@Karl: The majority don’t run their agenda through “by force”, but because they have an electoral mandate. That’s the whole point of electoral democracy, and in this sense, it’s by definition a dictatorship by the majority.
Thailand had these ineffectual “compromising” governments for many years, running the country via backroom deals and entrenching a corrupt bureaucracy and executive branch where everyone shared the spoils including the military and the huge shadow economy.
This worked when growth was strong and the status quo could be preserved as it was because incomes of the whole population were rising.
Things changed after the economic collapse of 1997 and the subsequent ineffectual, backroom-dealing Chuan government. This gave Thaksin his chance and his election plan was copied verbatim from an American textbook on the matter: If you promise the poor masses a certain amount of benefits they will give you votes in return. Very crude, astute and ugly. However, unlike in the backroom-dealing compromising governments, the poor actually received real benefit and Thaksin actually made good on his promises, which was unheard of before. Things were working so well that Thaksin became a megalomaniac, thinking he needed a strong, dictator-like concentration of power to push through vital reforms, especially regarding the shadow economy (smuggling, drugs, underground lottery, racketeering, extortion and loan sharking). Still, his dark side and grave personality flaws would have cost him the premiership sooner or later, in that sense I don’t agree that those who voted for him were stupid and unable to change their opinion about him. Had democracy run its course, i.e. had there been no coup and subsequent events, Thaksin might have lost the next election or the one after that. Instead the country is staring at the abyss, with the vaunted compromise more remote than ever.
My view maybe seen as unprofessional or naive by political scientists but Karl’s view of democracies does appeal to me. Whenever I read something about democracy being determined by numbers, i can’t help feeling that it’s just isn’t right and somewhat brutal because it neglects certain groups of people who are also part of societies.. especially if that society is ‘multicutural’ with one big mainstream group (or two), and a number of minority groups who occupy lower power positions and are smaller in numbers. it’s just isn’t right if the voices of these minority groups have to be neglected always during the so-called ‘deveopment of democracy’ because they can’t constute the highest number. When Noi talking about the need to accept ‘status quo’ for the sake of democracy, I can’t help feeling that she is suggesting that hegemony is something inevitable if democracy is to be allowed its ‘complete or full development’. While I agree with her that the elite ‘s intervention in the Thai democratic process is unacceptable, I also question and challenge her assertion that Taksin’s goverment is the “Government of the people’ and that some of Karl’s statements are ‘outright lies’.I think Karl has been fair enough in his arguments. .. Thai people are indeed caught in ‘a rock and hard place’ and I don;t think either Taskin or the PAD represent a lot of Thai’s interests or ideology. I have been hoping that we, as the young Thais(and old, of course), can join force to form our own political party that can truly represent us so that we don’t have to choose between “Red Shirts’ or “Yellow Shirts”. I am really hoping that those Thais who refuse both the imposition of PAD conservatism and Taksin-style ‘democracy’ can have a channel to exert our political will and stance publicly and powerfully (instead of having to be part of the ‘red shirts’, especially those who see him as Thailand’s saviour )
I’m not sure I follow your last argument, it seemed a bit hurried.
Are you making a moral argument that the state should not have a monopoly on force? I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement with that.
But it seems to me that contradicts “But to those who decry violence, when the other side commits it let’s not say, “Well, what do you expect?” Isn’t that what the PAD has been saying explicitly since Oct. 7, i.e., ‘we are being attacked so we have the right to fight back with weapons.’ I believe even Chamlong said words to that effect.
Actually, why the fuss when the DAAD makes threats and uses force? Why exactly shouldn’t people say “Well, what do you expect?” Does the PAD have a monopoly on righteousness?
I don’t really understand your final point about extremists. Aren’t you saying that the PAD are good revolutionaries? I guess it’s a question of semantics, but I’d say that revolutionaries are by definition extremists.
It is very unfortunate that so many people believe in the rule of majorities as the only model of democracy. In Switzerland – one of the oldest democracies – every elected party is by constitution part of the government. They are forced to compromise and I think the country is doing well on all counts – economically, social peace, freedoms.
Also in my birthcountry – Austria – provincial governments are run by the same system (participation of every elected party of a certain size). There is vigorous political debate but at the end of the day they all have to compromise.
