85 years on, troubled Thai democracy not so unusual

[rooster59]

85 years on, troubled Thai democracy not so unusual

By WASAMON AUDJARINT
THE SUNDAY NATION

 

 

AFTER 13 military coups and countless political uprisings, some may have already lost faith in Thai democracy since the Siamese Revolution took place 85 years ago. However, that is not such a relatively long time for a country to achieve stable, fully fledged democracy.

 

At Chulalongkorn University’s political science faculty on Friday, academics took turns looking back into history in order to understand what is going on now and what might happen in the future, as well as drawing comparisons with other countries such as France for a better understanding of Thai democracy.

 

The seminar was held to mark the anniversary of the bloodless revolution that shifted the Thai ruling regime from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one, Friday’s event being closely observed, but not interrupted, by some plainclothes military officers.

 

Thanet Apornsuwan, a noted history professor at Thammasat University, suggested that one of the reasons why Thai democracy had not moved forward was because the state failed to establish institutions to serve the law and order that lies at heart of an efficient democracy.

 

Thailand, as well as the whole of Southeast Asia, instead focuses on building moral order based on the characteristics of their rulers

“The region does adopt [democratic] modernisation, but still with great lack in subjectivity and focused on individuals,” Thanet said “In Thailand, for instance, there is a blurred line between the state and society. The Thai state also does not sustain for social purposes.”

 

As a historian, the professor also stated that it was important to equip history together with political studies so as to provide grounds for empathy together with an analytical lens.

 

Kullada Kesboonchoo Mead, Chulalongkorn’s lecturer on international relations, said that Thai democratisation can be explained through the lens of political economy, contributed to by social forces and with Thai capitalists at its centre.

 

“Thai political changes have depended on the power to control and distribute resources as well as leaders’ characteristics,” she said. “In comparison with France, Thailand took a shorter time to transform from a feudal to a modern state.”

 

This also explained how the US has played a role in the Thai landscapes, from the rise of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat in the 1950s in the time of the Cold War to the 1973 popular uprising against Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn. The role still literally continues, mostly through the US movement in the civil society sector. These US factors in Thailand were also related to its financial relations with the Kingdom, especially with the Thai elite, she said.

 

“What we can currently see in Thai politics is grass-roots people being more [politically] alert,” she said “More or less, [former PM] Thaksin Shinawatra had made those people aware that their benefits were linked with politics. 

 

“We might see a mass movement, which starts to grow from capitalism.”

 

Chulalongkorn political science lecturer Kanokrat Lertchoosakul pointed to comparative timelines for Thailand and France, starting from the revolutions in 1932 and 1789 respectively.

 

After the upheaval that overthrew Louise XVI, France did not jump directly into democracy, Kanokrat said. In fact, it went through being a republic five times, being an empire twice, a restored monarchy under a constitution, and falling under a military junta. 

 

“These changes were caused by several clashes between the conservatives and the liberals, the bourgeoisie and the labourers” she said “Political settlements in France actually became concrete as late as 1986, when the system allowed coexistence between president and prime minister, who may be of different stances.”

 

It took almost 200 years there, from the first revolution, to resolve the political deadlock, she said, concluding that Thailand’s 85-year-old unstable democracy was thus not so peculiar. 

 

“Democratic development is not linear. It’s actually a lifelong struggle,” she said. “A democratic system can be efficient only when all blocs recognise each other. The parliament should also be designed to accommodate balance of power.

 

“The military’s concept of curbing thoughts is thus impossible in the long run, especially in such a development that has to go through cyclical transition.”

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30319025

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-06-25

[yellowboat]

5 hours ago, rooster59 said:

“The military’s concept of curbing thoughts is thus impossible in the long run, especially in such a development that has to go through cyclical transition.”

Defending a nation by curbing the population's thoughts.  And Army asks not to be hated. 

[klauskunkel]

6 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Thai democracy since the Siamese Revolution took place 85 years ago

how do you know it took place 85 years ago? The plaque is gone already and new history books coming soon.

[williamgeorgeallen]

31 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

how do you know it took place 85 years ago? The plaque is gone already and new history books coming soon.

ha, and it seems thaksin never existed. who ever said you cant change history.

on another note 'thailand not doing so badly on trying to establish a stable democracy when compared to france'. well at least they are not trying to blame france i suppose.

