Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
Some members of the ruling regime in Thailand have reacted with predicable nationalist outrage to a European Union request to send observers to the forthcoming general election. Why such a defensive response? I don’t think it is because the junta holds out some hope of ballot-box manipulation. Quite the opposite. 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. Slandering the electoral process is the ideological bread and butter of the coup-endorsing Thai elite. With European Observers on the ground, the elite’s ongoing attempts to discredit electoral democracy will be all the more difficult.
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.
0
0
” . . .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’.
0
0
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
0
0
“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.
0
0
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
0
0
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.
0
0
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.
0
0
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.
0
0
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.
0
0
“I am more concerned about morality in the electoral process, and actually find ‘democracy’ quite scary….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.”
Me too, for example:
“The degree of freedom of political parties and candidates to organise, move, assemble and express their views publicly.”
Well, given the way that bigwig politicos divide up political turfs on a handshake, some of them being former mafia bosses, their behaviour indicates that they have certain vote returns locked in. This implies pressure on low level political bosses to return votes on target which implies social pressure, social pressure enforced by life enabling opportunities, after all, your village is the place where you and your family will remain ***for the rest of your natural lives***, not just some abstract temporary residence place as it is in the west. In the limit social pressure can even be enforced with violence and fear, although I really doubt if it would need much to be enforced in this manner, since people already know who to fear. The only posters I saw before the last abortive TRT election were threats, threats that you would lose your 30 baht healthcare if you didn’t vote TRT.
The whole thing presupposes **accountability*, if you don’t do your job, provide your service, you’re out and party x is in, whereas , most positions of economic sustenance of any sort that I have encountered are ***sinecures***, once you got it, it’s your’s by right, like Thaksin’s telecommunications concessions. If someone threatens your livelihood, watch out, then being an ex-police colonel comes in handy. TRT was quite effective in locking in sinecures.
Rarely in rural areas do you encounter the notion of service. As one very intelligent female professor and supervisor for short time at the university I taught at, explained to me, the head of HR considered herself the “Queen of Pencils” (her words, not mine). She would never accept that her job was to provide a service to others in the university. Accountability was something for people lower in the hierarchy. Economic rents and sinecures only, for those further up. Then there is the Banharn pork barrel model, politics is getting a lot of goodies for your locality, accountable (perhaps) goodie getters. IMHO people like Abhisit, Chuan Leekpai, and Anand, who form policy platforms in the best interests of the nation, that’s the only way that’ll make the country strong, then they need one more party to balance it, so it doesn’t suck up all power like the TRT.
0
0
Didn’t Thailand send election observers to Cambodia in the early 90s, and possibly other places? If so maybe someone could point that out to the junta.
0
0
For once I agree with jeru, but not with his childish tone and name-calling. The election will not be clean. As well as TRT remnants, Samak, and the dinosaurs, the military is already pouring funds into rural areas (if their own words are to believed). This will probably be a rough and dirty election.
0
0
I’d like to point out to Jeru or whatever he’s calling himself that under Thaksin, Thailand improved its standing in Transparency International’s corruption perception indices from 3.2 (in 2001) to 3.8 (in 2005). By contrast, from 1996 to 2001, the rating dropped from 3.3 to 3.2.
Although any rating under 5 indicates a government, police, business sector, etc, that is more corrupt than not, a 0.6 out of 10 increase in 5 years is still a significant achievement that gives the lie to many of the claims made about Thaksin being unprecedentedly corrupt, and justifies the claim that his government and the electoral processes which brought him to power are “relatively” clean, i.e., they are clean relative to their predecessors.
See Transparency’s website on corruption in Thailand here: http://www.transparency-thailand.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=1
I now look forward to Jeru’s claim that he’s never heard of Transparency International before coming to this site, and that they are part of the sinister Thai-Australian Thaksin lobby.
0
0
Below is a link to the report of the EU EOM on the commune council elections in February 2002.
ec.europa.eu/europeaid/projects/eidhr/pdf/elections-reports-cambodia-02_en.pdf
0
0
James Haughton: I’m not Jeru, and I don’t claim that Transparency International is part of the sinister Thai-Australian Thaksin lobby.
However, please consider the following:
1. The index you linked to relates to ‘perceived’ corruption levels and therefore may or may not bear a relationship to ‘actual’ corruption levels.
2. The index only goes to 2005, which is before Thaksin’s tax free sale of Shin Corp an event that might have affected peoples perception of corruption during 2006 and prior years.
3. The index is also before the new airport opening in late 2006, and given the knowledge of the problems regarding the airport, peoples perception of corruption during 2006 and prior years might have changed.
4. I would be interested to know what the effect on the index would be if corruption amongst low level bureaucrats/police/military etc was reduced, but at the same time there was an increase in corruption by one particular group. In such circumstances, I imagine it would be possible to perceive that corruption levels have decreased even if the corruption by that one group was at a grand scale.
0
0
Well I will later list the full amount of tricks, money and orders that my northern rural family are exposed to in the upcoming election.