Again and again, I do believe in compromise and not in majorities running their agenda through by force. I do not consider latter as democracy.
And exactly this ramming through of one own’s agenda was the root cause of the ‘uprising’ against Thaksin with all the damages following suit. Do people every learn???
RK @ 22: My observations are limited to the 2 AM reports you specifically cited as “uninformed” etc. They are clearly not. I didn’t say I like her (irrelevant). I questioned your criticism of those 2 reports, which I believe was unfair. Nor did I say that you said the BBC is excellent – I didn’t use quotes. Actually, it was I who said “…the excellent BBC…”
My nitpicking is the result of frustration, caused by seeing the degeneration of a blogsite that has often been way above the level of those others that are usually choked with poorly argued & often quite unreasonable postings by muddled farang retirees, quoting the opinions of their Buriram in-laws, as they work their way through 6-packs of Chang & desperately cling to their delusions of ‘understanding’ (and loving!) Thai culture. The 2 major English-language newspapers here are prime examples, & there are lots of others.
the PAD was involved in a meeting where there was discussion of a
desired model for Thailand….
they discussed Bhutan and closing off business with the outside world
seemed to be a theme, maybe plausible as the CNS did a bit of that
my view is that the rich families should do a rapid course in how to
survive in a democratic country
then they can start a Bhutan party if that is their dream and try to
sieze power via the ballot box…
but this made me think….
just wondering if they decided:
what their target value of Gross National Happiness GNH will be?
or will they target the highest Gross Density of Buffaloes GDB?
or highest Density of Oppressed People Index DOPI?
etc
like I say, Bhutan sounds much too gentle, the PAD seem more like the Khmer Rouge than any one else I can think of….
Ralph:
Thanong prints as fact every rumor that he hears from his Royalist-Democrat friends. His track record is appalling — review his material going back to September 2006 and you will see for yourself.
bosunj:
Absolute sympathy for your complaints about a sadly materialist/consumerist Thailand. But it didn’t start with Thaksin. It flourished during the pre-1997 go-go years, when Thailand’s rich put their considerable extra cash in vanity projects such as hotels, and every striving (and over-leveraged) upper middle class Thai was buying a Benz while keeping the rest of the cash in dodgy shares.
As for helping fellow Thais, there was, from what I can see, very little in the way of private charity or public projects. The era is well worth reviewing.
You raise, inadvertently I think, questions that have not been much discussed in English about the social roots of the PAD, such as the globalization bogey (people are upset when it takes, but happily reaped the rewards when it gave pre-1997.) At a glance, a rough historical parallel might be after the Great Depression of the 1930s when virtually every country affected saw a rise of nativist/nationalist/xenophobic sentiment.
I don’t want to stretch the point too much, but where nativist/nationalist/xenophobic sentiment was embraced, there was disaster. That suggests to me that adaptation rather than resistance to changing circumstances (such as globalization) is a more productive course, though of course I am simplifying
First, you made many statements without facts supporting them, not only that some of them are outright lies. For example, your statement insinuated that Thailand is rule by “ruthless, greedy and … one person” (aka Thaksin), is an outright lies. Like it or not, the fact remain that the majority of Thai people were overwhelmingly elected Thaksin twice. Furthermore, if Thaksin were to run again today, he would win again by a landslide margin! How many more time must the will of the majority of Thai people be desecrated?
Second, any democratic system depends first and foremost on the willingness of the participants to accept verdicts other than what they want. Democracy, after all, is the rule of the majority. This often means accepting a status20quo that, from one’s personal perspective, may be undesirable, but nevertheless be defended at all costs if one’s motivation is to see the SYSTEM, rather than one’s own selfish motives, succeed. The democratic process, even to its most devoted participants, can be a frustrating, infuriating process, and in many cases seems to certain individuals to diametrically oppose the “good” of the nation.
Democracy, in the final analysis, is a PROCESS rather than a state of being. And like all processes it develops and evolves over time. When the elitists intervene because THEY “know better”, the system is subverted and the faith of the majority is destroyed. Thailand will never be a democracy unless and until the lowliest Isaan farmer has as much say at the polls as does the most “enlightened” resident of Bangkok.
