Thaksin Will Return With Pride And Dignity

[blaze]

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.

First, you quoted the article in your previous post, out of context. The authors do not say that "Voting in farming areas..." If you read the full sentence, that paragraph is preceeded by "in the Bangkok view'. This is the PERCEPTION. Is it that an accurate perception?

You have also taken this quote out of context: "fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

Had you included the rest of the sentence- it would include: "version of democracy that make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters, especially the need for the rural poor to draw benefits away from the center and distribute them toward rural areas.

The author seems to be suggesting that the Bangkok 'version of democracy' is a governing system that seeks to ignore the aspirations of the poor. And that this version of democracy has to change if the country is to even progress towards some semblence of the ideal.

The authors are not saying that people should not 'express an interest in national politics' as you assert. They are saying precisely the opposite. That the majority of the people be welcomed to the table of political participation instead of being frozen out because they are deemed to be too parochial and provincial and gullible.

BUT the data also strongly suggests that while Bangkok residents prefer candidates with expertise, rural respondents prefer those who can solve problems at the local level quickly (pork barrel politics). And this is totally understandable since the expertise in problem solving has usually not been perceived in the rural areas of benefitting the citizens there- but rather those in far away Bangkok- or the those who own businesses etc. This is a common feature in all societies with large gaps in income.

I think- maybe I'm wrong- that the authors might be implying that were the benefits of expertise shown to the poor to be to their benefit, they might change their preferences. So far- that hasn't happened. If there has been improvements to their quality of life, it hasn't been due to the expertise of the polititians- but rather, their localism.

And this, the authors contend, is the challenge facing Thailand right now.

As long as the rural voters think that big shot experts will continue to ignore them- they will continue to support the local politico because he comes through at funerals and weddings and maybe tosses in a new buffalo paddock once very few years. That's better than they have gotten in the past. Or so they perceive it.

At the same time, the people of Bangkok who think more in terms of the pressing problems facing the nation which affect them directly- will continue to disparage the idea that the country folk should be participating as fully in the process as they do.

Paradox. Something's got to give.

I would add however, that Thaksin rightly or wrongly, was perceived by the poor as being a national polititian whose expertise benefitted not only his constituents from CM- and the industrialists/capitalists of Bangkok- but also the poor- and that marks a significant change in their perception of state leaders.

Several posters on this board have mentioned that since Thaksin, the poor will no longer be content with handouts from the local politico- they will be expecting material change in their lives- originating from Bangkok- and this will cause them to look for the same expertise that the Bkk people seek.

And going back to the 'shift in versions of democracy'- once all polititians recognize that perception- the shift will occur.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing: once the poor see that it is of benefit to them to elect polititians who offer more than just a new road or temple- they will acquire the trust in the experts that Bangkok now has. And once they demonstrate this trust- Bangkok will no longer perceive THEM as being unsuited for rational participation in the government. But for the above to happen, Bangkok will have to be willing to allow polititians to demonstrate their committment to the well being of the entire nation.

At least this is how I interpret the article- though- I may be wrong.

Edited December 14, 2007 by blaze

[hammered]

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.

First, you quoted the article in your previous post, out of context. The authors do not say that "Voting in farming areas..." If you read the full sentence, that paragraph is preceeded by "in the Bangkok view'. This is the PERCEPTION. Is it that an accurate perception?

You have also taken this quote out of context: "fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

Had you included the rest of the sentence- it would include: "version of democracy that make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters, especially the need for the rural poor to draw benefits away from the center and distribute them toward rural areas.

The author seems to be suggesting that the Bangkok 'version of democracy' is a governing system that seeks to ignore the aspirations of the poor. And that this version of democracy has to change if the country is to even progress towards some semblence of the ideal.

The authors are not saying that people should not 'express an interest in national politics' as you assert. They are saying precisely the opposite. That the majority of the people be welcomed to the table of political participation instead of being frozen out because they are deemed to be too parochial and provincial and gullible.

BUT the data also strongly suggests that while Bangkok residents prefer candidates with expertise, rural respondents prefer those who can solve problems at the local level quickly (pork barrel politics). And this is totally understandable since the expertise in problem solving has usually not been perceived in the rural areas of benefitting the citizens there- but rather those in far away Bangkok- or the those who own businesses etc. This is a common feature in all societies with large gaps in income.

I think- maybe I'm wrong- that the authors might be implying that were the benefits of expertise shown to the poor to be to their benefit, they might change their preferences. So far- that hasn't happened. If there has been improvements to their quality of life, it hasn't been due to the expertise of the polititians- but rather, their localism.

I would add however, that Thaksin rightly or wrongly, was perceived by the poor as being a national polititian whose expertise benefitted not only his constituents from CM- and the industrialists/capitalists of Bangkok- but also the poor- and that marks a significant change in their perception of state leaders.

And going back to the 'shift in versions of democracy'- once all polititians recognize that perception- the shift will occur.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing: once the poor see that it is of benefit to them to elect polititians who offer more than just a new road or temple- they will acquire the trust in the experts that Bangkok now has. And once they demonstrate this trust- Bangkok will no longer perceive THEM as being unsuited for rational participation in the government. But for the above to happen, Bangkok will have to be willing to allow polititians to demonstrate their committment to the well being of the entire nation.

