News Forum - Thai democracy at risk following Pheu Thai’s exclusion of MFP in coalition

[KhaoYai]

9 minutes ago, cowslip said:

Simple majorities are not necessarily part of a democracy.

Given that Thailand's form of democracy is a Representative Democracy (supposedly) - would you like to elaborate on just how such a system could operate without a 'simple majority'?

Note, the context here is one of electing a government, not the making or administration of policy.

[Khunmark]

51 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Given that Thailand's form of democracy is a Representative Democracy (supposedly) - would you like to elaborate on just how such a system could operate without a 'simple majority'?

Note, the context here is one of electing a government, not the making or administration of policy.

In answer to your question it operates in U.K and the U.S. amongst other places as first past the post.

[cowslip]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

Given that Thailand's form of democracy is a Representative Democracy (supposedly) - would you like to elaborate on just how such a system could operate without a 'simple majority'?

Note, the context here is one of electing a government, not the making or administration of policy.

How democracy works and what it is general knowledge - you need to inform yourself about that to understand others on the thread.

What you can't argue against is that Thailand is NOT a democracy .

[KhaoYai]

7 minutes ago, cowslip said:

How democracy works and what it is general knowledge - you need to inform yourself about that to understand others on the thread.

What you can't argue against is that Thailand is NOT a democracy .

Not sure I understand either the point of your post or what your are getting at but I'll try to answer your post based on what I think you mean.

I very much disagree that the meaning of democracy is 'general knowledge'. I doubt than many people will know that there is a 'Direct Democracy' as well as a Representative Democracy. I'd suggest that most people are only aware of the latter.

With regard to your comments on my argument - I have never been of the opinion that Thailand has a democracy - it most certainly does not and I've stated that several times on this forum.

[KhaoYai]

24 minutes ago, Khunmark said:

In answer to your question it operates in U.K and the U.S. amongst other places as first past the post.

Understood - I thought you were alluding to something else.

However, all three operate (or in Thailand's case claim to operate) a system of Representative Democracy.

Edited August 22, 2023 by KhaoYai

[cowslip]

50 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Not sure I understand either the point of your post or what your are getting at but I'll try to answer your post based on what I think you mean.

I very much disagree that the meaning of democracy is 'general knowledge'. I doubt than many people will know that there is a 'Direct Democracy' as well as a Representative Democracy. I'd suggest that most people are only aware of the latter.

With regard to your comments on my argument - I have never been of the opinion that Thailand has a democracy - it most certainly does not and I've stated that several times on this forum.

 

“…it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” Churchill

I can’t help it if people are lacking in general knowledge especially in the systems of their home country – but with general knowledge the answers are pretty much universal.

A working definition would be

“a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

However you are referring to sub-divisions that are based on the same principal.

..and basically we are talking about Thailand which under any definition is not a democracy.

All democracies have failings or promises but are based on the principal of universal suffrage – this doesn’t apply to Thailand as the government is run by the military and unelected people – the current constitution has realised that in a the current deadlock.

 The main difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is who makes the decisions. In a direct democracy, the people vote on all laws and policies directly. Very few countries ever do this – Switzerland comes to mind. It could also be argued that communism is also a form of direct democracy - if it ever worked.

In a representative democracy, much more common and workable the people elect representatives to vote on laws and policies on their behalf. Thailand doesn’t do this it has people appointed without any election and often by the military – even the judiciary.

 

[KhaoYai]

1 hour ago, cowslip said:

“…it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” Churchill

I can’t help it if people are lacking in general knowledge especially in the systems of their home country – but with general knowledge the answers are pretty much universal.

A working definition would be

“a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.”

However you are referring to sub-divisions that are based on the same principal.

..and basically we are talking about Thailand which under any definition is not a democracy.

All democracies have failings or promises but are based on the principal of universal suffrage – this doesn’t apply to Thailand as the government is run by the military and unelected people – the current constitution has realised that in a the current deadlock.

 The main difference between direct democracy and representative democracy is who makes the decisions. In a direct democracy, the people vote on all laws and policies directly. Very few countries ever do this – Switzerland comes to mind. It could also be argued that communism is also a form of direct democracy - if it ever worked.

In a representative democracy, much more common and workable the people elect representatives to vote on laws and policies on their behalf. Thailand doesn’t do this it has people appointed without any election and often by the military – even the judiciary.

You're preaching to the converted, I've been aware of the effect the new constitution would bring about since Jonathan Head of the BBC reported on it back in 2018.

I'm also aware of just who is in control of Thailand - if you read many of my previous posts, you will see that. I think their days are numbered and they know they have to go but rather than days, its likely to be several decades.

