THIS IS THAILAND
A Week in Review: February 26 - March 4, 2011
Put on your sarcasm glasses now!
In the second instalment of our Thai Politics 101 series, we look at how to choose sides and how to acquire votes in Thailand. And last week there was a radical new development in this area. What was it?
Phuea Thai Party spokesperson Prompong Nopparit and Khon Kaen University political lecturer Samphan Techa-atik accused Thailand’s Democrat Party of playing dirty and trying to buy votes last week.
(PUT ON YOUR SARCASM GLASSES NOW!!!)
While vote buying is nothing new in Thailand, Prompong and Samphan were upset that the Democrats had employed a dastardly new twist that gave them an unfair advantage.
Instead of following the recognised procedure of placing 500 baht notes in Styrofoam lunch boxes, handing over 1 million baht to each village (so that they all buy mobile phones and use the service of which your company has a 20-year monopoly concession), or bribing village headmen to make sure that all villagers in their district are taken to the booths and instructed on how to vote, the Democrats broke with tradition by making some promises of what they would do to help the people of Thailand if they won the next election.
Although quite common in democratic countries, this strategy is apparently so alien in Thailand that a major political party’s spokesperson and a political lecturer at a university have never heard of it.
In democracies, a list of promises made before an election is called a ‘manifesto’ and is part of a radical concept called ‘electioneering’ or ‘campaigning’. Political parties develop a manifesto that is aligned with their party ideology and outlines how they will serve the people if they are elected.
Voters can then analyse the manifestoes of the different parties and choose to vote for whichever party they feel is most likely to serve their interests.
It is not a perfect system as sometimes not all of the manifesto promises are fulfilled when a party wins an election, but it is at least voter-centred rather than politician-centred.
Of course the real role of a Thai politician is to make sure his party forms the next government so that he can steal as much money as possible from the country – including the people who voted for him. However, this must be done discreetly, and the public role of a Thai politician is to attack the opposition at every possible opportunity so as to create an illusion of public service and divert attention away from his own party’s shortcomings.
(TAKE OFF YOUR SARCASM GLASSES NOW!!!)
This destructive rather than constructive political strategy is employed with particular gusto by Phuea Thai. The Democrat Party issues its manifesto, and Phuea Thai attacks it rather than countering with its own manifesto. Phuea Thai supporters are encouraged to support Phuea Thai on the sole basis that the Democrat Party is a worse option than Phuea Thai, rather than because Phuea Thai is a better option than the Democrats.
Far from ensuring government transparency and making sure that the needs of the people are being served, the endless censure debates instigated by Phuea Thai end up as nothing more than childish slanging matches and do nothing to prevent the rampant corruption within the Democrat Party and its coalition partners.
It is no wonder that, whichever side wins, the good people of Thailand lose in such a system.
Thai parties’ failure to develop meaningful manifestoes can also be attributed to their lack of an ideological stance. While – superficially at least – Phuea Thai and the Democrats look like the perfect ideological opposites, scratch beneath that shiny veneer and the truth is uglier than a bulldog chewing wasps.
Writing in his weekly column in the Bangkok Post (5/3/11), Arglit Boonyai gave a perfect example of this lack of ideology when he pointed out how Worachit Chayanant, son of Democrat MP Therdpong Chayanant, explained that he joined Phuea Thai rather than the Democrats because there were no candidacy spots available in the Democrat Party!!!
Politicians regularly change sides in Thailand, but usually for personal financial gain and almost never because of ideological conflict. Indicating that Thai politics is more about personality cults than ideology, established politicians also tend to take their supporters with them when they defect (the more supporters they have, the higher price they can command).
Again, it is the good people of Thailand who lose out under such a system.
Another reason why politicians change sides in Thailand is because of a personal conflict or as a bitter act of revenge.
The growing conflict between Phuea Thai and the red shirt United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) provided a good example last week. Following the recent news that the seven red shirt leaders who were released on bail are set to stand for election as Phuea Thai list MPs, several more UDD members attempted to jump on the bandwagon.
However, apparently worried about the damage to its image that admitting red shirts en masse would cause, Phuea Thai rejected most of the red shirt candidates as it aimed to distance itself from the UDD and its mob tactics.
One person who is definitely not being considered is Payap Pankate, a red shirt leader who – despite the fact that he is currently on the run – was proposed by Yaowapa Wongsawat, sister of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.
While these rejections may protect Phuea Thai’s image, they angered many of its supporters in the red shirt movement, some of whom are now vowing to join opposition parties to get their own back.
Again, it is the good people of Thailand who lose out under such hypocritical politics.
If true democracy is to flourish in Thailand, it needs to begin with a strong 2-party system built on ideology. Voters should be wooed by policies – even populist ones – rather than bribes or the power of personality.
But none of this will succeed until ALL the good people of Thailand are educated to understand how democracy works. And therein lies the problem…
I agree very much with your views that Thai politicians just use their
positions as a way to make personal gains.
A lot of what you say is very true.
But, I disagree with your sentiments that Thailand must eventually follow
the Western version of "democracy" with a 2 party system based on
'ideology'.
Western democracy is almost as farcical as Thai. It is not the direction
to go. It is great if you are a massive corporation, but no good for
anyone else.
Democracy would be best served by giving power down to lower levels. By
having healthy and flourishing villages that have some self-sufficiency.
It cannot be run from a handful of men in a central location. They will
never serve the interests nor represent the wider diverse groups in
society.
Naked Farang
05 Mar 2011, 05:36
@Paul: I stick by my claim that a 2-party system based on contrasting
ideologies gives the voters the best choice.