At least this is how I interpret the article- though- I may be wrong.

Interestingly the 1997 constitution mandated that certasin amounts of state money and power had to be moved from center to outer areas. This wasnt actually unpopular with the electorate either in Bangkok or up country. Resistance was met within the burearcacy and politcal elite (including TRT by the way). The mandated budget alloocation was not actually achieved with arguements from local politicians were not educated well enough to control big budgets to it will be more corrupt used to stymie what was meant to happen. On top of this placing schools under local control was never really achieved when teachers groups basically refussed to accept it and the government backed down. Then to date the only party that has ever advocated elected provincial governors remains the Dems although I am not sure that it is still one of their policies. Rather than the electorate it is usually the government and the bureacracy and entrenched interest groups that dont want resources moved to where there use can be democratically decided on by the local people. Even TRT policies were basically top down from center while restricting any real movement of mass fubnds and control to PAO/TAO level. The realituy is that whoever controls the funds controls power and no central government in Thailand is likely to be democratically minded enough to remove its own leverage by empowering people to make their own independent choices unfettered by central governmnet. Funnily enough uif there was a lot more local democracy and people could make their own choices and have their own budgets Thailand may not be facing the kind of politcal crisis it is now.

[blaze]

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.

First, you quoted the article in your previous post, out of context. The authors do not say that "Voting in farming areas..." If you read the full sentence, that paragraph is preceeded by "in the Bangkok view'. This is the PERCEPTION. Is it that an accurate perception?

You have also taken this quote out of context: "fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

Had you included the rest of the sentence- it would include: "version of democracy that make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters, especially the need for the rural poor to draw benefits away from the center and distribute them toward rural areas.

The author seems to be suggesting that the Bangkok 'version of democracy' is a governing system that seeks to ignore the aspirations of the poor. And that this version of democracy has to change if the country is to even progress towards some semblence of the ideal.

The authors are not saying that people should not 'express an interest in national politics' as you assert. They are saying precisely the opposite. That the majority of the people be welcomed to the table of political participation instead of being frozen out because they are deemed to be too parochial and provincial and gullible.

BUT the data also strongly suggests that while Bangkok residents prefer candidates with expertise, rural respondents prefer those who can solve problems at the local level quickly (pork barrel politics). And this is totally understandable since the expertise in problem solving has usually not been perceived in the rural areas of benefitting the citizens there- but rather those in far away Bangkok- or the those who own businesses etc. This is a common feature in all societies with large gaps in income.

I think- maybe I'm wrong- that the authors might be implying that were the benefits of expertise shown to the poor to be to their benefit, they might change their preferences. So far- that hasn't happened. If there has been improvements to their quality of life, it hasn't been due to the expertise of the polititians- but rather, their localism.

I would add however, that Thaksin rightly or wrongly, was perceived by the poor as being a national polititian whose expertise benefitted not only his constituents from CM- and the industrialists/capitalists of Bangkok- but also the poor- and that marks a significant change in their perception of state leaders.

And going back to the 'shift in versions of democracy'- once all polititians recognize that perception- the shift will occur.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing: once the poor see that it is of benefit to them to elect polititians who offer more than just a new road or temple- they will acquire the trust in the experts that Bangkok now has. And once they demonstrate this trust- Bangkok will no longer perceive THEM as being unsuited for rational participation in the government. But for the above to happen, Bangkok will have to be willing to allow polititians to demonstrate their committment to the well being of the entire nation.

At least this is how I interpret the article- though- I may be wrong.

Interestingly the 1997 constitution mandated that certasin amounts of state money and power had to be moved from center to outer areas. This wasnt actually unpopular with the electorate either in Bangkok or up country. Resistance was met within the burearcacy and politcal elite (including TRT by the way). The mandated budget alloocation was not actually achieved with arguements from local politicians were not educated well enough to control big budgets to it will be more corrupt used to stymie what was meant to happen. On top of this placing schools under local control was never really achieved when teachers groups basically refussed to accept it and the government backed down. Then to date the only party that has ever advocated elected provincial governors remains the Dems although I am not sure that it is still one of their policies. Rather than the electorate it is usually the government and the bureacracy and entrenched interest groups that dont want resources moved to where there use can be democratically decided on by the local people. Even TRT policies were basically top down from center while restricting any real movement of mass fubnds and control to PAO/TAO level. The realituy is that whoever controls the funds controls power and no central government in Thailand is likely to be democratically minded enough to remove its own leverage by empowering people to make their own independent choices unfettered by central governmnet. Funnily enough uif there was a lot more local democracy and people could make their own choices and have their own budgets Thailand may not be facing the kind of politcal crisis it is now.

Yeah- I see what you are saying. I have never understood the idea of appointed governors- throw back to the communist era when all levels of govt, for security reasons had to be in synch?

Or maybe a fear of little feifdoms created in the middle of nowhere.