It may well be worse than the last time when 800 baht per person was offered for a TRT vote with a lift to the polling station and of course the direct orders from the kamnan to vote TRT or lose all access to everything not only for yourself but also for the village and of course a pleasant reminder that how you voted would be monitored.
Quite frankly anyone who thinks a Thai election in the rural areas is clean does not know what they are talking about. On election day itself there is usually not so much direct coercion going on although the April 2 election was a massive exception to this rule. Even at the recent charter referendum nothing happened.
There is a hell of a lot that goes on both before and after an election and it is not all about just money but direct coercion, threats, scare tactics. Then there is the power of the patronage system, but that is another matter. In rural Thailand an election is not about considering all the issues and making even a semi-informed choice. At the April 2 election nobody was eevn allowed to talk about a no vote let alone campaign for it. that would have resulted in at least extreme violence by those that decide who the villagers will vote for. This time around things will not be clean. However, they may actually be fairer where I vote in allowing more choice than back in April 2 as the TRT guys are still there although their ability to totally intimdate has diminished and the opposition will be able to campaign without fear of death. That at least will allow anyone who is independent enough to actually make a choice.
If any foreign body monitors a Thai election they will not see what goes on anyway and nobody is going to run to them with a complaint. How many complained about the few hundred baht they got to vote no in the charter referendum? Some of my family wanted to vote yes but it was easier to do as told and take the money and vote no. It is quite dangerous to make complaints and most will just go with the flow anyway. Thai democracy has a long way to go and it is quite dangerous for academics to make assumptions about it so it fits their theory or political stance, but to suggest that it is actually clean is a long way from the truth. To suggest the EU monitors may declare it clean is almost certainly true, but that is because they wont see what happens. You need to live in a community and be part of it to understand how it works.
0
0
When a politician like Thaksin and his TRT gang corrupt and intimidate the poor, massively and pervasively, will that show in Transparency International Index? I wonder . .
Northern Thaiwoman (#16) above describes election corruption and coercion in her community that is more realistic than Andrew Walker’s romantic ‘rural constitution’, or James Haughton’s Transparency International Index.
If the wife of the ex-Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra herself, Khun Potjaman, publicly acknowledging that Potjaman was the Finance-Man of Thai Rak Thai Party personally subsidizing the TRT’s annual and election expenses by as much as 50% or more; does this not speak louder than any Transparency International Index why Thailand’s dominant political party during Thaksin had been so deeply corrupted . . . thus merrily assisting Thaksin & Potjaman in their family wealth-enriching endeavors, including changing or circumventing rules to assist Thaksin’s Shin enterprises stock price to go up 3-1/2 times during Thaksin’s rule and its eventual sale?
0
0
Srithanonchai – Did not mean to ignore your comment.
Yes, that’s the link I summarize from. I tried posting the link, but may be my syntax or something wrong. Dunno, strange.
0
0
Fall: Oh, I wanted to provide an additional example from Cambodia, because you mentioned Pakistan in your initial post. I also had problems posting the link. It was rejected twice.
0
0
thaiwoman, thanks for your comprehensive report on the election shenenigans that your “rural northern family” was subjected to. And while your folk sold their votes after many (death) threats and much cajoling by the evil TRT, they obviously had the education and funds to have their daughter study abroad to learn English to a very high level before returning to the village where you now “live in the community”. Your style of writing and diction is that of a male native speaker of English.
Against this backdrop I appreciate your comments but take your “family history” with a huge grain of salt. Maybe you can add a few words in Thai?!
0
0
I think Jeru, Thai woman and Ngana bring up some good points.
However, I don’t blame poor Thais for being the problem, but rather the worthless Thai media that does nothing to bring these problems to the light of day in a comprehensive factual manner.
Shame is a powerful tool in Thailand. Having reporters and video cameras stationed in notoriously corrupt voting precincts would have an effect, I think. Plus, the media should be doing investigations on the sources of wealth for all the big political players eg Chavalit, Snoh, Barnharn, Sanan, Newin, Samak and all the rest.
Thailand wouldn’t need foreign election monitors if the the Thai press was doing its job.
0
0
In relation to the post by “thaiwoman”. Given that there was a very substantial “no vote” registered in the north in the April 2006 election why didn’t we see a spate of retribution in the weeks that followed? And given that votes were counted at electorate level how does anyone know who voted for who? Like “farangman” I found your account a little implausible. Can you give us some more general background on the demography and socio-economic position of the village?
0
0
nganadeeleg:
Thanks for some interesting points there.
1) The relationship between “perceived corruption” and “actual corruption” is more than one of subjectivity and objectivity. If someone perceives the amount of corruption to be low, it will not occur to them to offer a bribe. If they are asked for a bribe and they believe the overall level of corruption to be low, they will be more inclined to denounce the bribe-taker, believing that their complaint will be supported by an on-the-whole honest law enforcement system. Perception and occurrence are intertwined.
