IMO, Election observers should be welcomed by all countries (including western democracies) because it is a good way to eliminate concerns about accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures, however the observers should do just that (observe).
Apart from those procedural matters, I am more concerned about morality in the electoral process, and actually find ‘democracy’ quite scary.
My fear comes from talking with ordinary folk and being surprised (shocked) by their attitudes and opinions.
This is very subjective, and probably unavoidable in a ‘democracy’, but I am concerned that many people vote for whomever they think will ‘help’ them personally, and do not care about any negative or possible sinister characteristics of the politician.
Usually the ‘help’ is in a financial form, but sometimes it also has religious or bigoted connotations.
“which seemed to indicate that Thaksin’s main motivating factor was a regard for the poor (rather than personal greed & ego)” >> My point is that both the positive and the negative views are besides the point of democratic mass politics. One cannot criticize Thaksin for not “really caring” for the “poor,” nor can one say that he was a good politician because he cared for them.
The rest of your post is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant.
Fall: You are certainly right to point out that these missions look into more than just the polling and counting. However, from my reading of the press, I got the impression that the bulk of the 200 (some more or less) observers would be in the country for a rather limited period of time.
If you have or get some more concrete information on the planned design of the EU EOM, please post it here.
Srithanonchai: I’m not sure which definition of ‘care’ you are referring to.
It’s probably besides the point anyway, because my statement was not so much a criticism of Thaksin, but rather a counter to some recent posts to this site which seemed to indicate that Thaksin’s main motivating factor was a regard for the poor (rather than personal greed & ego)
Since you brought up what politicians are supposed or not supposed to do, I wonder whether politicians should treat all constituents the same irrespective of whether they voted for the politician or not?
(who was it who said: “Provinces that give us their trust deserve our special care. We have to take care of the whole country, but our limited time has to be allocated to provinces where we receive the most trust. Provinces that trust us less will have to wait.”)
I am also wondering whether politicians are supposed to authorize extra-judicial killing, use tax havens and nominees, or push policies that favor and enrich ones own family and friends?
Srithanonchai – I dont think EU only concentrate on polling day and a few days before and after.
The following are example key criteria of observer’s report from Pakistan:(taken from my comment at TJTS)
Statistical Representation of Teams and Coverage
1. The degree of impartiality shown by the relevant Election Commission and election officials.
2. The degree of freedom of political parties and candidates to organise, move, assemble and express their views publicly.
3. The fairness of access to state resources made available for the election.
4. The fairness of access for political parties and candidates to the media, in particular the State media.
5. The manner in which registration of voters is conducted.
6. Any other issue concerning the essential freedom and fairness of the election.
As BungkokPundit indicates, it is not a good idea to reject the empirical reality of vote buying altogether. Whether the problem is overstated or not, I am still pondering this issue. Having observed around half a dozen elections, as well as the work of the PEC, I also agree with him that, generally, polling day really is the least problematic (and most boring) part of the electoral exercise. Therefore, it makes little sense for the EU to concentrate on this day, and a few days before and after. Regarding this particular election, the democratic meaning of it has been severely compromised by the actions of the military rulers and their henchmen, both concerning the options that voters will be able to chose from and concerning what an elected government can do to govern the country.
Jeruchai, I don’t think Andrew was referring to the people in Thai politics, I think he was referring to the electoral system functioning.
With all these derogatory references to Australiana Jeruchai, I am not sure what more your trying to get across. I read it as either a desire for Thailand to remain stoic with traditional positions of power perpetuating political relativism to prevent liberal integration or simply a projection of your desire to highlight cultural relativism?
Either way, your vindicating the speculation by Andrew for me because I can see you at the polling booth in full dress uniform.
“Thaksin did not really care about the rural poor” >> Politicians, certainly not those in the West, are not supposed to “really care” for anything in particular. Democracy is a mechanism to produce responsiveness in relation to existing restrictions. It is not about political decisions based on “care.” Thus, one cannot criticize Thaksin on this count.