But the determination to control- the fear or unwillingness by polititians to spread power around- the essential distrust of one another- is that it?

Sometimes a guys got to wonder- as I think Plus maybe does- is democracy really viable here? Is this society, unlike almost every other in the modern age- so rigidly devoted to patron client hierarchies that the idea of shared power is simply too alien?

you mention independent law- has law here EVER been applied independently- where principles of justice trumped allegiences and interests of social harmony and perceived duty?

I just don't know.

But here's a question: can a liberal democracy create liberal democats (no Plus- not hammer and sickle waving reds- not THOSE kind of liberals -just kidding)- or do we need liberal democrats to create a liberal democracy?

Edited December 14, 2007 by blaze

[hammered]

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.

First, you quoted the article in your previous post, out of context. The authors do not say that "Voting in farming areas..." If you read the full sentence, that paragraph is preceeded by "in the Bangkok view'. This is the PERCEPTION. Is it that an accurate perception?

You have also taken this quote out of context: "fundamental conflict cannot be resolved until the Bangkok middle class accepts alternative versions of democracy..."

Had you included the rest of the sentence- it would include: "version of democracy that make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters, especially the need for the rural poor to draw benefits away from the center and distribute them toward rural areas.

The author seems to be suggesting that the Bangkok 'version of democracy' is a governing system that seeks to ignore the aspirations of the poor. And that this version of democracy has to change if the country is to even progress towards some semblence of the ideal.

The authors are not saying that people should not 'express an interest in national politics' as you assert. They are saying precisely the opposite. That the majority of the people be welcomed to the table of political participation instead of being frozen out because they are deemed to be too parochial and provincial and gullible.

BUT the data also strongly suggests that while Bangkok residents prefer candidates with expertise, rural respondents prefer those who can solve problems at the local level quickly (pork barrel politics). And this is totally understandable since the expertise in problem solving has usually not been perceived in the rural areas of benefitting the citizens there- but rather those in far away Bangkok- or the those who own businesses etc. This is a common feature in all societies with large gaps in income.

I think- maybe I'm wrong- that the authors might be implying that were the benefits of expertise shown to the poor to be to their benefit, they might change their preferences. So far- that hasn't happened. If there has been improvements to their quality of life, it hasn't been due to the expertise of the polititians- but rather, their localism.

I would add however, that Thaksin rightly or wrongly, was perceived by the poor as being a national polititian whose expertise benefitted not only his constituents from CM- and the industrialists/capitalists of Bangkok- but also the poor- and that marks a significant change in their perception of state leaders.

And going back to the 'shift in versions of democracy'- once all polititians recognize that perception- the shift will occur.

It's kind of a chicken or the egg thing: once the poor see that it is of benefit to them to elect polititians who offer more than just a new road or temple- they will acquire the trust in the experts that Bangkok now has. And once they demonstrate this trust- Bangkok will no longer perceive THEM as being unsuited for rational participation in the government. But for the above to happen, Bangkok will have to be willing to allow polititians to demonstrate their committment to the well being of the entire nation.

At least this is how I interpret the article- though- I may be wrong.

Interestingly the 1997 constitution mandated that certasin amounts of state money and power had to be moved from center to outer areas. This wasnt actually unpopular with the electorate either in Bangkok or up country. Resistance was met within the burearcacy and politcal elite (including TRT by the way). The mandated budget alloocation was not actually achieved with arguements from local politicians were not educated well enough to control big budgets to it will be more corrupt used to stymie what was meant to happen. On top of this placing schools under local control was never really achieved when teachers groups basically refussed to accept it and the government backed down. Then to date the only party that has ever advocated elected provincial governors remains the Dems although I am not sure that it is still one of their policies. Rather than the electorate it is usually the government and the bureacracy and entrenched interest groups that dont want resources moved to where there use can be democratically decided on by the local people. Even TRT policies were basically top down from center while restricting any real movement of mass fubnds and control to PAO/TAO level. The realituy is that whoever controls the funds controls power and no central government in Thailand is likely to be democratically minded enough to remove its own leverage by empowering people to make their own independent choices unfettered by central governmnet. Funnily enough uif there was a lot more local democracy and people could make their own choices and have their own budgets Thailand may not be facing the kind of politcal crisis it is now.

Yeah- I see what you are saying. I have never understood the idea of appointed governors- throw back to the communist era when all levels of govt, for security reasons had to be in synch?

Or maybe a fear of little feifdoms created in the middle of nowhere.

But the determination to control- the fear or unwillingness by polititians to spread power around- the essential distrust of one another- is that it?

Sometimes a guys got to wonder- as I think Plus maybe does- is democracy really viable here? Is this society, unlike almost every other in the modern age- so rigidly devoted to patron client hierarchies that the idea of shared power is simply too alien?

you mention independent law- has law here EVER been applied independently- where principles of justice trumped allegiences and interests of social harmony and perceived duty?

I just don't know.

But here's a question: can a liberal democracy create liberal democats (no Plus- not hammer and sickle waving reds- not THOSE kind of liberals -just kidding)- or do we need liberal democrats to create a liberal democracy?