2 & 3) We will just have to wait until TI finishes their 2006 & 7 surveys. Personally I really can’t see much difference between the Airport and Shin Corp deal and the many many previous corrupt governments and deals in Thailand. The TI measurement suggests that TRT was less corrupt in day-to-day governance (although, as I said, any score below 5 means a government more corrupt than not).
4) Is it really likely that massive public corruption at the top would be accompanied by a wave of widespread honesty at the bottom? I’m curious as to what circumstances you think would cause such a situation.
0
0
Perception and occurrence are intertwined
I accept that point, but I doubt it makes much difference in this case because, as you acknowledge, a score below 5 means a government more corrupt than not.
Is it really likely that massive public corruption at the top would be accompanied by a wave of widespread honesty at the bottom?
I’m curious as to what circumstances you think would cause such a situation.
Hypocrites abound, so I can imagine a powerful figure being in a position to crack down on lower level corruption, and at the same time personally undertaking massive corruption via a close circle of associates (family & business cronies).
0
0
I will never find more pro-Thaksin adorers (led by NM’s Andrew Walker) than in NM so this latest bit of news: Deposed Philippine President Joseph Estrada (a better actor than Thaksin Shinawatra I must say) had just been sentenced to life for corruption ($80 million graft it said).
Now what do the NM bloggers think would be a ‘just sentence’ for Thaksin’s mega-corruption?
0
0
I do find it sad that I am personally questioned for making a statement on here that clearly does not go along with the seemingly pro-Thaksin line pushed by this website. Maybe I made a mistake in thinking that academics may actually welcome different views and some input from the ground, but I hope not. For those who question my English, my father was British and I was educated there. However, my personal life is my own and I will not discuss that.
Andrew: I agree that how people voted is probably impossible to check. However that does not mean that many Thai people do not think that their vote can be checked. The April 2 election which Iwas talking about also had the voting tables facing in a way where it would be easy for an onlooker to view a vote. Perceptions and maybe urban legends are powerful tools as is suggestion.
As to the intimidation or coercion. Of course there are not reprisals after a vote especially where the coercer got just about what they wanted. I just want to say that coecion in many differnet ways is used in the run up to Thai elections to sway a vote in a particular way, and much of it is not nice. TRT were very good at this. What they were even better at was marketing their brand very well while at the same time denying the opportunity of a counter view in many rural areas. Part of this was the lack of safety for their opponents. Even in downtown Chiang Mai a big name like Chaun Leekpai got attacked as the police looked on. Ordinary people standing up and criiticising Thaksin in his rural and we should not forget feudal strongholds when he was in power was not something many would choose to do. There just were no safety guarantees. Even as a woman I was “warned” enough that I learned to be quieter, and the voice of the woman in the village does not carry much weight.
My village is situated about 20 km from the provincial center. Rice and onion farming are the occupation for the 2000 or so who live there although most tend to middle aged, old or kids as the younger people have moved off to the factories of Ayuthaya, Lampang and a few to the East. There are social splits now between the farmers who may occaisionally do a bit of construction work on a seasonal basis and the young who pretty much prefer the city life and work, and who are now learnign that completion of technical qualifications can get them away. They are probably lucky in some way that they are close enough to the provincial center to study in a college. This is a big change when many of their parents are illiterate.
I am quite happy to give more information or participate in debate, but please dont just attack me for posting. I am sure that I am not the only anonymous poster on here.
0
0
James and others: It is not just TI. Here is something I wrote which also mentions World Bank stats:
The World Bank also publishes a survey on Governance Indicators and one of these indicators is Control of Corruption. The Governance Indicators use “276 variables drawn from 31 sources and 25 different organizations”. A higher percentile rank indicates better governance ratings. As can be shown by the below table, control of corruption reduced during the term of the opposition Democrat Party, but has gradually improved during the Thaksin government. The Thaksin government has almost manage to restore the control of corruption to the level it was before the Democrat Party took power.
Year Percentile Rank
1998 52.0
2000 45.1
2002 46.6
2003 47.1
2004 48.0
2005 51.2
—
Yes, it doesn’t include figures for 2006, but any 2006 figures are complicated by the fact that perception of corruption or control of corruption might have changed as a result of the coup – sorry to shock those anti-Thaksinites but the military is also known for corruption. It would be interesting in 2008 to see 2007 figures to see how well the CNS did.
0
0
Excuse another self-link, but since such surveys are questioned above, I thought I should include some information on the methodology of the World Bank and TI, see the comments on this blog post.
Here is from the World Bank on their underlying sources for the Governance Indicators?
“Our data sources reflect the perceptions of a very diverse group of respondents. For 2006, we use 276 variables drawn from 31 sources and 25 different organizations.
Several of our data sources are surveys of individuals or domestic firms with first-hand knowledge of the governance situation in the country. We also capture the perceptions of country analysts at the major multilateral development agencies, reflecting these individuals’ in-depth experience working on the countries they assess. Other data sources from NGOs, as well as commercial risk rating agencies, base their assessments on a global network of correspondents typically living in the country they are rating.”