Finally, it is the faith in the eventual good outcome, regardless of the twists and turns in the process that makes Democracy the on ly true, legitimate means of representing the PEOPLE of a nation.
Many thanks to Philip Bowring for his illuminating commentary. As a Thai, I find it accurately reflecting the sentiment of many Thais I am in contact with. There seems to be no other explanation for the present situation in Thailand than that fate has made it so, thus making many Thais blind to the right path that is taught in both Buddhism and Islam, which the majority of Thais claim to have faith in but fail to practice enough.
LOS: we’ll disagree. Her reports on Thailand over the past few years have been sadly incompetent. And that includes her longer reports in other parts of the ABC. As a regular listener of AM and PM for many years, and one who has had contact with ABC journalists in Thailand and other parts of Asia for a long time, I know they can do better than this. But you like her and that’s fine. Didn’t say the BBC was excellent, just better.
Frank, I know you were harassed a couple of years ago, but if you think this is what every aspect of Thai society is about, you must be miserable. The argument might be that the PADdies have allowed a darker side to re-emerge once again. I don’t think this is genetic or necessary the result of deep cultural imprinting. I’m hopelessly optimistic.;)
John Bullen:
Succinct and to the point.
It’s that “someone has to do something” issue that bothers peaceniks and men of letters et. al, all of whom would rather, like the rest of us sane souls, have a moral and ideal end to the ongoing chaos.
Let’s hope for the best and expect the worst, a sad adage, might well be the case here.
But to those who decry violence, when the other side commits it let’s not say, “Well, what do you expect?”
As I said before, no society that I know of came out of social morass without use of force. Consensus is notan issue when it comes to solutions between extremists. In this, the PAD has not been an extremist all along the way, as the state has.
PAD stands for People’s Alliance for Democrat (Party).
There is no way they form a party because there is simply no point as voter will vote either way (eg. The Democrats will get the same number of votes even if PAD and Democrats merge). As such, PAD will remain a proxy for the Democrat Party.
Abhisit reminds me of Nick Leeson of Barrings Bank UK. A young lad trying to prove something, but eventually destroys the institutions that nurtured him. It cannot be disputed that he has shifted from the principles of Democracy to a silent advocate of tyranny.
Abhisit has seen the light (reported in the Nation): “Abhisit said he wanted the transition to the next government to take place under prescribed rules sanctioned by the Constitution. Any ideas to bring about changes by non-constitutional means are not appropriate, he said in reference to the push to form a national unity government.” Guess he was asleep while senior Dems were supporting un-constitutional means….
RK @ 20: Ah, your ‘today’ actually means ‘yesterday.’ Now I get it: muddled. Yes, I do think “..those two reports are the kind of information that help Australians understand what’s happening in Thailand…” ‘What,’ but not ‘why.’ There isn’t time in a grab like this to give in-depth analysis, background, etc.
In the 2 reports you’ve specifically slagged, I can see no bending of the facts, no lack of information asked for. A.M. is not the entire ABC. It’s a short, wide-ranging show that brings listeners up to speed early in the day. If you want more detailed analysis, look further. But don’t slander a reporter, who has no control over the length of her reports, for lack of detail.
As to the excellent BBC – I’m fairly sure Jonathon Head would be amongst the first to admit the impossibility of understanding what’s really going on in Thailand… if you think you know, perhaps you are a Warring Banker.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
New Mandala in The Age
@Karl: The majority don’t run their agenda through “by force”, but because they have an electoral mandate. That’s the whole point of electoral democracy, and in this sense, it’s by definition a dictatorship by the majority.
Thailand had these ineffectual “compromising” governments for many years, running the country via backroom deals and entrenching a corrupt bureaucracy and executive branch where everyone shared the spoils including the military and the huge shadow economy.
This worked when growth was strong and the status quo could be preserved as it was because incomes of the whole population were rising.