There is a wider question relating to democracy and Thailand and Im not sure we casn really discuss it but do the divisions in Thailand raise the question of the viabilty of the place as an entity. It is starting to look like Yugoslavia or Ukraine where huge regional divides dictate insoluble divisions. Maybe more Ukraine right now especially when looking at how the biggest partry was excluded from government by the small parites ganging up to create a coalition with a majority of one.

[Plus]

"Voting in rural areas" was a direct quote from Anek's book. Preceding clarification "in Bangkok's view" was added by the authors of the paper, justifiably or not - I don't know. Anek sounds like he is giving results of his research, not examples of opinions thrown at each other. Those were given elsewhere and were clearly marked as opinions.

I admit that I snipped the end of "version of democracy that make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters..." because the authors went to great lengths to statistically prove that "understandings and aspirations of rural voters" do not follow "the only legitimate rationale for citizens casting their ballots in a democratic election" in Anek's words, whatever they are.

Nowhere in the paper they suggested that villagers should adopt that "legitimate" rationale, they rather called on Bangkokians to accept "alternative versions". Nowhere they outlined the way for villagers to become more responsible citizens. It could have been there but it isn't.

The problem of "two democracies" exist, the solution doesn't. I personally think that MPs elected by villagers campaigning on local issues should stick to what they know and stay with the villagers. It seems Thailand doesn't have an outlet for them at the moment, they are all marched off to the Parlament and asked to think about issues they weren't elected to do.

It has been addressed, btw. Locally elected MPs were discouraged from joining the Cabinet, it was reserved only for party list MPs. It didn't work as well as it should have, but the effort to recitfy the situation is there. Also don't forget consitutionally required decentralisation that never happened under Thaksin. It was designed to actively involve "grass roots" into politics and raise their political consciousness, something he would not allow.

As I said, despite all the rhetoric and good intentions, the practical outcome of this "rural" democracy was exclusion of people from the governing. This is what actually happened as opposed to what the leftists tried to sell.

[Plus]

Marxists are nobodies in Thailand, they have no following, so whatever changes will come it won't be from that quarter. I think I said that I count on growing middle class as a vehicle of social progress here.

Ten years ago there it has gathered a huge momentum and it was reflected in 1997 Consitution. Has it run out of steam completely or does the country simply need to finish what was started? As Hammered noticed - we don't know if decentralisation is still in Democrats policies.

Middle classes are not unified on many of these issues, too. Some are strongly opposed to any kind of labour unions, others think that they need to assert their rights and hold the bosses responsible.

One more thing about practical socialism - Thaksin was in no way solely responsible for completely subversing the spirit of the Constitution. This road to power was suggested by no one else but Thai leftists (the infamous Finland Declaration immediately springs to mind).

[blaze]

"Voting in rural areas" was a direct quote from Anek's book. Preceding clarification "in Bangkok's view" was added by the authors of the paper, justifiably or not - I don't know. Anek sounds like he is giving results of his research, not examples of opinions thrown at each other. Those were given elsewhere and were clearly marked as opinions.

I admit that I snipped the end of "version of democracy that make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters..." because the authors went to great lengths to statistically prove that "understandings and aspirations of rural voters" do not follow "the only legitimate rationale for citizens casting their ballots in a democratic election" in Anek's words, whatever they are.

Nowhere in the paper they suggested that villagers should adopt that "legitimate" rationale, they rather called on Bangkokians to accept "alternative versions". Nowhere they outlined the way for villagers to become more responsible citizens. It could have been there but it isn't.

The problem of "two democracies" exist, the solution doesn't. I personally think that MPs elected by villagers campaigning on local issues should stick to what they know and stay with the villagers. It seems Thailand doesn't have an outlet for them at the moment, they are all marched off to the Parlament and asked to think about issues they weren't elected to do.

It has been addressed, btw. Locally elected MPs were discouraged from joining the Cabinet, it was reserved only for party list MPs. It didn't work as well as it should have, but the effort to recitfy the situation is there. Also don't forget consitutionally required decentralisation that never happened under Thaksin. It was designed to actively involve "grass roots" into politics and raise their political consciousness, something he would not allow.

As I said, despite all the rhetoric and good intentions, the practical outcome of this "rural" democracy was exclusion of people from the governing. This is what actually happened as opposed to what the leftists tried to sell.

In fact, the authors, right after saying that Bangkok voters must 'make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters' DO suggest that the rural voters THEN will adopt new standards in selecting candidates with this quote from Anek: “Ideally, patron-client ties might be replaced by a more responsive and effective system of local government. On top of that, voters are to be convinced that principle or policy-oriented voting brings them greater benefits than what they may get from local patrons” (Laothamatas, 223)."

But if that's going to happen, and given the statistically borne out lack of committment to democracy by Bangkok- the Bangkok people are going to have to allow governments which are popular among the poor to ascede to power- without garlanding the army when it decides that it has had enough of this populist crap.

And unless, the authors seem to be saying, majoritarian democracy- even Thaksin style- which is PERCEIVED by the poor as benefitting them, is allowed to exist- the poor will continue to accept the odd pork barrel. And the cycle of mutual suspicion will continue.