—
So who to rely on? Two credible organisations with years of data for comparison or Jeru?
0
0
Thaiwoman. You write that “My village is situated about 20 km from the provincial center. Rice and onion farming are the occupation for the 2000 or so who live there although most tend to middle aged, old or kids as the younger people have moved off to the factories of Ayuthaya, Lampang and a few to the East. There are social splits now between the farmers who may occaisionally do a bit of construction work on a seasonal basis and the young who pretty much prefer the city life and work, and who are now learnign that completion of technical qualifications can get them away. They are probably lucky in some way that they are close enough to the provincial center to study in a college. This is a big change when many of their parents are illiterate.”
I find this account very plausible, though I do wonder how many of the parental generation (rather than the grandparental) are/were illiterate. The image you paint of a diversified economy is very similiar to what I have observed in the north. But to me, this makes your account of the electoral process even more implausible. Are these economically diversified and increasingly educated families really so vulnerable to the threats and coersions of the local “kamnan”? What you describe does not look much like a feudal system to me. Rather it looks like a rather diverse system in which there are likely to be all sorts of cross cutting factions and allegiences. Are you seriously suggesting that the opposition parties (Democrat and/or Mahachon) were not free to actively and vigorously campaign in the 2001 or 2005 elections? Can you tell us which electorate the village is in? (They are pretty big so it shouldn’t breach any confidences.) It would be interesting to look at the electorate voting record over the past few elections. And I don’t think the personal safety of Chuan Leekpai can be taken as much of an indication of anything. There are plenty of parts of Australia where John Howard wouldn’t dare to venture out!
0
0
Having lived and travelled in Northern Thailand for ten years I have never come across or heard of physical intimidation at any of the elections TRT ran in, and neither against any opposition politician for that matter. Such an attack would have had huge repercussions in the media even before they turned anti-Thaksin and more so after, considering how the Central World incident was blown out of proportion by Sonthi L. et al. Why is Chuan quiet about the “attack as police looked on” I wonder?
TRT garnered the votes with their populist hand-outs and a can-do style of politics which was new and revolutionary in many ways. Why they would resort to violence with these majorities is beyond me.
0
0
In the village that I’m from, people welcome the ‘improved’ access to health care, education, government services etc. They love the guy because he showed them that he would improve further other important matters etc, etc. This sentiment has been presented and to some was/would be dismissed as pro-Thaksin and TRT always. So, I’m not to go on. I’d just like to make a point that Chiangmai is a very safe place for Chaun and Abhisit and their supporters. They are not and have never been in danger. Just that their policy sucks. Social benefits for seniors? free 12 yr education? But when, where, in Bangkok first, right? The problem right now is WE are in danger to express, for example, that we don’t accept the junta supported constitution. I bet we are also in danger to say, for example, that we would like, something like… EU monitoring the whole process of election as the appointed committee has already made a decision. To me, the personal safety of myself and my rural northern family is a concern right now.
I think it’s hard for a person who might have grown up in a privileged international school to see the real problems at a village level. My village in Sarapee is about 10 km from CM city, but why were/are my parents/grandparents’ generation illiterate with zero access to health care. They are hard working farmers, gardeners, merchants, mind you. Not to linger on the personal level at all, the people of beautiful and fertile northern land don’t deserve to be oppressed and accused of taking a few hundred bahts and blah, blah blah… same old, same old.
It is disheartening to see the so called ‘coup endorsing Thai elites’ are doing their best to suppress a glimpse of democratic society… that we might have experienced for a little time.
0
0
In Chiang Mai City, pro-Thaksin forces in 2006 indeed broke up a rally organized by the Democrat Party.
“Thaksin supporters raid Democrat’s rally site in Chiang Mai
Chiang Mai – Supporters of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra disrupted the rally site of the Democrat Party Thursday evening forcing Democrat leader Abhisit Vejjajiva to cancel his speech.
Some 300 protesters turned up at the Democrat rally site at 7:10 pm while Democrat member Alongkorn Pollabutr was speaking on the stage.
The supporters later broke into the rally area and carried signs in support of Thaksin just before Abhisit could deliver his speech.
The protesters then rushed on the stage to hold banner in support of Thaksin and seized the stage. Police looked on helplessly.”
TN 30 March 2006
In Udon Thani, a “mob” led by TRT MPs made it impossible for the PAD with Suriyasai to hold a seminar at the Rajaphat University (?), and held their group hostage for many hours.
As for the “kamnan” intimidating people, I am not sure whether this referred to the entire sub-district or only to that/those village(s) under the direct influence of that person. It is not unusual in kamnan elections that the winner will be that village headman who can secure almost all votes in his own village, prevent rival village headmen from campaigning in his village, and who can team up with some other phu yai ban. Obviously, when they act as vote canvassers for candidates in PAO and national elections, such people are thought after because of their dominance and vote-generating cabability.