To effect serious change now would require civil war, I don't think the Thai people have the will for that - or the money -  even Taksin.

[cowslip]

2 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

You're preaching to the converted, I've been aware of the effect the new constitution would bring about since Jonathan Head of the BBC reported on it back in 2018.

I'm also aware of just who is in control of Thailand - if you read many of my previous posts, you will see that. I think their days are numbered and they know they have to go but rather than days, its likely to be several decades.

To effect serious change now would require civil war, I don't think the Thai people have the will for that - or the money -  even Taksin.

I think the time line will be shorter than tyou think

Taksin is in prison, we have a PM who was not part of the majority vote and the public are increasingly aware of how they have been hog-tied by the junta's constitution.

I think a major constitutional change or a coup are on the horizon - or both.

the reasons for this go back to WW2 (or the 1930s) and American interventionism

BTW if you want to sub-divide democracies here's a list I got a couple of years ago for you to mull over

Direct democracy 

 Representative democracy 

Constitutional democracy

Social democracy 

Consensus democracy

Delegative democracy

Monitory democracy 

Participatory democracy

E-democracy 

Finally - "Illiberal democracy" is a system that has some democratic features, but also restricts certain rights and freedoms. So like Thailand, not a democracy

 

 

[Vigo]

27 minutes ago, cowslip said:

I think the time line will be shorter than tyou think

Taksin is in prison, we have a PM who was not part of the majority vote and the public are increasingly aware of how they have been hog-tied by the junta's constitution.

I think a major constitutional change or a coup are on the horizon - or both.

the reasons for this go back to WW2 (or the 1930s) and American interventionism

BTW if you want to sub-divide democracies here's a list I got a couple of years ago for you to mull over

Direct democracy 

 Representative democracy 

Constitutional democracy

Social democracy 

Consensus democracy

Delegative democracy

Monitory democracy 

Participatory democracy

E-democracy 

Finally - "Illiberal democracy" is a system that has some democratic features, but also restricts certain rights and freedoms. So like Thailand, not a democracy

I did not expect  the former PM to return and to accept the public rebuke of imprisonment. Perhaps it is the equivalent to making merit, of suffering for the benefit of others. ( Similar to a belief that had someone suffer and then die so that our sins would be washed away.) So now we have Thaksin the martyr. What does he do now? Does he speak from prison? Do his minions go and get their reward in the Thai equivalent of heaven, the Thai tax trough?

I am not an expert on Thais, nor their politics. In an occidental country, the type of abuse and corruption, and the period that it has gone on for, would have resulted in civil unrest and a Ceaușescu type ending. Thailand has maintained the peace. There is compromise, give and take and so it goes. On the other hand, I am an expert on the Thai temper tantrum. It comes on quickly, is explosive, destructive and violent and then it ends as suddenly as it began. I think we have seen a delay in a long anticipated general population temper tantrum as Pheu Thai shows that it is not that much different than the  military ruling class.

Only the Move Forward people have shown an advanced mindset, one of forward thinking.  If it wasn't for them, Thailand politics are unchanged from 25 years ago. Everything is for sale, even life and dignity.

[Alavan]

On 8/14/2023 at 1:00 PM, oldschooler said:

No Doubt all Colonisers were Brutal ( as were the natives there before them !) but Belgium ( Congo) & Spain ( Americas) especially so and actually Genocidal. France by comparison were more reasonable & enlightened but still very cruel & oppressive. British perhaps treated the colonised the best. Slavery Abolished by UK 1807. Democracy was not imparted much to Colonies by anyone as this was Business which then was not democratic even in homelands ! 

Brutality was extreme before Congo became a colony. It was a "freestate", owned by Leopold 2. And brutality was not general, some people were more brutal than others. But it was not only the Belgians who went on that path. Do did the Netherlands in Indonesia, the French in Africa and Asia, and don't underestimate the English in their colonies. The Portuguese weren't angels either.

[cowslip]

29 minutes ago, Alavan said:

as were the natives there before them

What's this some "Boys" Own" comedy?

[cowslip]

1 hour ago, Vigo said:

I did not expect  the former PM to return and to accept the public rebuke of imprisonment.

Hardly describe it as public abuse - it is the military trying to follow through on a  largely political move.

I doubt very much if Taksin believes he will be in prison for very long and the last thing the military want is the most popular democratically elected politician in Thai history in the country at all let alone on a public trial.