Perhaps this is something that the junta originally thought- that if Thaksins misdeeds could be proved- the poor would go back to simple pork barrel politics, satisfied with a few handouts from the local MP while material progress is focused on Bangkok.

By the way, I see NOTHING even remotely socialist, let alone Marxist in this analysis. It is in the best tradtion of 19th century liberalism.

[Prakanong]

"By the way, I see NOTHING even remotely socialist, let alone Marxist in this analysis. It is in the best tradtion of 19th century liberalism. "

Is Plus doing a McCarthy and seeing reds under all the beds?

[Plus]

In fact, the authors, right after saying that Bangkok voters must 'make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters' DO suggest that the rural voters THEN will adopt new standards in selecting candidates with this quote from Anek: “Ideally, patron-client ties might be replaced by a more responsive and effective system of local government. On top of that, voters are to be convinced that principle or policy-oriented voting brings them greater benefits than what they may get from local patrons."

There's a big difference between must and might, and even that is "ideally".

And unless, the authors seem to be saying, majoritarian democracy- even Thaksin style- which is PERCEIVED by the poor as benefitting them, is allowed to exist- the poor will continue to accept the odd pork barrel. And the cycle of mutual suspicion will continue.

That was proposed by Colpyat - let Thaksin run his thing until the poor see him for what he is and vote him out, and he would gracefully exit. Zero chance of that ever happening, and the amount of damage to the country would be practically unlimited.

By the way, I see NOTHING even remotely socialist, let alone Marxist in this analysis. It is in the best tradtion of 19th century liberalism.

Their insistence on explanation of social dynamics through class struggles, trademark notion of Asian values even if absolutely uncalled for, belief that Thaksin's government represented the People, and the fact that it was written when all known leftists tried to villify middle classes after the coup - that's why I think this paper is from the same ideological source. I don't know really, to me it looks like it walks and talks like a duck.

[blaze]

In fact, the authors, right after saying that Bangkok voters must 'make room for understandings and aspirations of rural voters' DO suggest that the rural voters THEN will adopt new standards in selecting candidates with this quote from Anek: “Ideally, patron-client ties might be replaced by a more responsive and effective system of local government. On top of that, voters are to be convinced that principle or policy-oriented voting brings them greater benefits than what they may get from local patrons."

There's a big difference between must and might, and even that is "ideally".

And unless, the authors seem to be saying, majoritarian democracy- even Thaksin style- which is PERCEIVED by the poor as benefitting them, is allowed to exist- the poor will continue to accept the odd pork barrel. And the cycle of mutual suspicion will continue.

That was proposed by Colpyat - let Thaksin run his thing until the poor see him for what he is and vote him out, and he would gracefully exit. Zero chance of that ever happening, and the amount of damage to the country would be practically unlimited.

By the way, I see NOTHING even remotely socialist, let alone Marxist in this analysis. It is in the best tradtion of 19th century liberalism.

Their insistence on explanation of social dynamics through class struggles, trademark notion of Asian values even if absolutely uncalled for, belief that Thaksin's government represented the People, and the fact that it was written when all known leftists tried to villify middle classes after the coup - that's why I think this paper is from the same ideological source. I don't know really, to me it looks like it walks and talks like a duck.

It happens all the time- Mexico took what- 28 years to get rid of PRI- but they sure didn't welcome a coup to do it. sooner or later, and more likely sooner, Thaksin would have been overthrown by a revolt from within- that's the norm in all poltics and especially Thai. really- he just oversaw a coalition- and the man ain't been born that can keep a Thai coalition in tact- well he has- but he's not allowed to participate directly. (and no- I don't mean Thaksin).

And yes- if any country- not just Thailand- wants to get beyond pork barrel politics- then the voters have to believe that polititians at the highest level of policy- reflect their interests. I don't hold Thai voters to a higher standard than I do those in Canada- and you think pork barrel politics doesn't reign in parts of Canada?

The big cry in the west is that the young 'have to see that government is concerned about them'- And the reason being that only then will the young (those who feel marginalized- those most likely to accept pork barrel stuff) will start looking at a bigger picture. Telling them to do so doesn't help. They have to see what's in it for them. Like every single voter in the world.

Whether or not Thaksin represented the people is not at issue in this discussion- the important fact is did the majority BELIEVE- PERCEIVE that he represented them.

I think there's not a sociologist, political science in the world who would not try to explain political divisions in Thailand as to some extent deriving from income- financial status- social class. Marxist or otherwise. But these guys say that class ISN'T the determinant in political perceptions and interpretations of how democracy should work- location is. "variations in cultural orientations within Thai society appear to arise primarily from orientations to life from the city and the countryside and, to only a small degree, from differing positions in society related to socioeconomic status or class." A Marxist would more likely attribute perpetuation of cultural norms to class.

And re 'Asian Values' the authors say that there is enough statistical varience in attitudes towards traditional values within Thailand as to suggest that the whole idea of Thai, (and by extension) Asian values as they pertain to democracy, is 'a chimera'- that the real determinant is location.