“Why such a defensive response? [to EU request for observer status]”
Because that has always been the response of people in power.
Don’t you remember Thaksin’s “The UN is not my father” remark?
What I find interesting in your remarks is your attribution of some group-think or group-mind (as if Thai politics is some unified conspiracy) to what is a very fragmented process with many different factions and actors, continually realigning and reinventing themselves, hardly unified. Peoples’ attitudes and plans are diverse, opposed on some issues, agreeing on others, always changing with circumstances, in short strategic.
What the current regime fears most is that the Thai electoral process could be internationally recognised as being relatively clean. The “sufficiency democracy” paradigm that they promote is based on the view that the electoral process is so compromised by money politics that it can be cast aside when it delivers an unpalatable result.
To make sure I understand what you mean, are you referring to what happens *on election day* as in the stuffing of ballot boxes etc? Or are you referring to the entire campaign? If the former I would agree, but on the later I don’t. I do think the effect of vote-buying is currently overstated – particularly when as Andrew as mentioned in his rural constitution presentation both sides give money to the same voters – but it doesn’t mean it exists or there aren’t plenty of other tricks used by both sides
I think the apart on Sufficiency Economy that the write wrote reflects how ignorant and shallow the writer is on Thailand. He was not deserved any right to speak on Thailand.
” . . .is that the Thai electoral process could be internationally recognised as being relatively clean.”
Andrew Walker must be living in another planet and must be out of touch or out of his Aussie mind.
Thai politics . . . with Samak and remnants of TRT crooks, not to mention the old dinosaurs still alive and kicking and Andrew Walker claiming Thai politics as being ‘relatively’ clean is as good a joke as Thaksin threatening to sue the Swiss banks because they froze the numbered accounts Thaksin says he did not possess.
Andrew Walker you should stick with your ‘rural constipation’.
We can wonder if they were pawns in a game, we can wonder if they were just a means to an end. Since we will never know the answer you have the right to your opinion.
All I can think is that after the next election, it is likely that incomes in the rural areas will go down which when you are living hand to mouth hurts very hard.
ThaiBloke: Thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you say, however I cannot see any evidence that people of Isaan have had their right to vote taken away (only their right to vote for Thaksin and the cheating TRT executives has been removed).
What are you worried about?
Is it that now that Thaksin is gone, no one in Thailand cares about the rural poor, or is it that you are worried that the rural masses cannot distinguish good people from bad, or worse that they simply don’t care?
Historicus: I have read many articles about Thaksin, and observed his actions, and that is why I have come to the conclusion that Thaksin did not really care about the rural poor – IMO they were just a means to an end, pawns in his greedy game.
Paul L: I think perhaps you are the one who needs to do a little more reading. So you don’t think Thaksin was greedy? What rock have you been living under? I would be surprised if even Republican or Andrew Walker would be prepared to back you up on that statement.
“General Sonthi’s coup was pro-Thai and anti-Thaksin and was therefore a godsend.”
The coup was not pro-Thai but pro-Bangkok-Thai, that amalgamation of convenience between the Sino-Thai business community, the old high Sakdina families (including the extended palace), and their hired Samurai in the military and police. Please do not think the military moves without the approval of this elite.
It was anti-Thaksin, but only on a personal level; Thaksin was really no different than his predecessors or those who kicked him out. The only big difference was that Thaksin used some “populist” policies to garner the popular vote, but he was certainly no populist. That being said, by happenstance or by design, he did allow the rural people to get a glimpse of their combined electoral power at the national level. He showed that if you threw the rural people some bones, distributed some of the national wealth in their direction, that they might vote for you.