Things changed after the economic collapse of 1997 and the subsequent ineffectual, backroom-dealing Chuan government. This gave Thaksin his chance and his election plan was copied verbatim from an American textbook on the matter: If you promise the poor masses a certain amount of benefits they will give you votes in return. Very crude, astute and ugly. However, unlike in the backroom-dealing compromising governments, the poor actually received real benefit and Thaksin actually made good on his promises, which was unheard of before. Things were working so well that Thaksin became a megalomaniac, thinking he needed a strong, dictator-like concentration of power to push through vital reforms, especially regarding the shadow economy (smuggling, drugs, underground lottery, racketeering, extortion and loan sharking). Still, his dark side and grave personality flaws would have cost him the premiership sooner or later, in that sense I don’t agree that those who voted for him were stupid and unable to change their opinion about him. Had democracy run its course, i.e. had there been no coup and subsequent events, Thaksin might have lost the next election or the one after that. Instead the country is staring at the abyss, with the vaunted compromise more remote than ever.
New Mandala in The Age
My view maybe seen as unprofessional or naive by political scientists but Karl’s view of democracies does appeal to me. Whenever I read something about democracy being determined by numbers, i can’t help feeling that it’s just isn’t right and somewhat brutal because it neglects certain groups of people who are also part of societies.. especially if that society is ‘multicutural’ with one big mainstream group (or two), and a number of minority groups who occupy lower power positions and are smaller in numbers. it’s just isn’t right if the voices of these minority groups have to be neglected always during the so-called ‘deveopment of democracy’ because they can’t constute the highest number. When Noi talking about the need to accept ‘status quo’ for the sake of democracy, I can’t help feeling that she is suggesting that hegemony is something inevitable if democracy is to be allowed its ‘complete or full development’. While I agree with her that the elite ‘s intervention in the Thai democratic process is unacceptable, I also question and challenge her assertion that Taksin’s goverment is the “Government of the people’ and that some of Karl’s statements are ‘outright lies’.I think Karl has been fair enough in his arguments. .. Thai people are indeed caught in ‘a rock and hard place’ and I don;t think either Taskin or the PAD represent a lot of Thai’s interests or ideology. I have been hoping that we, as the young Thais(and old, of course), can join force to form our own political party that can truly represent us so that we don’t have to choose between “Red Shirts’ or “Yellow Shirts”. I am really hoping that those Thais who refuse both the imposition of PAD conservatism and Taksin-style ‘democracy’ can have a channel to exert our political will and stance publicly and powerfully (instead of having to be part of the ‘red shirts’, especially those who see him as Thailand’s saviour )
Restraint is discredited
Frank-
I’m not sure I follow your last argument, it seemed a bit hurried.
Are you making a moral argument that the state should not have a monopoly on force? I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement with that.
But it seems to me that contradicts “But to those who decry violence, when the other side commits it let’s not say, “Well, what do you expect?” Isn’t that what the PAD has been saying explicitly since Oct. 7, i.e., ‘we are being attacked so we have the right to fight back with weapons.’ I believe even Chamlong said words to that effect.
Actually, why the fuss when the DAAD makes threats and uses force? Why exactly shouldn’t people say “Well, what do you expect?” Does the PAD have a monopoly on righteousness?
I don’t really understand your final point about extremists. Aren’t you saying that the PAD are good revolutionaries? I guess it’s a question of semantics, but I’d say that revolutionaries are by definition extremists.
New Mandala in The Age
It is very unfortunate that so many people believe in the rule of majorities as the only model of democracy. In Switzerland – one of the oldest democracies – every elected party is by constitution part of the government. They are forced to compromise and I think the country is doing well on all counts – economically, social peace, freedoms.
Also in my birthcountry – Austria – provincial governments are run by the same system (participation of every elected party of a certain size). There is vigorous political debate but at the end of the day they all have to compromise.
Again and again, I do believe in compromise and not in majorities running their agenda through by force. I do not consider latter as democracy.
And exactly this ramming through of one own’s agenda was the root cause of the ‘uprising’ against Thaksin with all the damages following suit. Do people every learn???
End of the royal taboo?
RK @ 22: My observations are limited to the 2 AM reports you specifically cited as “uninformed” etc. They are clearly not. I didn’t say I like her (irrelevant). I questioned your criticism of those 2 reports, which I believe was unfair. Nor did I say that you said the BBC is excellent – I didn’t use quotes. Actually, it was I who said “…the excellent BBC…”
My nitpicking is the result of frustration, caused by seeing the degeneration of a blogsite that has often been way above the level of those others that are usually choked with poorly argued & often quite unreasonable postings by muddled farang retirees, quoting the opinions of their Buriram in-laws, as they work their way through 6-packs of Chang & desperately cling to their delusions of ‘understanding’ (and loving!) Thai culture. The 2 major English-language newspapers here are prime examples, & there are lots of others.