0
0
In Sarapee, the overwhelming TRT district, Chuan did visit and was speaking at one ‘Pa Heaw’ (the graveyard – of all the places!). They did their 2006 rally quite freely, IMHO. My folks went and said he spoke well, but of course they ‘elected’ the more charming ‘Kum Mueng spoken’ one of us Mr. Thaksin. He promised, he delivered. Nothing wrong with that! During the visit of Chuan/Abhisit to CM, yes there were banners around town often in the endearing Kum Mueng (Northern dialect) like ‘pik baan’ (go home). Again, some little democratic things of the past…
Of course, we have to be painted violent, with no knowledge of true democracy and have to be educated about it by the generals and their supporters, because there MUST be MARTIAL LAW in Chiangmai!!! I think this is the death threat.
0
0
Great post Andrew and great responses.
And as usual, we have the ‘Rachomon phenomena’ (to reference pop-culture) and each of us are colored by our subjectivities. We are all simply extending our entrenched biases into the issue of elections and what interesting read!
However, I must say that I find it a tad too partisan that farangman and Andrew teaming up on Thaiwoman – and not Beth for instance. Here’s two foriegners (albeit with knowledge and deep interests in Thai issues) ‘outing’ someone who claims to be from an Isaan village, who seem not to fit their preconceptions. I will say that Beth doesn’t fit the ‘typical’ women from a Northern village either. I think both Thaiwoman and Beth deserves benefit of the doubt (and Thaiwoman has already been upfront stating her half-British background) and I thank them for their opposing accounts (being an Oz-based Bangkokian ignorant of rural society).
About ‘money politics’, it is a common dark side of democracy, of what ever ‘maturity’ level. There is always a ‘price’ to become government, prime minister or president whether you are in the Australia or India – and those who win power are beholden to both business and electorate interests. In a more ‘mature’ democracy it can be presumed that the latter interests is more important than the former – but it is highly complex and never clear cut (not ‘transparent’). It becomes extremely ambiguous when businessmen runs for office as in the case of PMThaksin or even failed businessmen like George W. Bush – and evidences suggest that their policies in government often benefit their respective businesses/industries. PMThaksin’s FTA with China, for instance, seem to benefit his telecommunications business more than Northern farmers who voted his government in.
To reconcile that gap is a critical issue here and we all know that the broad solution is ‘democratic’ education coupled with increased economic wellbeing. Thai voter short-termism can be mitigated but that will take a lot of time and sincere actions by the ruling elites (elected or not – the 2007 constitution does provide excellent provisions, it remains to be seen if they will be implemented) – as in ‘developed’ countries, we are trying to address socio-environment short-termism held hostage by election cycles.
As for EU observations of elections, I don’t think they’ll make much difference.
0
0
It would be nice if Thaiwomen, Beth and as many others as possible, and from differenr regions, would provide readers of NM with ground-level observations about the run-up to the December elections.
0
0
Great post indeed. In fact, New Mandala is an excellent site altogether. A company of quality thinkers, and contributors. Thanks to all.
I’d be glad to exchange more in the future.
0
0
Here is an article from the English-language section of Prachatai on the questions raised in this thread. It should be added in this context that the Election Commission of Thailand has asked their provincial branches to prepare black lists of vote canvassers (hua khanaen) and influential people (phu mee itthiphon) in their areas (don’t quite know how the PECs’ staff can know this in any detail).
Whose security is it?
Chuwat Rerksirisuk
14 September 2007
Frontliner
Like other Subdistrict Heads in Thailand, Kamnan Thong commands respects from people in his community, though not at the level of the “extra-constitutional power”.
During election campaigns, like other Kamnans, he works as a canvasser for politicians who give him favours or those who he claims to be his close allies.
But in the election later this year, he will hardly be able to help marshal votes for any politician. It will be difficult for him to persuade people to attend their speeches at the rallies, even though his pockets are stuffed with travel expenses. A few days ago, a ranking military officer approached him and told to him bluntly that martial law is still in force in this area. To mobilize people for any purpose may simply affect reconciliation and security.
An ordinary Kamnan, though he has a big gut, he is not too stupid to understand what the officer meant.
He passes as a “good person” and the Commander in Chief recently remarked that no “good person” would be affected by martial law. Yet, he will not be able to help the same politician. At most he can simply try to see to it that canvassers of opponent politicians will not have the chance to mobilize people to attend their political rallies, either.
This is a common phenomenon in the forthcoming election. And this has nothing to do with the notion whether or not good people are affected by martial law which is still in force in almost half the country.
Incredibly, the Commander in Chief backed his refusal to lift martial law by saying that “good people will not suffer (from the enforcement of the law).” This is the same reason touted by every previous military dictator to justify their cause. When Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat was in power, he invoked a Coup Order to have people shot without any judicial review. The same reason was used by Thaksin Shinawatra during the launch of his War on Drugs which led to rampant killings. Of course, “good people” did not suffer then, either.
