THAILAND: Who Holds the Flag of Genuine Democracy?

LET IT BE
Who holds the flag of genuine democracy?

SURANAND VEJJAJIVA
Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/010808_News/01Aug2008_news21.php

Who holds the flag to genuine democracy in Thailand? Is it the government of the ruling People Power Party (PPP)? Is it the opposition Democrats? Or is it the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) protesting in the middle of Ratchadamnoen Avenue in downtown Bangkok?

The question reflects the classic debate in political science classes around the world, on the virtues of representative and participatory democracy.

The ruling PPP is an offshoot of the now defunct Thai Rak Thai party. Widely popular due to programmes initiated by former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, the PPP won an astounding 233 seats in the 2007 election with 100 (out of 135) from the Northeast and 48 (out of 77) from the North, plus about 20 party-list seats from both regions.

The PPP claims that they democratically won the election against all odds - since the present constitution and the election were skewed in favour of the opposition, being manipulated by the military junta. The people had spoken in their favour and given them the legitimacy to govern.

The opposition Democrat is the oldest political party in Thailand. Its stronghold is limited to the South and winning Bangkok in the election.

But they are seen as taking sides with the PAD by the majority of the people in the North and Northeast, so in those regions the Democrats can barely find credible candidates to run under their banner, let alone win any seats.

The challenge for the Democrats is to break out from being perceived as a regional party and regain the national stature they had in their glory days.

The PAD began as an anti-Thaksin pressure group. Claiming credit in overthrowing the "Thaksin regime," they latched on the present PPP government with a vengeance. The PAD accused the PPP of election fraud through vote buying, and said the government was actually a "Thaksin nominee" defending ex-PM Thaksin's interests, not that of the people.

The PAD's success is rooted in its being able to build a strong community of support from people who distrust ex-PM Thaksin in particular and elected politicians in general. Utilising modern communications techniques and outspoken words through cable TV and internet websites, the PAD reached directly to the frustrated population.

Prominent academic Thirayuth Boonmi recently commented that the PAD had now increased its level of activity to the point that it must not be considered as a mere "protest group" but a "political movement". The PAD is working on its "New Political Model" and contemplates transforming into a political party.

So, is it representative democracy through political parties, or participatory democracy in the streets PAD-style the genuine democracy in Thailand?

In a representative democracy, people elect someone to act on their own behalf. An ideal member of parliament would take the initiative in setting issues to be pursued, while at the same time spending time listening and building consensus before making a stand for the benefit of constituents and the nation as a whole.

Sadly, that connection between those elected MPs and the voters is sometimes lost in the Thai political process.

Of course, MPs do spend time in their districts, usually to hand out patronage of various government services which provide comfort and help out their constituents in mundane affairs. That is deemed enough to get elected next time around.

With such an attitude, politicians had a free hand. Political parties became gatherings of people looking for vehicles to power. And that political power, together with the related wealth, is shared within a few groups of elite consisting of politicians, bureaucrats, businessmen and the top echelons of the military and the police.

This is a structural flaw in Thai representative democracy. It is the kind that creates distrust of politicians, political parties, and politics in general, that fuels pressure group movements like the PAD.

But PAD-style democracy also has its shortcomings.

A society cannot be in a continuous protest mode, especially one that invites retaliation in the streets. The recent clashes in Udon Thani and other provinces signify street participatory democracy getting out of hand.

The way out is to reform the present representative democracy system to be more inclusive.

Political reform must include campaign finance reform and a comprehensive indoctrination of democratic principles.

Political parties must become the ideological and platform consensus-building body they should be. They must not be regionally biased.

Pressure groups are also useful tools in a democracy. They provide checks and balances. But the channels to air their grievances must be within the boundaries of democracy, not anarchy through street rule.

Creating a proper balance between participatory and representative democracy will lead to a more genuine democratic political system for all Thais.

Suranand Vejjajiva served in the Thaksin Shinawatra cabinet and is now a political analyst.

THAILAND: Referendum Bill Progresses

If passed, this bill would allow Thais to vote in refererendums, but they will not have the power to initiate them. This power would be reserved to the Prime Minister. While this would be a step towards more participatory democracy, a more substantial and deeper adoptation of the initative & referendum process will be essential if the Thai people hope to obtain truly direct democracy. - Editor


Referendum bill progresses

MONGKOL BANGPRAPA

Friday June 13, 2008


Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/13Jun2008_news13.php

A 42-article draft bill on a referendum, which could open the door to constitutional amendments, passed its first reading in the House yesterday after seven hours of debate. Government and opposition MPs voted unanimously to accept the bill, drafted by the Election Commission (EC), for review.