[Plus]

Majority of Koreans feel that Kim Jon Il represents them, too, but it doesn't make North Korea democratic.

28 years to get rid of the government passing illegal laws for personal benefit is a bit too long, especially by Thai standards, and I bet most middle class Thais don't want to use Mexico as a model of development anyway. Seriosly - do you expect them to go into hibernation for that long just because Mexicans did?

Thaksin's populist government collapsed, it had no future except bulldozing its way over the opposition - nearly half the country, the coup just finished it.

The authors might not be leftists per se, just sociologists analysing data, but some of their conclusions are undoubtedly driven by popular leftist demand, and at that moment the demand was to present middle classes as destroyers of democracy.

Interestingly it's not really the original paper. The bulk of their arguments comes from a similar paper they wrote five years ago. Old wine in the new bottle, served to order.

Statistics and interpretations are still valuable nevertheless.

[Jai Dee]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

[John K]

Thaksin can be truly annoying, and he obviously thinks everyone is ignorant. Perhaps one of his nicknames could be “The great divider.”

[hammered]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

[blaze]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Given the surprising (to me) popularity of the PPP in Bangkok, it would seem he knew what he was doing.

[hammered]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Given the surprising (to me) popularity of the PPP in Bangkok, it would seem he knew what he was doing.

Please dont get me wrong. My criiticism is not of well or badly played politics. It is to point out that the younger generation comment is not exactly a truth and also to point out what few seem to be mentioniong that Samak has one of the worst human rights/democracy records in the country. Which the media dont even dare mention, and amazingly the worst on this is Prachathai which is meant to raise issues such as these but seems content to be very selective in what it mentions.

As I have said before I dont regard this whole exercise as anything to do with democracy or anything to do with people's interests. The return of a government that did its best to undemine democratic institutions and spririt and was involved in the largest campaign of extra judicial execution in decades or the election of a government that at best are willing to surrender democratic rights, and by the way which will also include many of those invovled in the previous government. Neither seem worth arguing for. I am surprised nobody is campaigning for a none of the above vote which would actually seem to be the principled position in the upcoming election. Although maybe this choice has been removed. I'll have to check on that.

[blaze]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Given the surprising (to me) popularity of the PPP in Bangkok, it would seem he knew what he was doing.

Please dont get me wrong. My criiticism is not of well or badly played politics. It is to point out that the younger generation comment is not exactly a truth and also to point out what few seem to be mentioniong that Samak has one of the worst human rights/democracy records in the country. Which the media dont even dare mention, and amazingly the worst on this is Prachathai which is meant to raise issues such as these but seems content to be very selective in what it mentions.

As I have said before I dont regard this whole exercise as anything to do with democracy or anything to do with people's interests. The return of a government that did its best to undemine democratic institutions and spririt and was involved in the largest campaign of extra judicial execution in decades or the election of a government that at best are willing to surrender democratic rights, and by the way which will also include many of those invovled in the previous government. Neither seem worth arguing for. I am surprised nobody is campaigning for a none of the above vote which would actually seem to be the principled position in the upcoming election. Although maybe this choice has been removed. I'll have to check on that.

While I think this is democracy in action- and democracy exposes the highest as well as the most base aspirations of the electorate (reflecting the values of a nation which really tends to regard civil rights as an alien concept- a fashion statement more than a philosophical one) I agree that the choices are pretty miserable. But will it really matter?

A topic not discussed on this board but which garnered some attention in the press 6 months ago was the dangerously potent role the senate will play. If those analysts who predict that the senate will be a tool of the beaurocracy/military complex to maintain an arch-conservative strangle hold on the governments are to be believed- I doubt it will really make a whole lot of difference who wins the election.

Edited December 17, 2007 by blaze

[Plus]

Military/bureaucracy's want the nation to elevate itself, a government that is simply a reflection of Thailand's shortcomings is not enough. If half appointed Senate can avert another slaughter campaign by "democratically elected" government, would you really mind?

[blaze]

Military/bureaucracy's want the nation to elevate itself, a government that is simply a reflection of Thailand's shortcomings is not enough. If half appointed Senate can avert another slaughter campaign by "democratically elected" government, would you really mind?

I don't know on what basis you suggest that the military or the beaurocracy wants the nation to elevate itself- my understanding of Thai history is that the military and the beaurocracy have both historically colluded to serve the interests of the aristocracy. And in so doing, rewarded with the right to engage in financial enterprises which would be to its own mercenary benefit.

If half the senate can avert a slaughter campaign- great. Will this half the senate be drawn from the same people who at the time of the drug wars registered their total disgust with the trampling of human rights? Or will they more likely be people who if not openly supportive of the war, sat mutely by while it happened?

What have they done in the last year that would suggest that they will champion human rights? Have they demanded investigations into allegations of army brutality in the South? Did they demand that the illegal concentration camps set up the army to house young Moslems be dismantled?

Edited December 17, 2007 by blaze

[Ricardo]

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Perhaps Thaksin was impressed by Samak's style when talking to young female reporters ?

[Plus]

Thai rulers have visions for the country, people who vote for Samak don't bother with lofty concepts like that.