Though the enforcement of martial law in the past months deserves condemnation and opposition, there was a certain justification. But now that the draft Constitution has been endorsed through a referendum held under martial law, and the national charter which is claimed to promote rights and freedoms has come into force, martial law is still in place. Those pro-coup factions who held high in their hands the flags of rights and freedoms and pushed people to come out in support of the Constitution have not come out to campaign to lift martial law. They show indifference to the fact that half of the country is ruled under this state of warfare as if these 35 provinces were “insecure”. And these provinces are all strongholds of voters who support political parties which have opposed the coup.
Let us be frank with ourselves, let us be straightforward, the security claimed by the coup makers is in fact their own security. And their insecurity stems from their fears and cowardice. Yet, they trade this off against fairness in elections and the national image. They do not care if this security comes at the expense of the consent and cooperation of people in society, even though it would really be a stepping stone towards genuine reconciliation.
Here is the demand.
We call on those who seized the power (and who so far have failed to return it to us) to allow a fair election by lifting martial law.
This is because fair elections and respect for the people’s free will are our fundamental rights and freedoms. And these political rights and freedoms are the watershed of all the rights to set our own policies and enjoy self-determination.
This is because the country belongs to “all Thai citizens”, whether they come from Isan (Northeast), whether they are poor, or stupid, or love Thaksin, or hate Thaksin. It definitely does not belong to a handful of military officers and their few lapdogs.
Please listen (to others) again, the refusal to lift martial law is tantamount to a deliberate attempt to conduct unfair election.
And an unfair election is the only means through which the coup makers can sustain their power.
Only an unfair election can guarantee security for the coup makers.
And of course, your security has nothing to do with the national security. On the contrary, it has prolonged divisiveness in society.
Only through a fair election based on the collective consent can people in society learn to live in peace under political rules based on mutual respect. And that is true national security.
Prachathai 14 September 2007
0
0
Only through a fair election based on the collective consent can people in society learn to live in peace under political rules based on mutual respect. And that is true national security.
Sounds good, but what happens when voters habitually ignore politicians wrongdoings and instead support whomever gives them the most, thereby giving the green light to certain unscrupulous politicians to do whatever they want as long as they appease certain sections of society (in this case the poor masses, but it could be the military, or business) .
The Prachatai article compares Sarit with Thaksin, but ask yourselves would it be acceptable if Sarit was elected (on a poor friendly platform)?
‘Full Democracy’ requires responsibility from both the politicians and the electorate.
I know the constitution, parliament, counter corruption institutions, courts etc are meant to provide checks and balances, but what happens when they are manipulated?
If the electorate in not prepared to monitor and punish unscrupulous politicians, then do not be surprised if the military continues to interfere, and ‘full democracy is replaced by ‘guided democracy’.
0
0
I suggested earlier that universal suffrage should be scrapped and voting be reserved to that small group of Thai people, mostly residing in Bangkok (academics, businessmen, journalists, technocrats, bureaucrats, soldiers) , who deem themselves politically-morally more “responsible” than the great majority of the Thai voters. This group can assemble at the Queen Sirikit Convention Center (this choice of place is not accidental!) and determine who should be the government amongst themselves.
People belonging to the above groups but do not display the required “responsibility”, such as Ajarn Somsak J., Thanapol, Jakraphop, Mo Weng, Khru Pratheep, Kasian, Rangsan, Supalack, Worachet, Jon, Pitch, Pravit, etc., will not be eligible. Alternatively, one could give responsible members of the above groups, such as nganadeeleg, Gothom, Surichai, Witthaya, Sonthi, Chermsak, Banjerd, Kaewsan, Surayudh, Anand, Sumet, Aree, etc., 10 votes, while Ajarn Somsak J, and his likes would receive only 1 vote. One could even do a written exam with those thought of tending to be “irresponsible”, and then assign votes from 1-8 according to their test results.
Today, I repeat my suggestion. It would also not cost the two billion baht the ECT has to spend on organizing the election of 480 MPs, and then another two billion for the election of 76 Senators in February.
0
0
nganadeeleg says, “I know the constitution, parliament, counter corruption institutions, courts etc are meant to provide checks and balances, but what happens when they are manipulated?”
Good question, and one that was regularly raised during Thaksin’s period in power and since. But that constitution is now dead and the institutions re-made. So, today, one might equally ask these questions of the military and the palace. What happens when there are no checks and balances on their power? What happens when they manipulate these re-made bodies?
0
0
Srithanonchai: The system you propose does not exist, and we will just have to put up with one person/one vote.
Restorationist: We all know no-one is perfect, including the Bangkok elite, the military or the palace.
Under a one person/one vote system, it is the masses who have the real power, so that is why I keep stressing the importance of the masses being more discerning and responsible – they have the power to change things.
0
0
I’m sure ‘that small group of people’ would like to use the system proposed by Srithanonchai if they could. Now, the masses and their power. Let me give the example scenario from the recent referendum poll. We have four eligible voters in my immediate family. Despite the heavy ‘guidance’ from the power, Number one went to vote and never said anything to anyone. Number two went to vote and announced the NO vote to friends and family. Number three was openly pissed off at the whole thing, went to observe the poll booth but did not vote. Number four did not bother to travel back to hometown to vote.