An extraordinary committee comprising EC representatives has been formed to vet the draft legislation which must be enacted within one year after promulgation of the charter.

Before the draft bill was tabled for a vote, EC member Prapun Naigowit briefed MPs on key points.
The draft bill empowers the prime minister to decide on the topic to be put to a referendum, and whether a referendum is held to help give the government an overview of public sentiment over a critical issue, or to find a resolution.

If a referendum is organised to find a solution, a majority vote will be valid when more than 50% of eligible voters cast their votes.

Where a referendum is held to obtain an overview, the majority vote will be valid when one-fifth of eligible voters cast their votes.

Even though the government and opposition MPs accepted the bill, they are still likely to lock horns over its content.

People Power party MP Sukhumpong Ngonkham opposed a provision about the required number of voters.

He said the draft bill seemed to give more attention to those who did not cast votes than those who did.

Democrat party MP Chinnaworn Boonkiat said the bill represented true participatory democracy, and he agreed with the required number of voters.

But he questioned whether the bill was drafted to appease Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej who proposed a referendum to decide whether constitutional amendments should proceed.

Democrat MP Warong Dejkiwikrom said having a referendum over the simple question or topic alone was not enough.

THAILAND: Strengthening People's Power on the Streets

In the wake of the Sept. 2006 bloodless military coup in Thailand, large street protests have been organized in the name of democracy. The following article gives one viewpoint from one group the PAD. Whether demonstrations be pro Thaksin or anti Thaksin, it is important for the people's voice to be heard, on the streets if necessary, in the absense of a direct democratic forum for expressing the will of the people. - Editor







Strengthening people's power

Source: http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/11Jun2008_news31.php

Demonstrators generally come from only a few groups with similar interests, writes Piyaporn Wongruang

While the asphalt surface of Ratchadamnoen avenue can turn hot under the burning afternoon sun, the same road, if it rains, can also bring the temperature down so quickly it can leave one shivering. For over 15 days, supporters of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) have experienced such tormenting weather conditions.

If they find the conditions too harsh and unbearable, they just disperse temporarily. When things improve, they regroup to continue their struggle to unseat what they claim is an immoral government.

The PAD, which took to the streets on May 25, is demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his government as they view that those who are part of the current government are just nominees of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The protesters have accused them of being absolutely corrupt, causing divisions in society, and interfering in the work of agencies investigating the alleged wrongdoing by Mr Thaksin and his cabinet members.

Just like any other demonstration in the past, the biggest challenge facing the PAD is to make its supporters stick together and remain united. Since unity is strength, failure to do so would certainly bring cracks into the movement and cause a serious setback for the protesters.

This is much easier said than done. Since people don't think alike most of the time, even if they happen to be on the same side during a street protest, collective behaviour is what determines which way a public gathering is heading.

There have hardly been any specific studies on this in the country, say mental health and public health experts.

''We have so far only loosely observed the mental condition of those participating in demonstrations, but we have not conducted any scientific study of crowd or mob psychology yet. Since demonstrations these days have become more intense, we think the time has arrived for such a study,'' said M.L. Somchai Chakrabhand, chief of the Mental Health Department.

A study made in 1997 by Col Pongskorn Rodchompoo while he was pursuing his doctorate degree suggested some of the motivations behind demonstrations by people here.

His report on ''Political Participation of Thais and Factors Affecting a Prolonged Demonstration'', covering demonstrations after the 1992 military coup for a period of five years, concluded that demonstrators generally came from only a few groups with similar interests.

They tended to have their immediate priorities achieved rather than any ideological goals, according to the research.

Although this can help organisers of a demonstration to control the crowd more easily, it was found that the bond among demonstrators themselves was quite weak, making them vulnerable to any enticing government offers, it added.

This also left little room for analysing the concerned structural problems and finding long-term solutions to the demonstrators' woes. And that was the reason why direct democracy was developing at a very slow pace, the research noted.

While participating in a rally, demonstrators put their trust in the leaders and the organisers, particularly about their safety.

This, he wrote, reflected how passive Thai people were in general in demanding that they be allowed to look after their own affairs under democratic rule, and thus were often taken advantage of, the research concluded.

In order to strengthen people's power and fill a gap in representative democratic politics, Col Pongskorn suggested demonstrations be lifted to a new level, with closer connections between city dwellers and rural people through wider issues such as decentralisation of power, and development of shared ideological goals rather than immediate benefits of particular groups.

Suriyasai Katasila, coordinator of the PAD, seems to realise these constraints and opportunities well.