(And although I clearly have no proof, I don’t think that the violent anti-drug campaign was solely a Thaksin plan. I think it was an inevitable outcome, regardless of who was in office, as the meth problem in the rural areas had gotten well out of hand, too many police and too many bankers implicated, and thus something had to be done. A nation can not allow a meth epidemic in its secondary schools go unchecked. Those of you who were not living in rural communities in Thailand at the time have no idea how bad the violence and the crime had become as a result of the meth epidemic. Although many felt that it was a Thaksin “populist” policy, and the rural populations were indeed all in favor of the campaign, I am not sure it was a campaign originated solely by Thaksin, although he is surely a convenient scapegoat for the western “human rights” critics of the policy.)
The Thai rural communities do have long histories voting democratically, perhaps more so than do the urban communities. They vote democratically for the village headman, they vote democratically for the kamnaan, and more recently they vote democratically for the head of the tambon administration office, a government office that has greatly increased its importance over the last few decades in many areas and taken away many of the former bureaucratic responsibilities of the kamnaan . That is not to say that there are no corrupting influences in the countryside, but contrary to the borderline racist views of Sonthi Limthongkul and his Bangkok brothers, they are not uneducated masses. I am clearly in full agreement with Andrew that rejection of the ballot box by the re-instated old guard is indeed one of the great threats to democratic trends in Thailand.
This coup was certainly no godsend except to those in the Bangkok elite who are now back to getting what they perceive as their fair share of the pie.
Meanwhile, who knows what is going on behind the scenes. His Majesty is looking very feeble in body. The Crown Prince is lagging not far behind in overall health. The Princesses are keeping quiet. And as the power of the Schwartz suggested in a previous post, the Chinese delegation, as well as the US delegation (don’t think these coups occur without their approval also) are also jockeying for future influence, with Bejing almost assured of taking over the number one son position at the Thai court from the US. I daresay there are interesting times a coming.
Col. jeru the mind reader: if you read the post it was a response to something on the king. They were not my words, and there are things I’d disagree with in the article, but only you seem to be able to determine intention. But your blinkered, black/white view cannot let you see anything other than pro- or anti-Thaksin.
I apologise that I misinterpreted your call – “how do academics” – as a call for an academic analysis. I now realise that you are uninterested in real academic work and want statements at the primary school student. You are clearly asking for this in the wrong place. You might try: http://primaryblogs.suprglu.com/
Col jeru says: “But you were deliberately lying Historicus (#30) when you said “Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown.”” The word “facing” refers to street demonstrations at the time up to the coup. Your words, that I responded to, said: “and once facing street protests had all the intentions to remain in power by hook or by crook . . . with his own military coup.” This appears to me to be a statement referring to demonstrations that ceased well before the coup. There was a PAD threat of renewed demonstrations, but from early May there had been no major street demonstration. This is clear in the press. The military used the threat of a PAD demonstration and the unsubstantiated claim that Thaksin was to organise a violent response as one pretense for the coup.
By the way, there is no substantiated evidence that Thaksin was planning a coup, and as stated above, using Thanong as a source for this is unreliable. He simply state’s the military’s view. I’m sure that if this was a real event the military junta would have come up with some evidence. I am unaware of any.
It may well have been the way that Thaksin wanted to move. I am in no way defending what he did in terms of extrajudical shootings, probable massive corruption and whatever else we can and will find out about.
My issue is with the current situation. We cannot turn the clock back to the day before Thaksin left and the army took power. What I was probably naively hoping was that the army would take power for a while, and so to say re-boot Thai democracy. If they had added a few and I mean a few small caveats to strengthen the system of checks and balances Thailand could have restarted democratic life in a stronger position.
However, what we have today is a major rethink in the constituition effecting political parties, the senate and laws being railroaded thru parliament effecting free speech. I fear very much what will be the outcome in Isaan after the election. I cannot help feeling (I have worked and lived in Isaan for a considerable time) that the people of Isaan will be very disatisfied with the outcome of the next election. Many people are correct when they say that these people feel very disenfranchised. Some would say it is their fault for selling their votes, however, I believe it is more to do with a complete feeling of helplessness that is only going to get worse with the new constitution. They will sell their vote to whoever they believe may help them.