An article from Prachathai, based on an interview in Sankamphang, cited that the like of Number One (who might have voted yes) voted yes because they would like to have general election soon, afterwhich they hope their Mr Thaksin would return and be pardoned.
I might say the voice is probably heard, hence the ‘highly regarded’ martial law and all the ‘fortresses’. I feel that the gun and tank power and their supporters will go on shamelessly insisting their love and sacrifice for the nation for a long time. But we know better, don’t we…
0
0
“Under a one person/one vote system, it is the masses who have the real power, so that is why I keep stressing the importance of the masses being more discerning and responsible – they have the power to change things.” >> Yes, and until they are not “discerning and resp0nsible”, the “real power” will remain with the two Sonthis and their backers, and it will be them who “have the power to change things”… As for the “masses”: somnamna!
0
0
somnamna?!!! That’s a shame!
0
0
It seems that nganadeeleg is all too prepared to turn a blind eye to the current manipulations of the palace-directed elite while looking to the past. Surely the future is where nganadeeleg should be looking if nganadeeleg really wants a better political system? If the palace-directed elite simply continues to manipulate the new system and use military bully-boys to get its way, then the “unsophisticated rural masses” who are allegedly a problem for real democratic development in Thailand, will remain unsophisticated and a problem. Back to 1980. Thailand will not have groundhog day but groundhog decades.
0
0
For Beth, Restorationist & Andrew: My post in the other thread might get more attention here:
In case you haven’t noticed, the king is old and won’t be around forever, and it is unlikely that the next monarch will be as universally respected as the present king.
At some time in the future I think the powers of the monarch should be more clearly defined to basically exclude the monarch from doing anything apart from preside at ceremonies and rubber stamp parliamentary decisions etc.
However, IMO now is not the time to do it because the situation is too volatile with all the competing interests (military, old & new elites, rural masses etc) and an **unsophisticated electorate that can be easily manipulated.
There are many views about why the electorate is still so unsophisticated and I can accept that HMK needs to share some of the blame for being an over protective ‘parent’ for too long, but IMO it is more complex than that and the poor behavior of politicians also cannot be discounted, nor can the way the electorate turns a blind eye to wrongdoings.
As you enter the political fray, I think you would be better served taking off your historian hat for a while, and instead concentrate on ways to encourage the people with real power (the masses) to be more discerning and responsible, and less able to be manipulated.
**Andrew Walker might not concede that the electorate is unsophisticated, but IMO any objective analysis of the actions, beliefs & superstitions of a large portion of the electorate could not fail to reach that conclusion.
If I understand Andrew’s argument it goes something like this:
– The rural poor never got anything from the old elites, and because Thaksin promised & delivered some benefits, he got and retains their support.
That is understandable, but I don’t regard such self interest as particularly sophisticated.
IMO a more sophisticated line would be:
– Thank you Thaksin for delivering, but we are worried about your policy corruption, tax evasion, extra-judicial killing etc etc – We cannot turn a blind eye to those wrongdoings – Please amend your ways or we will have to find someone else to support.
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2007/09/14/sovereign-myth/#comment-162616
0
0
My question was about your blind eye. You seem to justify ignoring the military junta’s and palace’s machinations on the basis that Thaksin was bad, the king will die and the rural masses are blind. Your position exonerates the palace-directed elite manipulating the political system in their own interests. Isn’t that what you accuse Thaksin of doing (amongst other sins)?
0
0
Restorationist: You should worry more about the blind eye that the electorate turns to wrongdoings – if that eye was opened there would have been no chance of a coup.
Play the partisan game if you want, but I would prefer for the groundwork to be laid such that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.
0
0
“that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.” >> More like: ” So that coups cannot any longer be retroactively be justified with reference to the electorat’s supposed ignorance.” The NPKC coup, btw, was not justified in this way, as far as I can remember.
0
0
Srithanonchai: It still gets back to corruption, in one form or other.
Do you think the democratic process has moved along at all in the last 15 years?
0
0
nganadeeleg,
I’ll answer that question (if you don’t mind).
Nope. Nein. Nyet. Nahin. Iya. Mai.
I wish I knew more languages to say no in.. though I’m more interested to learn how to say ‘yea baby yea’ Austin power style in many languages.
At least until Thai Democracy can give equal representation in parliament (be it an upper house) wherein each province gets 1 or 2 elected representatives, I think not.
I was kinda happy (at first) upon reading that there will be 1 senator per province. But I hate the idea that the remainders will be ‘selected’. Absolutely disgusting concept. Either way, i hope the next government will amend that and maybe compromise at somehere between 20-22 ‘appointed’ senators only. That way we can have a 100 seat senate, and reduce by more than half the damn selected senators. Then hopefully down the road somewhere, we can rid of them fully.