Aristocracy, military, bureaucracy - they don't see themselves as separate entities, they all have their roles to play in hierarchial society, they submit themselves to the "law and order". Opportunists like Thaksin are mavericks, when he got to the top he didn't realise that the position comes with responsibilities, you can't just "kin muang" anymore - you ARE the country.

That's why he sits there and misses Thai noodles like a common whore and has no regrets over turmoil he has caused, he probably doesn't even realise it - he hasn't grown up for the game he got himself into, he never got over that "me me me" Chinese immigrant attitude, couldn't step up to the plate, couldn't subdue his greed. He is a businessmen, not a leader - he doesn't do sacrifices, not for others anyway.

His wife is a lot more mature in that sense, she knows that she is a part of the society, part of the country, she has to live in peace with everyone. She didn't go to Prem to challenge him to a fight but to seek reconciliation.

I believe Thaksin when he said his wife would divorce him if he gets into politics again.

>>>

The appointed Senate doesn't gurantee anything, true, its only purpose is to counterbalance "democratically elected" politicians, to ensure that all decision making is done the Thai/Asian way - by mutual consent, not by steamrolling opposition and ignoring everyone else.

There's also a bonus of having proffessionals in charge of policy making, not just some underground gambling den kings or openly dumb nephews of some shady characters. Considering the previous Senate, they can't do any worse, it's a no lose situation.

You want practical example - see how difficult for military it is to get National Security Bill through the NLA, it's been badly mutilated already and it's not over yet. In Thaksin's days bills like that didn't even go to Parlament, he just signed them as executive orders.

>>>>

I understand your trust in democracy but in real life you have nut cases like Samak being elected as PM and criminals like Chalerm as Interior Minister. The country is not a toy, you can't just throw it in the pool hoping it will learn to swim by itself. There's a big chance it will end like Haiti or Congo rather than the US or Sweden.

I also understand that one day the "elites" will have to let it go, maybe even forced to, but this day is nowhere near yet. If they let is slip through now, make no mistake - it's not the people who'll take over, they won't be handing the power to the whole itizenry, but to some another bunch of autocrats, a lot greedier and a lot more ruthless than the present one.

Thaksin demonstrated it rather aptly.

Edited December 17, 2007 by Plus

[Tony Clifton]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Wouldn't hurt if he rested peacefully.

[John K]

Military/bureaucracy's want the nation to elevate itself, a government that is simply a reflection of Thailand's shortcomings is not enough. If half appointed Senate can avert another slaughter campaign by "democratically elected" government, would you really mind?

Some time ago I made mention of the need for a short leash. No doubt when the Thais voted for this constitution the same thought was in their minds. Thaksin was nearly done with severing that leash before the coup.

[ratcatcher]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Given the surprising (to me) popularity of the PPP in Bangkok, it would seem he knew what he was doing.

I am unsure as to what is Thaksin's definition of "New generation" .

Could it perhaps be the likes of his own son or perhaps the Yubamrung offspring?

[sriracha john]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Given the surprising (to me) popularity of the PPP in Bangkok, it would seem he knew what he was doing.

I am unsure as to what is Thaksin's definition of "New generation" .

Could it perhaps be the likes of his own son or perhaps the Yubamrung offspring?

Just following the proud tradition of other tyrannical despots like Kim Il-sung, Ferdinand Marcos, et al.

[hammered]

Former PM Thaksin would like to live peacefully in homeland

Deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra (ทักษิณ ชินวัตร) admits that his error was one of the reasons for the coup to take place last year. He says he was more committed in administrating the country than managing politics, and such commitment later led to the coup carried out by the Council for Democratic Reform (CDR).

Dr. Thaksin says he would like to return to Thailand and live peacefully, and he never wants to get even with anyone. He also expresses his appreciation for his true friends, namely the People Power Party members, who have not disregarded him when he is experiencing difficult times.

The ousted Prime Minister says he will not return to the political arena again, as he wants people in the new generation to run the country. Nevertheless, he says he could only give them advices, if they ask for his assistance.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 17 December 2007

Then why did he select Samak the cheerleader of Bangkok's biggest massacre (plus a bunch of gangrapes) as his nominee?

Given the surprising (to me) popularity of the PPP in Bangkok, it would seem he knew what he was doing.

Please dont get me wrong. My criiticism is not of well or badly played politics. It is to point out that the younger generation comment is not exactly a truth and also to point out what few seem to be mentioniong that Samak has one of the worst human rights/democracy records in the country. Which the media dont even dare mention, and amazingly the worst on this is Prachathai which is meant to raise issues such as these but seems content to be very selective in what it mentions.

As I have said before I dont regard this whole exercise as anything to do with democracy or anything to do with people's interests. The return of a government that did its best to undemine democratic institutions and spririt and was involved in the largest campaign of extra judicial execution in decades or the election of a government that at best are willing to surrender democratic rights, and by the way which will also include many of those invovled in the previous government. Neither seem worth arguing for. I am surprised nobody is campaigning for a none of the above vote which would actually seem to be the principled position in the upcoming election. Although maybe this choice has been removed. I'll have to check on that.