End of the royal taboo?
The Times (Dec.3) also has a piece, by Richard Lloyd Parry , which is in line with the general thrust of this blog. It’s online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5274383.ece
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
amberwaves
thanks for your brief on the anti-globalisation bogey related to the roots of the PAD…
have you seen the article at:
http://thaiintelligentnews.wordpress.com/2008/12/01/buhtan-style-of-development-planned-closure-of-airport-just-the-first-step/
and my comment….
the PAD was involved in a meeting where there was discussion of a
desired model for Thailand….
they discussed Bhutan and closing off business with the outside world
seemed to be a theme, maybe plausible as the CNS did a bit of that
my view is that the rich families should do a rapid course in how to
survive in a democratic country
then they can start a Bhutan party if that is their dream and try to
sieze power via the ballot box…
but this made me think….
just wondering if they decided:
what their target value of Gross National Happiness GNH will be?
or will they target the highest Gross Density of Buffaloes GDB?
or highest Density of Oppressed People Index DOPI?
etc
like I say, Bhutan sounds much too gentle, the PAD seem more like the Khmer Rouge than any one else I can think of….
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
Ralph:
Thanong prints as fact every rumor that he hears from his Royalist-Democrat friends. His track record is appalling — review his material going back to September 2006 and you will see for yourself.
Conflict in Bangkok: Open thread
bosunj:
Absolute sympathy for your complaints about a sadly materialist/consumerist Thailand. But it didn’t start with Thaksin. It flourished during the pre-1997 go-go years, when Thailand’s rich put their considerable extra cash in vanity projects such as hotels, and every striving (and over-leveraged) upper middle class Thai was buying a Benz while keeping the rest of the cash in dodgy shares.
As for helping fellow Thais, there was, from what I can see, very little in the way of private charity or public projects. The era is well worth reviewing.
You raise, inadvertently I think, questions that have not been much discussed in English about the social roots of the PAD, such as the globalization bogey (people are upset when it takes, but happily reaped the rewards when it gave pre-1997.) At a glance, a rough historical parallel might be after the Great Depression of the 1930s when virtually every country affected saw a rise of nativist/nationalist/xenophobic sentiment.
I don’t want to stretch the point too much, but where nativist/nationalist/xenophobic sentiment was embraced, there was disaster. That suggests to me that adaptation rather than resistance to changing circumstances (such as globalization) is a more productive course, though of course I am simplifying
New Mandala in The Age
Karl (post #27),
First, you made many statements without facts supporting them, not only that some of them are outright lies. For example, your statement insinuated that Thailand is rule by “ruthless, greedy and … one person” (aka Thaksin), is an outright lies. Like it or not, the fact remain that the majority of Thai people were overwhelmingly elected Thaksin twice. Furthermore, if Thaksin were to run again today, he would win again by a landslide margin! How many more time must the will of the majority of Thai people be desecrated?
Second, any democratic system depends first and foremost on the willingness of the participants to accept verdicts other than what they want. Democracy, after all, is the rule of the majority. This often means accepting a status20quo that, from one’s personal perspective, may be undesirable, but nevertheless be defended at all costs if one’s motivation is to see the SYSTEM, rather than one’s own selfish motives, succeed. The democratic process, even to its most devoted participants, can be a frustrating, infuriating process, and in many cases seems to certain individuals to diametrically oppose the “good” of the nation.
Democracy, in the final analysis, is a PROCESS rather than a state of being. And like all processes it develops and evolves over time. When the elitists intervene because THEY “know better”, the system is subverted and the faith of the majority is destroyed. Thailand will never be a democracy unless and until the lowliest Isaan farmer has as much say at the polls as does the most “enlightened” resident of Bangkok.
Finally, it is the faith in the eventual good outcome, regardless of the twists and turns in the process that makes Democracy the on ly true, legitimate means of representing the PEOPLE of a nation.