Although the psychological state of the PAD crowd has not yet been much understood, the organisers have tried to eliminate any conditions that may promote violence or cause the protest to crumble.

Despite the physical hardships, the group, which has at least 20 organisations lending it support, has agreed to stick to the principle of non-violence in its demonstration, now in its second week.

Mr Suriyasai believes that with such a clear principle, provocation from any ill-intentioned people would not succeed in unsettling the protesters.

During the ongoing rallies, the PAD's key leaders have often reminded the demonstrators of their stand on non-violence, meaning the protesters should not respond to any external violence, and even lie low if they were attacked.

To ensure the demonstrators' safety, the PAD leaders have also come up with their own security guards.

The organisers have also taken their fight to a new level with a new political goal of ''rebuilding the country'' after getting rid of what they call ''the Thaksin regime''.

''People can see that we have resorted to a peaceful demonstration and tried to be as patient as possible,'' said Mr Suriyasai.

''Our society has reached a turning point as we believe that the present democracy is at its lowest point, under which power is directed by interests of those winning an election, not true public interests. We just can no longer sit back and repeatedly convince ourselves to believe that democracy comes from an election,'' he added.

Kamonchanok, a 43-year-old Bangkok resident from the Sathon area who joined the demonstration on the very first day, said she and her friends sometimes feel very angry when inaccurate information is passed on to the demonstrators. ''For instance, the government seems not to care about the plight of the people, but only its allies.''.

However, they were rational enough to think and decide for themselves what was appropriate and what was not.

''Most of the demonstrators here have now realised what is going on in our country, and that to resort to violence is not the answer,'' said Ms Kamonchanok, who recently closed down her family's grocery shop after a modern convenience store opened nearby.

''It is time to protect each other from bad influence. And we now have the space here that is truly opened to us to do so,'' said another protester, who refused to disclose her last name.

Uthan, a 22-year-old master's degree student from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, who joined the demonstration after learning about it from the internet, said the demonstration was lively and sometimes provocative.

This should be seen as more of a challenge than anything else.

All you need is a little understanding of the present political situation among the public at large, said the student.

''I was sometimes offended by my friends who asked me why was I here and for what,'' said Uthan, a new face at the demonstration.

''I think it is our right to come here since our democracy cannot fulfill our needs anymore.

''Unfortunately, many people just don't give themselves a chance to use their rights and learn the other side of the story.'

Thailand: The Assembly of the Poor (AOP) and Grassroots Democracy

The Assembly of the Poor, or AOP in Thailand is a fine example of a grassroots movement empowering people from the bottom up in the face of resistance from the power structures above. This movement grew out of the Thai people's frustration at being voiceless in the face of crackdowns by the military junta and dam construction projects that threatened their communities. The movement today has grown into a wide coalition of NGO's, community organizations, and the general public, including the poor, farmers, and indigenous groups. Through direct action and grassroots organizing, the AOP provides a voice to the voiceless, and a means to participate in government and decision making processes that affect their communities. -Editor


Assembly of the Poor (AOP) - Thailand


Source: Assembly of the Poor AOP - Thailand

Written on July 27th, 2006 in Civil Society by heidi

Linked with our presentations of Dawan Chantarahassadee - Thailand, and of the Klong Dan Local Conservation Group - Thailand.

The Assembly of the Poor AOP is a grassroots people’s movement consisting of seven social networks including the rural poor, farmers, urban poor, workers, indigenous peoples and NGOs. It is widely supported by community organizations, non-governmental organizations, academics and the general public. It collaborates on regional and international levels with networks on issues such as globalization, human rights, women, indigenous peoples, the environment and the protection of biodiversity.

The Women’s Group of the Assembly of the Poor present in every component of the movement, not only performing supportive roles in logistics arrangements, but also taking an active part in coordination and decision making. (See this page of 1000peacewomen).

Some of their actions:

A series of very constructive meetings took place between Lek (Thai Labour Campaign, PGA Asia support group), Pablo (PGA Asia support group) and members of the Assembly of the Poor. All of the meetings discussed below were organized by Lek, through her long-term association with Assembly of the Poor and the Thai Labour movement. (Read the whole article of Dec. 2004 on lists brunny.com, and also on ainfos.ca);

About the Pak Mun Dam struggle: see all these long article on nadir.org, and on irn.org one and irn.org two;

About Thailands grassroot leadership training see sulak-sivaraksa.org one and two;Thailand: Restoring a River and Traditional Ways of Life (Okt. 2004);

UN commends Assembly of Poor struggle;
Land Research Action Network.


Link: Assembly of the Poor AOP - Thailand