I have a question for you ngadeleeg: Do you support giving amnesty to the 111 executives provided they recognize and apologize their wrongdoing?
cheers.
0
0
nganadeeleg:
Societal formations and its components, here the polity, normally move very slowly. There had not been any coups since 1991, there had been a new constitution and a number of elections. Political communications in rural areas have increased tremendously due to the decentralization process, which is, however, far from perfect. I am not impressed by the political parties, and neither by the politicians. But, then, I am also not impressed by Thai journalists, businessmen, bureaucrats, teachers, and university academics. Their good luck is that they don’t have to pass through election processes for getting their jobs, that they will normally keep them even if they work lousily and are corrupt, and that they are not under constant observation by the public and the mass media.
Part of development is generational, meaning that people who look at politics through their experiences of the past 40 to 60 years will by and by be replaced by new generations whose socio-political starting points will be considerably different in many respects. Simply speaking, Kamnan Pho’s kids are foreign-educated, etc.
Maybe, I am too jai yen.
0
0
I think the democratic process had moved along, especially after the 1997 constitution, and I actually thought that coups were a thing of the past – but who knew a Thaksin would come along!
I’m no fan of Sondhi L, or the Thai military, police or aristocracy, however I still think that all this blame on the Bangkok elite, media and certain academics for laying the ground for a coup misses the point – if Thaksin had modified his behavior, been less manipulative, shown some humility and paid fair taxes, then there is no way a coup would have been possible, because Thailand had moved on since the early 1990’s.
Even if the old guard wanted a coup, there is no way it would have been acceptable had Thaksin been straight instead of manipulating the institutions in his favor.
Dickie: I’m not so concerned about appointed senators, because many good people refuse to play the political game for fear of being dragged down into the dirt (and unfortunately many who have something to offer are virtually unelectable unless they have the right connections &/or money)
As long as the media & public scrutinize the senate appointments, and call out any ill qualified appointees, then I actually think there is more chance of getting better senators under the appointment method than by direct election.
0
0
Dickie: Yes I would support an amnesty for most of the 111 because
I think the verdict was too harsh and cast the net too wide.
(IMO, only the executive and anyone with direct involvement should have been punished)
0
0
I actually share your opinion, nganadeeleg: If Thaksin had acted differently, a coup would not have happened. Right until the Shin Corp sale, he was in largely safe waters. Only this sale started the process of providing not so much the reasons for the coup, but the excuses for the engaged groups that they had to give themselves to allow them do what they knew (or should have known) was wrong from a democratic perspective.
As for the 111 TRT board members: Who should have been punished is a mute question, because the Political Party Law only allowed for dissolution and collective punishment (this was not a criminal case). Still, the decision was unlawful. Not because it retroactively applied a coup group announcement, but because the circumstances of the case could never be subsumed under the articles of the law (destruction of democracy, endangering of national security).
The dissolution decision was the fourth instance of using the law as a political tool (1: Thaksin’s acquittal in 2001); 2) nullification of the election of April 2006; 3) getting rid of the old ECT and appointing a new ECT).
0
0
nganadeeleg suggests that I should “worry more about the blind eye that the electorate turns to wrongdoings – if that eye was opened there would have been no chance of a coup,” and adds “Play the partisan game if you want, but I would prefer for the groundwork to be laid such that coups would no longer be considered necessary or possible.”
I repeat my question – why should we turn a blind eye to the current manipulation of politics by the palace-royalist military? If nganadeeleg thinks that this manipulation is likely to lay the groundwork so that coups don’t happen again, then nganadeeleg is, IMO, doing no more than supporting the institution of a political system that is likely to lead to further corruption and elite control. Look at the dinosaurs lining up for their turn at the national buffet.
0
0
Restorationist: I am unable to answer your question – I have never suggested, and cannot see any good reason, for a blind eye to be turned to the manipulation of politics (by anyone).
I do not see any need for me to spend my time repeating the various criticisms of the coup and the assertions of palace involvement – there are ample commentators doing that, here at New Mandala, and elsewhere.
I prefer to spend my time pointing out the somnamna aspects of certain actions, in the hope that some academics here might take that on board.
0
0
Re: 13, 15, 23, 24, Corruption at the top and honesty at the bottom:
I’ve just reread Kasian Tejapira’s “Toppling Thaksin” (New Left Review 39, May 2006) which rather presciently predicted the palace was prepared to take more exteme action against Thaksin. It points out that on 3rd October 2003 the King made a speech against corruption and mobilised the “monarchical network” against corruption, peaking in televised anti-corruption hearings in December 2005. Since the TI index rating for Thailand began to climb in 2003, it may well be that the country became cleaner at low levels due to royal action, rather than any leadership from Thaksin’s government.
I also note, however, that the 2006 and 2007 figures are now in:
http://www.transparency-thailand.org/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=1
and they show a sharp decline in Thailand’s ratings (back down to 3.3), which must be laid at least partly at the door of the coup government who have held power all of this year.
0
0