New Mandala

16 responses so far ↓

• 1 Colum Graham // Aug 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  Maybe you are predominantly asking for Thai responses. Nevertheless, I think the political process should be managed however Thais believe it should be. But I believe that the process should be managed in a way that reflects the value of democracy as the most important factor in Thai leadership, and so all of the points you list under the first one, that Samak should tough it out (which reflects my opinion), should be determined by his government and the opposition in a public house.

  A new election should be determined by Samak and his government if he or they feel it necessary. Should Samak resign, there should be someone from PPP to replace him till the next election cycle. If PPP loses too many seats, then those seats should have bi-elections in order to potentially determine new governance. The Democrats should be given a chance to form government at the next election cycle. A government of national unity should only be formed if the National Assembly is evenly split through bi-elections, which is unlikely — and even that it is a possibility reflects poorly on the Thai legislative system. What is really required is that democracy is stable and regular so people can feel it is foundational and not determined on whims. This way, the Thai legislative system can be gradually improved to iron out the possibility of instances like this happening again. This should be the message from those in power, rather than the petty cat fights we now see.

  Therefore, a concrete suggestion on how this chaos should be managed would be for someone that both sides respect to emphasize that elections are not permanent and so all of these issues can be resolved in only 4 (3) years time. Maybe someone has said something to this effect, but I haven’t read it anywhere?

  If it the Thai elite proves again that it does not value democracy, and Thailand plunges into more political turmoil, then the consequence should include international travel and financial sanctions placed on those persons, rather than Thais as a collective, so as to encourage organic dissolution of hereditary elites. I don’t know how that would be implemented, just thats how it ’should’ be managed.

• 2 nganadeeleg // Aug 4, 2008 at 3:10 pm

  Should Samak and his new cabinet tough it out and wait until and election is due?
  Yes

  Should there be a new election? Now? In the near future?
  Not until the next election is due

  Should Samak resign and a new PPP/coalition representative take his place?
  Up to the PPP to decide

  Should the Democrats be given a chance to form a government?
  Only if the PPP coalition collapses

  Should a “government of national unity” be formed?
  Only if the PPP coalition collapses

  Should there be another coup?
  Yes, immediately (and I vote for green ribbons on tanks this time)

  What?
  The constitution amendment process should be a consultative process with all sectors having input, and a referendum on any contentious provisions.

  PAD should go home, and only come out if the government is taking self serving actions such as selective amendments to benefit themselves & their backers, or interferring in court cases etc

  Just a quick comment to start the ball rolling - got to get back to work now

• 3 Colum Graham // Aug 4, 2008 at 4:49 pm

  I’ve never seen anything on Thailand and federalism.. Could this be a progressive system for Thai democracy? Or too much a deviation from the current constitutional bedrock? I would have thought federalism particularly applicable to your notions of the rural constitution… A quick Google search gives few instances of this being discussed… back to lunch…

• 4 Bangkok Pundit // Aug 4, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  What Collum Graham said.

• 5 nganadeeleg // Aug 4, 2008 at 6:48 pm

  If it the Thai elite proves again that it does not value democracy, and Thailand plunges into more political turmoil, then the consequence should include international travel and financial sanctions placed on those persons, rather than Thais as a collective, so as to encourage organic dissolution of hereditary elites.

  Presumably that would also include non-hereditary elites, such as the PM from 2001 to 2006 who so obviously did not value democracy (or human rights, or ethics for that matter)

• 6 Colum Graham // Aug 4, 2008 at 9:28 pm

  nganadeeleg, well actually I think he should face a Thai court with consistent civil law — I don’t think it’s really an international issue because I don’t think it can be successfully argued that he was derailing a democratic system with his personal values and potential corruption. To what degree Thailand was a functional democracy with Thaksin is not the issue here. The degree to which Thailand is a functional democracy is evident now. However, this is deviating from the point of this post a little and delving into the holier than thou, ‘everyone should behave appropriately’ line. What you have quoted was just speculation on what could be done with those who are orchestrating the present turmoil by other states.

• 7 jonfernquest // Aug 4, 2008 at 11:25 pm

  What nganadeeleg said.

• 8 fall // Aug 5, 2008 at 12:32 am

  There is currently an issue on “Royal approval” of anti-graft and election committee. If they are found guilty. Then my suggestion would be:
  - Put both committee in jail
  - Nullify the current election result
  - Re-election
  - Give the PAD a chance to run for election

  The future of Thai politic cannot be stable if election result is not accept by all parties.

• 9 Joel // Aug 5, 2008 at 2:05 am

  I think the best way forward would be for the Democrats and the PPP to come together to form a government specifically tasked with putting the mixed (single-member-district/party-list) electoral system back into place.

  But rather than returning to a supposedly apolitical senate, the constitution should allow parties to directly field candidates but create malapportioned districts based on region (making it likely that the democrats will at least have effective veto power in the senate as they try to build a more competitive national platform).

  This ought to ensure some minimal level of institutionalized checks and balances and eventually lead to a platform-based two-party system. The Democrats would benefit because (after they get a more national base) they will have the hope of forming a government without being held hostage by the smaller parties and larger factions.

• 10 Frank G Anderson // Aug 5, 2008 at 9:55 am

  As to your last question, what?
  None of the previous questions can be answered either accurately or logically because of the extent of corruption, greed and avarice, individual ignorance by both voter and candidate, and lack of civic responsibility in Thailand. Not to sound too negative, of course.
  What really needs to happen is, as I sad before, some 10,000 PAD-type groups need to be set up as watchdog/activist groups to immediately pounce on corrupt politicians and government leaders even while they are still being considered for posts, such as Kowit, for example.