These rural areas of Thailand desperately need economic and social development. There is already an exodus from the countryside to the cities. They are at the bottom of society already, and there is a real possiblity that in 20 years or so they will become the lost underclass of Thailand. Thailand is basically undereducating millions of rural children, and giving them little more hope than remaining farmers or becoming labour in Bangkok at barely above minimum wage.
I worry that there is a real chance that rural Thailand will cease to exist in 30 years. I know of companies in Isaan who cannot get labour, cannot find farmers, villages where the men have all left, whilst Bangkok is choking under a mass of humanity many of whom are living subsistence existences in hovels.
I am not in anyway advocating sufficiency economy, rather structured proper education and rural development, infrastructure and business to give these people a reason to stay and develop their region. Meanwhile, we have laws coming from everywhere making it harder for foreign businesses to open and an infrastructure that makes it impractical to hope to move further north than Korat.
What hope is there for the next generation coming from these regions. When I look at it like that, I would vote for someone like Thaksin every day over anyone else in the political system.
When one considers HMK in this equation, the issue I fear lies more seriously with his successor. Will he be able to hold this country together?
One should quote the right things. To some people, the sentence “Democracy is just a tool, not our goal” might sound scandalous. However, it has been the core issue of democracy theory since Aristotle. Democracy is conceptualized as a tool for good government. By the way, that’s the reason Aristotle rejected it as mob rule, and Plato played with the idea of rule by philosophers.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Observing an electoral fiction
IMO, Election observers should be welcomed by all countries (including western democracies) because it is a good way to eliminate concerns about accuracy of voting methods and the fairness of voting procedures, however the observers should do just that (observe).
Apart from those procedural matters, I am more concerned about morality in the electoral process, and actually find ‘democracy’ quite scary.
My fear comes from talking with ordinary folk and being surprised (shocked) by their attitudes and opinions.
This is very subjective, and probably unavoidable in a ‘democracy’, but I am concerned that many people vote for whomever they think will ‘help’ them personally, and do not care about any negative or possible sinister characteristics of the politician.
Usually the ‘help’ is in a financial form, but sometimes it also has religious or bigoted connotations.
Six threats and one opportunity
“which seemed to indicate that Thaksin’s main motivating factor was a regard for the poor (rather than personal greed & ego)” >> My point is that both the positive and the negative views are besides the point of democratic mass politics. One cannot criticize Thaksin for not “really caring” for the “poor,” nor can one say that he was a good politician because he cared for them.
The rest of your post is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant.
Observing an electoral fiction
Fall: You are certainly right to point out that these missions look into more than just the polling and counting. However, from my reading of the press, I got the impression that the bulk of the 200 (some more or less) observers would be in the country for a rather limited period of time.
If you have or get some more concrete information on the planned design of the EU EOM, please post it here.
Six threats and one opportunity
Srithanonchai: I’m not sure which definition of ‘care’ you are referring to.
It’s probably besides the point anyway, because my statement was not so much a criticism of Thaksin, but rather a counter to some recent posts to this site which seemed to indicate that Thaksin’s main motivating factor was a regard for the poor (rather than personal greed & ego)
Since you brought up what politicians are supposed or not supposed to do, I wonder whether politicians should treat all constituents the same irrespective of whether they voted for the politician or not?
(who was it who said: “Provinces that give us their trust deserve our special care. We have to take care of the whole country, but our limited time has to be allocated to provinces where we receive the most trust. Provinces that trust us less will have to wait.”)
I am also wondering whether politicians are supposed to authorize extra-judicial killing, use tax havens and nominees, or push policies that favor and enrich ones own family and friends?
Observing an electoral fiction
Srithanonchai – I dont think EU only concentrate on polling day and a few days before and after.
The following are example key criteria of observer’s report from Pakistan:(taken from my comment at TJTS)
Statistical Representation of Teams and Coverage
1. The degree of impartiality shown by the relevant Election Commission and election officials.
2. The degree of freedom of political parties and candidates to organise, move, assemble and express their views publicly.
