the national interest, all of which is (regarded as) the only legitimate rationale for citizens casting their ballots in a democratic

election. The ideal candidates for rural voters are those who visit them often, address their immediate grievances effectively, and bring numerous public works to their communities...this fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

This is the shift I was talking about - alternative versions of democracy, democracy that is not concerned with political principles, policy issues or national interest.

I thought about Prakhanong's request for my definition of democracy and I think the most elegant so far is "government of the people, for the people, and by the people". It's short, non-contradictory, and everything else follows from there.

Thaksin's government was "of the people", but not "for the people", and not "by the people" as it was self serving and it didn't tolerate any outside input into governing ("by the people" part).

Current government by comparison is not "of the people" but it's "for the people" (acting largely in the whole country's interests), and it's curiosly "by the people", too, as NLA represents all sections of society - political groups, lobbies, NGOs, media - far better than any parlament before.

Rural version of democracy, as described in the article, is not "by the people" as they simply write blank checks for politicians they personally like, and not "for the people", people who live outside the catchment area. Banharn just promised to repeat his Suphanburi miracle for the whole country, but the question is - why he never thought about it in fifteen-twenty years he's been in and out of the governments. Has he really grown to the national politician status? I seriously doubt his commitment on this.

Elections, checks and balances, referendums - they are all just mechanisms to translate "of", "for", and "by" the people into action, ie. if people are denied any input in the governing it's not a democracy, no matter how many elections are there.

[blaze]

"Voting in farming areas is not guided by political principles, policy issues, or what is perceived to be in the national interest, all of which is (regarded as) the only legitimate rationale for citizens casting their ballots in a democratic

election. The ideal candidates for rural voters are those who visit them often, address their immediate grievances effectively, and bring numerous public works to their communities...this fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

This is the shift I was talking about - alternative versions of democracy, democracy that is not concerned with political principles, policy issues or national interest.

I thought about Prakhanong's request for my definition of democracy and I think the most elegant so far is "government of the people, for the people, and by the people". It's short, non-contradictory, and everything else follows from there.

Thaksin's government was "of the people", but not "for the people", and not "by the people" as it was self serving and it didn't tolerate any outside input into governing ("by the people" part).

Current government by comparison is not "of the people" but it's "for the people" (acting largely in the whole country's interests), and it's curiosly "by the people", too, as NLA represents all sections of society - political groups, lobbies, NGOs, media - far better than any parlament before.

Rural version of democracy, as described in the article, is not "by the people" as they simply write blank checks for politicians they personally like, and not "for the people", people who live outside the catchment area. Banharn just promised to repeat his Suphanburi miracle for the whole country, but the question is - why he never thought about it in fifteen-twenty years he's been in and out of the governments. Has he really grown to the national politician status? I seriously doubt his commitment on this.

Elections, checks and balances, referendums - they are all just mechanisms to translate "of", "for", and "by" the people into action, ie. if people are denied any input in the governing it's not a democracy, no matter how many elections are there.

[blaze]

"Voting in farming areas is not guided by political principles, policy issues, or what is perceived to be in the national interest, all of which is (regarded as) the only legitimate rationale for citizens casting their ballots in a democratic

election. The ideal candidates for rural voters are those who visit them often, address their immediate grievances effectively, and bring numerous public works to their communities...this fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

This is the shift I was talking about - alternative versions of democracy, democracy that is not concerned with political principles, policy issues or national interest.

I thought about Prakhanong's request for my definition of democracy and I think the most elegant so far is "government of the people, for the people, and by the people". It's short, non-contradictory, and everything else follows from there.

Thaksin's government was "of the people", but not "for the people", and not "by the people" as it was self serving and it didn't tolerate any outside input into governing ("by the people" part).

Current government by comparison is not "of the people" but it's "for the people" (acting largely in the whole country's interests), and it's curiosly "by the people", too, as NLA represents all sections of society - political groups, lobbies, NGOs, media - far better than any parlament before.

Rural version of democracy, as described in the article, is not "by the people" as they simply write blank checks for politicians they personally like, and not "for the people", people who live outside the catchment area. Banharn just promised to repeat his Suphanburi miracle for the whole country, but the question is - why he never thought about it in fifteen-twenty years he's been in and out of the governments. Has he really grown to the national politician status? I seriously doubt his commitment on this.

Elections, checks and balances, referendums - they are all just mechanisms to translate "of", "for", and "by" the people into action, ie. if people are denied any input in the governing it's not a democracy, no matter how many elections are there.

Sorry- somehow my response didn't get included with the quote.

Anyway, I think you raise very interesting points Plus- and I don't entirely disagee with you-

But I would like to ask if there is a democracy in the world that you would envision as meeting the standards that you set for democracy as a political system? If so - which one? And how does it avoid the charge of not being immediately accountable to the masses?

I would suggest that in most democracies, the real check and balance is the election. Four four years the winning party gets pretty much a blank cheque to (legally- though many fail in this regard- not just in THailand) run the country as they see fit.

If the public does not like the way they have run the country during their tenure, they won't re-elect them. That is the ultimate check.

If the public is content with a party that assumes a dictatorial stance - that's the public's option. If party members find that the stance is too dictatorial- not receptive to grass roots concerns- they rebel. Or they don't. That's democracy. They have that choice.

Most people- in ANY country you can name- actually don't want to think about the pressing issues of the day- they elect representatives to do that for them. But should they want to share more in the decision making- they have the option of electing represenatives that will be more accountable to them.

Also the idea of having representatives in a legislative assembly selected from various sectors- isn't that the way that the so called 'democratic' societies of East Europe used to operate? Except the representatives were elected by members of the sectors- rather that hand picked by the communist party (though only communist party members were eligible for election.)

I'm not passing judgement on this kind of government (not here and now anyway) but would you envision that as a superior way of governing Thailand. Say have the privy council select wise and learned people from the various sectors- give them a four year mandate- and if the privy council is not satisfied at the end of the four years- then sack them and bring in a new crop. (Kind of like turning the British government over to a House of Lords but where the Lords are selected from the various social sectors).

[Plus]

I strongly disagree that elections should be the only "check and balances" mechanism, especially in a country where "Voting ... is not guided by political principles, policy issues, or what is perceived to be in the national interest".

I would also avoid giving examples of perfectly working democracies but can give you plenty of examples or societies aspiring for perfection in their political system.

The proposal given in this paper is a movement in the opposite direction: "fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

They are not even trying to move Thai democracy toward world standards, they are proposing their own, alternative version.

This is not only nonsense, it is actually extremely dangerous - what they are saying is that people should give up on any participatory rights and should not express any interest in national politics. Quite opposite of what they intended to achieve in the first place, but I'm afraid this is what all countries following marxist ideologies ended up with - glorious constitutions not worth the paper they are printed on supported by meaningless elections.

[hammered]

Without the independent rule of law there is no democracy, so that needs to be included in any definiton of democracy.