The crowd and the crown by Philip Bowring
Many thanks to Philip Bowring for his illuminating commentary. As a Thai, I find it accurately reflecting the sentiment of many Thais I am in contact with. There seems to be no other explanation for the present situation in Thailand than that fate has made it so, thus making many Thais blind to the right path that is taught in both Buddhism and Islam, which the majority of Thais claim to have faith in but fail to practice enough.
New Mandala on New Matilda
Here’s a perspective that might be of interest to NM: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-12-02/the-next-global-meltdown/
Thai Rak Thai 3.0
As a foreigner here, I do not have any prejudice against TRT/PPP or any other avatar of the same party.
What is happening is the second “hand-wash” of corrupt and fraudsters in that political movance, and it should be hailed !
A strong political current exists in the slot named “populism”, and Tha├пland is not the only country to be like that, it is an indiscutable fact.
The stake here is not (should not be) to eliminate it by any means, but to eliminate the corrupt and those who use fraud as a way to get to power.
End of the royal taboo?
LOS: we’ll disagree. Her reports on Thailand over the past few years have been sadly incompetent. And that includes her longer reports in other parts of the ABC. As a regular listener of AM and PM for many years, and one who has had contact with ABC journalists in Thailand and other parts of Asia for a long time, I know they can do better than this. But you like her and that’s fine. Didn’t say the BBC was excellent, just better.
Restraint is discredited
Frank, I know you were harassed a couple of years ago, but if you think this is what every aspect of Thai society is about, you must be miserable. The argument might be that the PADdies have allowed a darker side to re-emerge once again. I don’t think this is genetic or necessary the result of deep cultural imprinting. I’m hopelessly optimistic.;)
Restraint is discredited
John Bullen:
Succinct and to the point.
It’s that “someone has to do something” issue that bothers peaceniks and men of letters et. al, all of whom would rather, like the rest of us sane souls, have a moral and ideal end to the ongoing chaos.
Let’s hope for the best and expect the worst, a sad adage, might well be the case here.
But to those who decry violence, when the other side commits it let’s not say, “Well, what do you expect?”
As I said before, no society that I know of came out of social morass without use of force. Consensus is notan issue when it comes to solutions between extremists. In this, the PAD has not been an extremist all along the way, as the state has.
Thai Rak Thai 3.0
PAD stands for People’s Alliance for Democrat (Party).
There is no way they form a party because there is simply no point as voter will vote either way (eg. The Democrats will get the same number of votes even if PAD and Democrats merge). As such, PAD will remain a proxy for the Democrat Party.
Abhisit reminds me of Nick Leeson of Barrings Bank UK. A young lad trying to prove something, but eventually destroys the institutions that nurtured him. It cannot be disputed that he has shifted from the principles of Democracy to a silent advocate of tyranny.
PPP gone…
Abhisit has seen the light (reported in the Nation): “Abhisit said he wanted the transition to the next government to take place under prescribed rules sanctioned by the Constitution. Any ideas to bring about changes by non-constitutional means are not appropriate, he said in reference to the push to form a national unity government.” Guess he was asleep while senior Dems were supporting un-constitutional means….
End of the royal taboo?
RK @ 20: Ah, your ‘today’ actually means ‘yesterday.’ Now I get it: muddled. Yes, I do think “..those two reports are the kind of information that help Australians understand what’s happening in Thailand…” ‘What,’ but not ‘why.’ There isn’t time in a grab like this to give in-depth analysis, background, etc.
In the 2 reports you’ve specifically slagged, I can see no bending of the facts, no lack of information asked for. A.M. is not the entire ABC. It’s a short, wide-ranging show that brings listeners up to speed early in the day. If you want more detailed analysis, look further. But don’t slander a reporter, who has no control over the length of her reports, for lack of detail.
As to the excellent BBC – I’m fairly sure Jonathon Head would be amongst the first to admit the impossibility of understanding what’s really going on in Thailand… if you think you know, perhaps you are a Warring Banker.
Restraint is discredited
Well, people, despite all of the rhetoric here, life will go on.
Soon Thaksin will appoint a new Prime Minister, who will continue in the same vein as Samak and Somchai, while Thailand slides further into the abyss.
Somebody has to do something – it cannot be the government – because it is the government itself (or rather the lack of it) that is the problem.