3. The fairness of access to state resources made available for the election.
4. The fairness of access for political parties and candidates to the media, in particular the State media.
5. The manner in which registration of voters is conducted.
6. Any other issue concerning the essential freedom and fairness of the election.
7. The conduct of polling and counting of votes.
Conclusion.
Six threats and one opportunity
Jopha said I am not sure it was a campaign originated solely by Thaksin,
I hope you are not suggesting the Border Patrol Police had anything to do with it particularly given their link to certain entities.
Observing an electoral fiction
As BungkokPundit indicates, it is not a good idea to reject the empirical reality of vote buying altogether. Whether the problem is overstated or not, I am still pondering this issue. Having observed around half a dozen elections, as well as the work of the PEC, I also agree with him that, generally, polling day really is the least problematic (and most boring) part of the electoral exercise. Therefore, it makes little sense for the EU to concentrate on this day, and a few days before and after. Regarding this particular election, the democratic meaning of it has been severely compromised by the actions of the military rulers and their henchmen, both concerning the options that voters will be able to chose from and concerning what an elected government can do to govern the country.
Observing an electoral fiction
Jeruchai, I don’t think Andrew was referring to the people in Thai politics, I think he was referring to the electoral system functioning.
With all these derogatory references to Australiana Jeruchai, I am not sure what more your trying to get across. I read it as either a desire for Thailand to remain stoic with traditional positions of power perpetuating political relativism to prevent liberal integration or simply a projection of your desire to highlight cultural relativism?
Either way, your vindicating the speculation by Andrew for me because I can see you at the polling booth in full dress uniform.
sincerely,
р╕Эр╕гр╕▒р╣Ир╕Зр╕Хр╕▓р╕Щр╣Йр╕│р╕Вр╣Йр╕▓р╕з
Six threats and one opportunity
“Thaksin did not really care about the rural poor” >> Politicians, certainly not those in the West, are not supposed to “really care” for anything in particular. Democracy is a mechanism to produce responsiveness in relation to existing restrictions. It is not about political decisions based on “care.” Thus, one cannot criticize Thaksin on this count.
Observing an electoral fiction
“Why such a defensive response? [to EU request for observer status]”
Because that has always been the response of people in power.
Don’t you remember Thaksin’s “The UN is not my father” remark?
What I find interesting in your remarks is your attribution of some group-think or group-mind (as if Thai politics is some unified conspiracy) to what is a very fragmented process with many different factions and actors, continually realigning and reinventing themselves, hardly unified. Peoples’ attitudes and plans are diverse, opposed on some issues, agreeing on others, always changing with circumstances, in short strategic.
Observing an electoral fiction
What the current regime fears most is that the Thai electoral process could be internationally recognised as being relatively clean. The “sufficiency democracy” paradigm that they promote is based on the view that the electoral process is so compromised by money politics that it can be cast aside when it delivers an unpalatable result.
To make sure I understand what you mean, are you referring to what happens *on election day* as in the stuffing of ballot boxes etc? Or are you referring to the entire campaign? If the former I would agree, but on the later I don’t. I do think the effect of vote-buying is currently overstated – particularly when as Andrew as mentioned in his rural constitution presentation both sides give money to the same voters – but it doesn’t mean it exists or there aren’t plenty of other tricks used by both sides
Six threats and one opportunity
I think the apart on Sufficiency Economy that the write wrote reflects how ignorant and shallow the writer is on Thailand. He was not deserved any right to speak on Thailand.
Observing an electoral fiction
” . . .is that the Thai electoral process could be internationally recognised as being relatively clean.”
Andrew Walker must be living in another planet and must be out of touch or out of his Aussie mind.
Thai politics . . . with Samak and remnants of TRT crooks, not to mention the old dinosaurs still alive and kicking and Andrew Walker claiming Thai politics as being ‘relatively’ clean is as good a joke as Thaksin threatening to sue the Swiss banks because they froze the numbered accounts Thaksin says he did not possess.
Andrew Walker you should stick with your ‘rural constipation’.