 

THe redshirts till overwhelmingly support the Taksin side of politics - they are a guaranteed majority in a democratic election. The military and their parties have been in a mib=nority since Taksin was elected and everything they've done since - inc;iding 2 coups is to keep their side in power.

At the end of the day they have the guns. Th next biggest armed force in Thailand is the police - of which Takson was a member.

It is quite possible that in general, Thailand does not have the will to spill blood, but the military have a lot to do to justify their position at present.

there's also a lot that can't be said about Taksin's relationship with the powers the be in Thailand over the last 20 years or so.

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, cowslip said:

I think the time line will be shorter than tyou think

Taksin is in prison, we have a PM who was not part of the majority vote and the public are increasingly aware of how they have been hog-tied by the junta's constitution.

I think a major constitutional change or a coup are on the horizon - or both.

I hope you are right - as long as its peaceful. However, using friends and my girlfriend+ family as a barometer, I get the feeling that Thai people are even more resigned than they have ever been that change is impossible. The anger I expected when Move Forward were denied governance failed to materialise in any meaningful way.

There is a section of Thai society that are very millitant but they are no match for the Thai military.  Many will consider it as exaggeration but in my opinion, it will take more than a coup to unseat the military and elite.  I think that short of a gradual, long term process, a civil war is the only way but who has the equipment or money to carry that out?  You can't carry out a coup or war against the military, and let's face it, its the military that are still in charge, without having the wherewithal to do it.

The power of 'The Elite' and the Generals needs curtailing permanently. The Generals need to learn that in a democracy, the people are their employers and that is not something that will come easily. In the past, whenever a group has been seen as gaining enough support to threaten them or a single person appears to be becoming even more popular than someone I can't mention - the Army has stepped in and staged a coup.  At the moment they think they have the protection of the constitution they designed that ensures they retain power forever - only their 'friends' will be allowed to be in charge.

Any attempt to remove the portion of the constitution that protects them will almost certainly result in another military coup - and so on it goes.  However they lost much of the support they gained through alliance due to a death in 2016, although I'm not sure the population realised that their love for the deceased actually helped the military maintain their overall control. The situation is somewhat different now but some of that 'third party' support still remains - as was seen in the student (mainly) demonstrations a couple of years back.  Once the students mentioned a particular type of change they wanted to bring about, they lost the support of a significant part of the electorate. 

Still the fact remains that the military are slowly losing their previously total grip on control. The policies of Move Forward, whilst not being as blunt as those of the students, clearly indicated that they wanted very similar changes - and they won the election. I suspect that these are very strange times for the Generals - they are bouyed by the constitution that they got past the people by nothing short of trickery but on the other hand, they know the base on which they  rely on is steadily being eroded and is certainly far less powerful than it was.

The beacon in all of this remains to be Move Forward who have stuck to their guns and refused to dilute their policy aims to either get into government or form a working coalition - bloody well done, I hope they are genuine. However, what happens to them now is the great unknown, will they carry their momentum into the next election or will they gradulally slip into the same sad resignation as the general population appear to have?

I really don't see change coming about in the short to medium term but I'd be very happy to be wrong. The population were promised change and gave over their votes on that basis but they didn't achieve it. Perhaps the biggest travesty that in reality, the country has seen since it became a 'democracy', has failed to result in an uprising so its difficult to see what will.

I'll slip in one curve ball though - it may sound bizarre but I think if the people were to hold a lasting general strike, that would bring about much faster results than any protests or attempted people's coup would ever do. The downside is that the time needed to effect those results could destroy the economy. Still, no pain, no gain.

Edited August 22, 2023 by KhaoYai

[cowslip]

Yes- I think if there is a coup, it would be by the military.

And as you say if they start to change the constitution then a coup is more likely to occur.

THere is one thing that people overlook, though - the military is not one single entity, it is a collection of factions and I suppose it is possible that another miltary faction may throw their hat in the ring.

I don't think there is an appetite for violence at present, but if pressure is brought to bear to change the constitution then the military may act.

I think at present, they still have control - the constitution they implemented is doing just what they want it to do. But they are without doubt overtly much less tolerated than before and this may increase in the next few months depending on the parliament, Taksin  and other factors.

 

I think if you speak to family, a lot of it depends where you are or they are from - the North and Northeast are predominantly pro Taksin or at least anti anything junta, but the South and central Thailand take an opposing view. 

THen there is the appathy factor; the Thai people have simply been ground down.

 

Strike? normally they block Bangkok, but I've actually worked for some of these people and they would not think twice about using live ammo as they did before, Look back over the last four or five decades and you'll see "massacres" are still on the cards - which is why people may be reluctant to act - students still are acting though.