[mtls2005]

Seems like someone should knock all the CCTV cameras for repairs, erect a large tent around the Democracy Monument, and remove it. Maybe sell it to a country with higher aspirations? After all, it's only been driven occasionally and is in nearly mint condition.

 

It is amazing that Thais have such little regard for their history.

[Cadbury]

10 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

Seems like someone should knock all the CCTV cameras for repairs, erect a large tent around the Democracy Monument, and remove it. Maybe sell it to a country with higher aspirations? After all, it's only been driven occasionally and is in nearly mint condition.

 

It is amazing that Thais have such little regard for their history.

Same with Victory Monument. Erected in all it's glory poste haste after a relatively small scrap with the French over a few territories. Because they had rolled over to the Japanese they were later forced to give those territories back to the French by the allied forces in 1945. So much for Thai victories (poste 1940) and an example of the triumphalism and style of the Thai military who are running the country now. Democracy is dead and the people are adjusting to it.

[Get Real]

Ok! No problem then. Get ready for the next 85!

[connda]

Thailand is the perfect example of a country that works just fine with a hybrid form of democracy intersperse with unelected dictatorships.  Seems to work just fine.  
And how many 'democracies' are truly democracies?  Switzerland.  OK.  Most are oligarchies with a democracy facade.  If you understand that, then you understand that what is in Thailand isn't any better or any worse although I'm sure there's many ideologues who will disagree.  No problem.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  

[candide]

And of course it was not allowed to talk about the 2nd key issue unless very indirectly (like talking about curbing thoughts).......

[tomta]

Louise XVI???

 

[Redline]

13 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Thanet Apornsuwan, a noted history professor at Thammasat University, suggested that one of the reasons why Thai democracy had not moved forward was because the state failed to establish institutions to serve the law and order that lies at heart of an efficient democracy.

I would suggest that is one major reason

[Misterwhisper]

6 hours ago, tomta said:

Louise XVI???

 

Yup, the 16th wife of Murray Anton Ett. Everybody knows that.   

[nasanews]

On 6/25/2017 at 4:56 AM, rooster59 said:

from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one

Yes constitutional monarchy run by junta!
Give me a break.

[geriatrickid]

19 hours ago, connda said:

Thailand is the perfect example of a country that works just fine with a hybrid form of democracy intersperse with unelected dictatorships.  Seems to work just fine.  
And how many 'democracies' are truly democracies?  Switzerland.  OK.  Most are oligarchies with a democracy facade.  If you understand that, then you understand that what is in Thailand isn't any better or any worse although I'm sure there's many ideologues who will disagree.  No problem.  We'll have to agree to disagree.  

Thailand does not have a hybrid form of  democracy. To have that one would have to allow for the civilian oversight of the military. That has never, ever been allowed in Thailand.

 

You belittle "democracy", but you do not even understand what it means or what the core principles are of a democratic government. You support the military rule. That's your personal choice. Just have the courage to say it instead of trying to justify your personal view.

 

Key characteristics of a democratic system of government are;

1. Separation of powers between the  branches of government with  the judiciary, the  executive and the elected assembly all independent of each other.

2. Transparency in the electoral process. Despite  some recent hard fought elections in France, the Netherlands and Canada,  people accepted the outcome and behaved in a responsible manner.   

3. All government officials are subject to the rule of law. There is no impunity because someone has a title, or is in the army or is an MP.  One sees officials  throughout  the democratic system held accountable by an impartial judicial system. It is the greatest compliment of a functioning democracy when elected officials are prosecuted and sent away for impropriety. We have seen it in Canada, the USA, Italy, and France. Israel even put a former PM in jail for corruption. South Korea just tossed its president because of corruption.  It was done in an orderly manner with an independent judiciary. 

 

Don't bring down the  democratic nations in a pathetic attempt to defend your position. Much of Latin America were once  subject to brutal military dictatorships. Their economies were stunted; the people's rights and liberties denied and unhappiness, violence and death were the order of the day.  Today, those countries have a functional democracy and the people have reaped the benefits with peace and prosperity. In Africa,  the countries with functional democracies are the countries where there is  relative peace and prosperity.

 

As the Khmer Rouge and North Korea have demonstrated, there can be quiet order and no sign of disturbance with military rule. However, behind that facade is misery, torture and death.  I know which side I am on. Pity, you are unable to differentiate between right and wrong.