Observing an electoral fiction
Quite the opposite. What the current regime fears most is that the Thai electoral process…recognised as being relatively clean
Definitely not what I have in mind. But thought provoking nonetheless.
Six threats and one opportunity
We can wonder if they were pawns in a game, we can wonder if they were just a means to an end. Since we will never know the answer you have the right to your opinion.
All I can think is that after the next election, it is likely that incomes in the rural areas will go down which when you are living hand to mouth hurts very hard.
Six threats and one opportunity
ThaiBloke: Thanks for your response. I agree with much of what you say, however I cannot see any evidence that people of Isaan have had their right to vote taken away (only their right to vote for Thaksin and the cheating TRT executives has been removed).
What are you worried about?
Is it that now that Thaksin is gone, no one in Thailand cares about the rural poor, or is it that you are worried that the rural masses cannot distinguish good people from bad, or worse that they simply don’t care?
Historicus: I have read many articles about Thaksin, and observed his actions, and that is why I have come to the conclusion that Thaksin did not really care about the rural poor – IMO they were just a means to an end, pawns in his greedy game.
Paul L: I think perhaps you are the one who needs to do a little more reading. So you don’t think Thaksin was greedy? What rock have you been living under? I would be surprised if even Republican or Andrew Walker would be prepared to back you up on that statement.
Six threats and one opportunity
Jeru wrote:
“General Sonthi’s coup was pro-Thai and anti-Thaksin and was therefore a godsend.”
The coup was not pro-Thai but pro-Bangkok-Thai, that amalgamation of convenience between the Sino-Thai business community, the old high Sakdina families (including the extended palace), and their hired Samurai in the military and police. Please do not think the military moves without the approval of this elite.
It was anti-Thaksin, but only on a personal level; Thaksin was really no different than his predecessors or those who kicked him out. The only big difference was that Thaksin used some “populist” policies to garner the popular vote, but he was certainly no populist. That being said, by happenstance or by design, he did allow the rural people to get a glimpse of their combined electoral power at the national level. He showed that if you threw the rural people some bones, distributed some of the national wealth in their direction, that they might vote for you.
(And although I clearly have no proof, I don’t think that the violent anti-drug campaign was solely a Thaksin plan. I think it was an inevitable outcome, regardless of who was in office, as the meth problem in the rural areas had gotten well out of hand, too many police and too many bankers implicated, and thus something had to be done. A nation can not allow a meth epidemic in its secondary schools go unchecked. Those of you who were not living in rural communities in Thailand at the time have no idea how bad the violence and the crime had become as a result of the meth epidemic. Although many felt that it was a Thaksin “populist” policy, and the rural populations were indeed all in favor of the campaign, I am not sure it was a campaign originated solely by Thaksin, although he is surely a convenient scapegoat for the western “human rights” critics of the policy.)
The Thai rural communities do have long histories voting democratically, perhaps more so than do the urban communities. They vote democratically for the village headman, they vote democratically for the kamnaan, and more recently they vote democratically for the head of the tambon administration office, a government office that has greatly increased its importance over the last few decades in many areas and taken away many of the former bureaucratic responsibilities of the kamnaan . That is not to say that there are no corrupting influences in the countryside, but contrary to the borderline racist views of Sonthi Limthongkul and his Bangkok brothers, they are not uneducated masses. I am clearly in full agreement with Andrew that rejection of the ballot box by the re-instated old guard is indeed one of the great threats to democratic trends in Thailand.
This coup was certainly no godsend except to those in the Bangkok elite who are now back to getting what they perceive as their fair share of the pie.
Meanwhile, who knows what is going on behind the scenes. His Majesty is looking very feeble in body. The Crown Prince is lagging not far behind in overall health. The Princesses are keeping quiet. And as the power of the Schwartz suggested in a previous post, the Chinese delegation, as well as the US delegation (don’t think these coups occur without their approval also) are also jockeying for future influence, with Bejing almost assured of taking over the number one son position at the Thai court from the US. I daresay there are interesting times a coming.