[oldschooler]

19 hours ago, cowslip said:

What's this some "Boys" Own" comedy?

Fact. For Example, Dominant Black Tribes operated Slave States and traded other Blacks as Slaves long before Whites appeared. MesoAmericans same plus Human Sacrifice.
Fantasy: believe World was idyllic garden of Eden before corrupt Whitey showed up

[oldschooler]

20 hours ago, Alavan said:

Brutality was extreme before Congo became a colony. It was a "freestate", owned by Leopold 2. And brutality was not general, some people were more brutal than others. But it was not only the Belgians who went on that path. Do did the Netherlands in Indonesia, the French in Africa and Asia, and don't underestimate the English in their colonies. The Portuguese weren't angels either.

Yes indeed. However I would argue British were the “least worse” colonizers and developed their colonies with infrastructure and institutions, whereas others did not, being fully focused on inhumane asset stripping at least cost.

[Khunmark]

18 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Yes indeed. However I would argue British were the “least worse” colonizers and developed their colonies with infrastructure and institutions, whereas others did not, being fully focused on inhumane asset stripping at least cost.

One of the successful and enduring tactics of the British, was to play local competing factions off against each other. And installing proxies to do their bidding for them. By maintaining one step removed, their proxies bore the brunt of any festering resentment. It did however have a used by date.

[Rookiescot]

7 minutes ago, Khunmark said:

One of the successful and enduring tactics of the British, was to play local competing factions off against each other. And installing proxies to do their bidding for them. By maintaining one step removed, their proxies bore the brunt of any festering resentment. It did however have a used by date.

Most countries in the empire were doing just fine until the US and Russia decided that after the end of WW2 European nations must lose their colonies. 

The US wanted to become the worlds policeman which had been a role the UK played.

You can see from many nations in Africa, the middle east and southeast asia how that worked out since the end of the war. 

[cowslip]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

Fact. For Example, Dominant Black Tribes operated Slave States and traded other Blacks as Slaves long before Whites appeared. MesoAmericans same plus Human Sacrifice.
Fantasy: believe World was idyllic garden of Eden before corrupt Whitey showed up

You are so sad - I particularly find sad the way you introduce this racist argument because you are so ill-informed as to think no=body but you knows that.

Facts are only useful when you know what to do with them - and you clearly don't.

[oldschooler]

4 hours ago, cowslip said:

You are so sad - I particularly find sad the way you introduce this racist argument because you are so ill-informed as to think no=body but you knows that.

Facts are only useful when you know what to do with them - and you clearly don't.

Subject was Colonialism. Only Whites did that. Upon Non- Whites. Whites found violent non- white societies.
Your apparent case is that only Whites are Violent or that Whites somehow made non- whites violent.

We can substitute “ European” for “ White” …. to soothe your hyper sensitivity to reality.

so turns out it’s your statements here are that are racist ……and devoid of reality.

[cowslip]

1 hour ago, oldschooler said:

Subject was Colonialism. Only Whites did that. Upon Non- Whites. Whites found violent non- white societies.
Your apparent case is that only Whites are Violent or that Whites somehow made non- whites violent.

We can substitute “ European” for “ White” …. to soothe your hyper sensitivity to reality.

so turns out it’s your statements here are that are racist ……and devoid of reality.

You are now contradicting yourself - there is stupid, stupider and racist - who/what on earth do you think you are replying to?

[cowslip]

7 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

Most countries in the empire were doing just fine until the US and Russia decided that after the end of WW2 European nations must lose their colonies. 

THere is so much utter nonsense on this thread this has to be near the top..... why do people comment on stuff they no nothing about? Where do they cook up these barmy ideas?

[McTavish]

11 hours ago, cowslip said:

You are so sad - I particularly find sad the way you introduce this racist argument because you are so ill-informed as to think no=body but you knows that.

Facts are only useful when you know what to do with them - and you clearly don't.

You are the one continually trotting out the R word in feeble attempts to shoot down an opposing argument.  Old schooler and Rookie have a far better handle on reality than you'll ever possess.  Run back to your hideyhole under the bridge  

You clearly do not comprehend the meaning of racism.

[TheDirtyDurian]

13 hours ago, cowslip said:

THere is so much utter nonsense on this thread this has to be near the top..... why do people comment on stuff they no nothing about? Where do they cook up these barmy ideas?

Indeed! 

[Alavan]

On 8/22/2023 at 6:25 PM, cowslip said:

What's this some "Boys" Own" comedy?

Sorry but I don't understand your remark.
I never posted "as were the natives there before them "