• 11 Colum Graham // Aug 5, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  All changes over ‘the next year or so’ have to be done in small reasoned increments. Anything that goes back to reworking the constitution will only lead to more overreactions because it will foster hypocrisy and a lack of faith that Thais have in their political process. Surely the way forward is not to support the justification of elites running the country?!

  Most of the above comments could only be ways forward if there was already a system everyone respected. Surely there hasn’t been enough time behind this new system to respect it yet!

  Taiwan and Israel spring to mind — they’ve both got democratic systems and recently their respective Prime Ministers have faced corruption charges. Has there been a complete re-working of the constitutions of Taiwan and Israel? No, because the value of democracy is more important than the people who are running it. How will Thai citizens be able to feel this value if their democracy keeps being re-planted?

  The way forward is simply to ensure the current systems survival. Hopefully an elite will nurture it with some water or fertilizer in the form of a statement towards a -public- common sense, but this can’t be relied upon - so perhaps this post is really asking when the rain will come….

• 12 Srithanonchai // Aug 5, 2008 at 4:01 pm

  The idea of federalism fundamentally contradicts the long-standing conception of Thailand as a unitary state. The constitution states that Thailand is “one and indivisible Kingdom.” Remember that even things such as local self-government by muncipalities and the election of provincial governors had given rise to dire concerns that cities might well declare independence from Thailand. Regarding the elected governors, it is feared that this will be a return to the system of “hua mueang” (semi-independent principalities) that was replaced by King Chulalongkorn with the unitary state of today.

  Compared to other countries, all this is made more complicated by the confusion that Thai legal-administrative thinking has with concepts such as “executive” and “autonomy.” Simply speaking, while other countries might perceive local or provincial “autonomy” as a decentralization within the central-level executive (which keeps the resultant local authorities under the control of the central state), Thai thinking mostly sees autonomy as creating “independent” units–independent of the central government, or the central executive branch of the state.

• 13 Colum Graham // Aug 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

  Thanks Srithanonchai. It is quite a interesting then that some members of the constitution drafting assembly like Karoon Saingam and Chemsak Pinthong, on one hand, are presumably paranoid of a fragmented Thailand, but on the other persist in distancing themselves from backward rural politics as evident in their active support of PAD policy.

  Who are other CDA members that actively support PAD… or denigrate non-middle class peoples ability to make decisions? These people and their supporters need to be mocked and chastised for their class control views.

  Politics will only become stable when the political system reflects and accommodates all the important social forces and political aspirations in the society. Competitive strategies of exclusion will only add to social division and political tension. Democracy succeeds in societies where enough of the major social forces come to realize that elections, parliaments, and public debate (for all their messy faults) are better ways to resolve the conflicts in society than power, repression, exclusion, and violence. - Pasuk Phongpaichit, ‘Thai politics beyond the 2006 coup’, http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/thaipoliticsbeyondthecoup.pdf

  Yes Srithanonchai, I would have thought in these circumstances federalism would limit competitive strategies of exclusion by only allowing regional competitiveness before decisions are made in a federal assembly for things like budget allocation, rather than have them felt in a class struggle amongst ‘independent’ bodies of the population. How to curb such paranoia?

  Additionally, there is a different minimum wage for each province (http://www.thailawforum.com/news/2008/news-June-08.html). That there is a minimum wage relevant to each province, to me, acknowledges a high level of provincial independence. So why not acknowledge local democratic governance systems more relevant to local populations? This way democratic values are ingrained more frequently due to their being ‘more democracy’ and therefore, those ‘rural jokers’ have to pay attention more otherwise they’ll get taken advantage of. Surely “hua mueang” would be a thing of the past due to there being democratic governance and electoral cycles in the province? Clearly there would be electoral racketeering every election?! Is this fear you speak of one of no growth and empirical education, just stagnation and corruption? Isn’t that what PAD argues is going on now?

• 14 Frank G Anderson // Aug 5, 2008 at 10:20 pm

  I believe that when we use loaded phrases like people who denigrate others that we should keep in mind one Thai government administration after another that has done this throughout their short and long-term incumbancies.
  The PAD did not invent the patent here on class distinctions, but is merely fitting the mold.

• 15 Colum Graham // Aug 6, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  Yes Frank, one government after another. I understand that the PAD is just the latest one to do so (and I’m sure, not the only group), but to clarify all the hot air I blew in that last comment; for Thai politics to move forward, those popularizing silly prejudices need to be satirized and mocked in Thailand for creating anti-constitutional social divisions. That way, these prejudices are fleeting and everyone can get over it and move forward. The mold will be broken if a democratic system is allowed to maintain civil power.

• 16 jonfernquest // Aug 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm

  Colum Graham quotes: “Democracy succeeds in societies where enough of the major social forces come to realize that elections, parliaments, and public debate (for all their messy faults) are better ways to resolve the conflicts in society than power, repression, exclusion, and violence.”

  Got the election, got the parliament, but didn’t get much of the debate you normally see accompanying the passage of laws in parliament. Parliament doesn’t seem to have been used as a forum for lawmaking since that recordbreaking series of laws passed by the NLA at the end of their tenure?

  Seems like every policy action is done unilaterally by the executive branch. Those parties outside of the coalition have been excluded as a result. Doesn’t democracy entail actually using the parliament for something other than appointing a Prime Minister and cabinet and then modifying the constitution?

Leave a Comment