While I think this is democracy in action- and democracy exposes the highest as well as the most base aspirations of the electorate (reflecting the values of a nation which really tends to regard civil rights as an alien concept- a fashion statement more than a philosophical one) I agree that the choices are pretty miserable. But will it really matter?

A topic not discussed on this board but which garnered some attention in the press 6 months ago was the dangerously potent role the senate will play. If those analysts who predict that the senate will be a tool of the beaurocracy/military complex to maintain an arch-conservative strangle hold on the governments are to be believed- I doubt it will really make a whole lot of difference who wins the election.

Thailand is hardly alone in having an undemocratoc upper house. The powerful US senate hardly equates to any principle of one man one vote and has a lot of power. The British house of Lords although not exactly powerful isnt elected and that in the longest functioning democracy in the world. Both these aforementioned upper houses function in a way to protect traditional and conservative values in their own way. Maybe Thailand is not so far off effective and proven international norms in having a senate half elected by OMOV and half appointed. Quite where the power will be remains to be seen when and maybe if the new system starts to operate particularly if constitutional ammendments are proposed and if laws are promulgated that could require constitutional interpretation - such as amnesties - although some of these will require the input of a hopefully independent judiciary. The politcal parties in the legislature are going to have to find some way to work with their senate counterparts and accept that on points of law the judiciary will be the arbiter unless of course the legislature changes law in accordance with the constitution. The alternative is to invite chaos.

The role of parties will certainly be less than in recent history, which may or may not be a good thing although who ends up in government will set the politcal agenda and of course give an advantage for the next election if they can avoid chaos, corruption, coups etc, which may be a big ask.

[Plus]

1997 Constitution was designed to do away with shaky mutliparty system, the idea was that you need a strong party majoirty and strong executive power to implement necessary reforms.

It was all about reforming Thailand then, in all aspects. Bureaucracy reform, education reform, state enterprised reform, media reform etc. etc.

Turned out Thaksin had his own ideas on where these reforms should lead, and no one could stop him. Consitution writers assumed that democracy would garantee that the country would be on the right course, they put a lot of trust in people, and we know how it ended. These time around they didn't trust people as much, and they have a good reason, methinks.

[blaze]

1997 Constitution was designed to do away with shaky mutliparty system, the idea was that you need a strong party majoirty and strong executive power to implement necessary reforms.

It was all about reforming Thailand then, in all aspects. Bureaucracy reform, education reform, state enterprised reform, media reform etc. etc.

Turned out Thaksin had his own ideas on where these reforms should lead, and no one could stop him. Consitution writers assumed that democracy would garantee that the country would be on the right course, they put a lot of trust in people, and we know how it ended. These time around they didn't trust people as much, and they have a good reason, methinks.

I asked this question before- and I certainly don't want it to sound confrontational or in any sense derisive- because its not meant that way. But would, in your opinion, Thailand be better off with a legislature chosen by the Privy council- directly or indirectly- from the various sectors of society? Not too dissimliar from the current NLA.

The sectors could organize themselves and among their membership, nominate people to be considered by the Privy council or some arm of it.

This would save on the costs of elections, reduce the spectre of vote buying, get rid of the dominance of local puu yais in national politics and very likely eliminate the need for future coups- since the Privy council would have the authority to dissolve government if it starts getting nutty.

[hammered]

1997 Constitution was designed to do away with shaky mutliparty system, the idea was that you need a strong party majoirty and strong executive power to implement necessary reforms.

It was all about reforming Thailand then, in all aspects. Bureaucracy reform, education reform, state enterprised reform, media reform etc. etc.

Turned out Thaksin had his own ideas on where these reforms should lead, and no one could stop him. Consitution writers assumed that democracy would garantee that the country would be on the right course, they put a lot of trust in people, and we know how it ended. These time around they didn't trust people as much, and they have a good reason, methinks.

I asked this question before- and I certainly don't want it to sound confrontational or in any sense derisive- because its not meant that way. But would, in your opinion, Thailand be better off with a legislature chosen by the Privy council- directly or indirectly- from the various sectors of society? Not too dissimliar from the current NLA.

The sectors could organize themselves and among their membership, nominate people to be considered by the Privy council or some arm of it.

This would save on the costs of elections, reduce the spectre of vote buying, get rid of the dominance of local puu yais in national politics and very likely eliminate the need for future coups- since the Privy council would have the authority to dissolve government if it starts getting nutty.

Why drag the privvy council into politics? There are other bodies that could be involved. The privy council has a specific duty already.

[Plus]

No, not totally appointed Senate, they've had one like that before 1997.

I'm not entirely pro half appointed Senata either, I'm just saying they have a valid argument. To be honest I don't even know what they need the Senate for exactly. Form follows the function, remember, and Senate's functions are not clear. A bit of legislation, a bit of appointing 'independent' bodies, a bit of scrutinising the government. There are other bodies to perform these functions (apart from "independent" agencies part).

I think for selecting members of National Broadcasting Commission, for example, they do need professional opinions from appointed half of the Senate just as they need society's side represented, too, from elected half.