Six threats and one opportunity
Col. jeru the mind reader: if you read the post it was a response to something on the king. They were not my words, and there are things I’d disagree with in the article, but only you seem to be able to determine intention. But your blinkered, black/white view cannot let you see anything other than pro- or anti-Thaksin.
I apologise that I misinterpreted your call – “how do academics” – as a call for an academic analysis. I now realise that you are uninterested in real academic work and want statements at the primary school student. You are clearly asking for this in the wrong place. You might try: http://primaryblogs.suprglu.com/
Col jeru says: “But you were deliberately lying Historicus (#30) when you said “Thaksin was not facing street protests when he was overthrown.”” The word “facing” refers to street demonstrations at the time up to the coup. Your words, that I responded to, said: “and once facing street protests had all the intentions to remain in power by hook or by crook . . . with his own military coup.” This appears to me to be a statement referring to demonstrations that ceased well before the coup. There was a PAD threat of renewed demonstrations, but from early May there had been no major street demonstration. This is clear in the press. The military used the threat of a PAD demonstration and the unsubstantiated claim that Thaksin was to organise a violent response as one pretense for the coup.
By the way, there is no substantiated evidence that Thaksin was planning a coup, and as stated above, using Thanong as a source for this is unreliable. He simply state’s the military’s view. I’m sure that if this was a real event the military junta would have come up with some evidence. I am unaware of any.
Six threats and one opportunity
Ngana,
It may well have been the way that Thaksin wanted to move. I am in no way defending what he did in terms of extrajudical shootings, probable massive corruption and whatever else we can and will find out about.
My issue is with the current situation. We cannot turn the clock back to the day before Thaksin left and the army took power. What I was probably naively hoping was that the army would take power for a while, and so to say re-boot Thai democracy. If they had added a few and I mean a few small caveats to strengthen the system of checks and balances Thailand could have restarted democratic life in a stronger position.
However, what we have today is a major rethink in the constituition effecting political parties, the senate and laws being railroaded thru parliament effecting free speech. I fear very much what will be the outcome in Isaan after the election. I cannot help feeling (I have worked and lived in Isaan for a considerable time) that the people of Isaan will be very disatisfied with the outcome of the next election. Many people are correct when they say that these people feel very disenfranchised. Some would say it is their fault for selling their votes, however, I believe it is more to do with a complete feeling of helplessness that is only going to get worse with the new constitution. They will sell their vote to whoever they believe may help them.
These rural areas of Thailand desperately need economic and social development. There is already an exodus from the countryside to the cities. They are at the bottom of society already, and there is a real possiblity that in 20 years or so they will become the lost underclass of Thailand. Thailand is basically undereducating millions of rural children, and giving them little more hope than remaining farmers or becoming labour in Bangkok at barely above minimum wage.
I worry that there is a real chance that rural Thailand will cease to exist in 30 years. I know of companies in Isaan who cannot get labour, cannot find farmers, villages where the men have all left, whilst Bangkok is choking under a mass of humanity many of whom are living subsistence existences in hovels.
I am not in anyway advocating sufficiency economy, rather structured proper education and rural development, infrastructure and business to give these people a reason to stay and develop their region. Meanwhile, we have laws coming from everywhere making it harder for foreign businesses to open and an infrastructure that makes it impractical to hope to move further north than Korat.
What hope is there for the next generation coming from these regions. When I look at it like that, I would vote for someone like Thaksin every day over anyone else in the political system.
When one considers HMK in this equation, the issue I fear lies more seriously with his successor. Will he be able to hold this country together?
Six threats and one opportunity
One should quote the right things. To some people, the sentence “Democracy is just a tool, not our goal” might sound scandalous. However, it has been the core issue of democracy theory since Aristotle. Democracy is conceptualized as a tool for good government. By the way, that’s the reason Aristotle rejected it as mob rule, and Plato played with the idea of rule by philosophers.