However, I agree entirely with the decentralisation point you made. In my
head, I have mapped out the best way forward for Thailand and it involves a
lot of decentralisation with 3 regional capitals developed to be major
international cities and spread the wealth around more. It's a very complex
plan and, one day, I may just get around to publishing that paper :-)
Joseph
05 Mar 2011, 10:20
There are 2 Paul's in this convo?
There is so much said here that is observant and true.
Decentralisation is the only way Democracy can survive. The oldest, longest
lasting and most successful democratic system in World History never had
political parties.
[pop quiz when and where did ideal democracy flourish?]
Joseph
05 Mar 2011, 10:27
Anyway, if a 'strong' 1 party system is seen as a stop gap, for
stabilization, until a real, sustainable decentralised system can be
implemented, Corruption is going to destroy Thailand before the seeds could
germinate. There will be 3 new capitals, alright, of 3 new despotic
countries.
Ben
06 Mar 2011, 19:57
I don't understand why a two-party system is part of the solution.
How many countries have only two major political parties?
Naked Farang
07 Mar 2011, 04:14
@Ben: The UK, the US, Spain and New Zealand are just a few examples of
countries with 2 main political parties.
As I mention in the article, it's far from a perfect system, but having 2
ideologically different parties would give Thai voters a clear choice.
More importantly, however, it would cut out all the horse trading that goes
on with small factions and parties selling out to join a coalition in
return for being given free range to embezzle money from the national
coffers.
Bangkok Dave
07 Mar 2011, 23:08
Glad you raised the point about electioneering Paul. I thought it was
ridiculous that a supposed political lecturer could not tell the difference
between literal vote buying that occurs in Thailand, which is both
unethical and illegal -- and the figurative vote-buying that occurs in
every democracy. Even more ridiculous? The Bangkok Post running this as a
front-page 'story.' ;)
Bangkok Dave
07 Mar 2011, 23:12
"While these rejections may protect Phuea Thai’s image, they angered many
of its supporters in the red shirt movement, some of whom are now vowing to
join opposition parties to get their own back.
Again, it is the good people of Thailand who lose out under such
hypocritical politics." -- I would argue that anything that fragments
Thaksin's political empire and enables red shirts to set up a political
movement distinct from PT is actually GOOD for Thailand. Both in a sense
that it helps the Democrats by splitting opposition support & as a
potential reinvention of reds as an independent force, not Thaksin's
private fascist army.
Naked Farang
07 Mar 2011, 23:18
@Dave: Divide and conquer. I hope it does have the effect of taking Thaksin
out of the equation. I have come to hate the red shirts simply because of
how they have been manipulated by Thaksin and his lieutenants for their own
personal gains. But take off those red shirts and there are good people
underneath. They have been exploited for generations and they deserve
better than Thaksin.
Ben
07 Mar 2011, 23:41
O_o Since when did the UK adopt a 'strong 2-party system'?
Anyway: "If true democracy is to flourish in Thailand, it needs to begin
with a strong 2-party system built on ideology."
Still don't buy this. Seriously doubt that's where it needs to begin.
Have deep reservations about anyone telling people they need to start by
limiting their options.
Paul
08 Mar 2011, 00:28
Nice conversation going on here.
Regarding the Red Shirts - there are good people in amongst them. But they
are the puppets of the rich and greedy. There does need to be a movement,
perhaps such as the assembly of the poor, that better represents the rural
and poor people in Thailand. The current rulers of this place, really do
need to be forced to do more for the poorer members of society, or they
risk seeing the country being ripped apart in the future. The Red Shirts
and PT certainly are not the group to do this. They are only interested in
serving their rich masters at everyone else' expense.
Going back to the two party system thing. I agree with Ben.
In Australia, Britain and the USA as examples - they have two parties. Two
parties that are basically the same. The same main ideologies, the same
economic theories, the same thoughts on destroying the environment for the
benefit of the rich, the same never-ending chasing of growth in GDP,
consumption, population,... The have pretty much the same financial
supporters. They all support war, oil, mining,... Really we have no
choice in these countries. You can vote for an arsehole politician from
one party or one from another party, and then for 3-4 years you don't get a
say. This is not democracy.
And, on top of that the media in these countries is dominated by a handful
of super-rich people.
The only small glimpses of democracy we have seen recently in Australia and
Britain have been when a third party has managed to hold the balance of
power and for a short period the big parties had to negotiate in their
attempts to grab power.
Naked Farang
08 Mar 2011, 00:34
@Ben: UK politics have been dominated by 2 parties for a century and, while
it is far from perfect, it has created a great deal of economic stability.
The liberals/lib-dems/sdp, etc have formed a middle-way option, and there
are plenty of smaller parties representing minority interests, but the real
power rests with the Tories and the Labour party.
Again, I stick by what I said about a 2-party system being in Thailand's
best interests as one of the main problems with Thai politics is the sheer
number of self-serving factions and minor parties all trying to grab a
piece of the pie and gaining voters on personality rather than ideology.
While competition is good, there is such a thing as too much choice. In my
opinion, coalition governments are too weak to rule effectively and they
spend too much time trying to keep the junior partners happy than the
electorate.
Finally, take a look at the situation in Belgium to see what a multi-party
system can lead to.
Naked Farang
08 Mar 2011, 00:38
@Paul: I agree with most of what you say, but again I believe that a system
with 2 or 3 main parties offers the best balance between stability and
public say.
Fred Brown
08 Mar 2011, 00:54
Never failed to amaze me in the uk that whoever I voted for. The bloody
government won.
Ben
08 Mar 2011, 03:45
I think Paul has stuck one of my main points out much better than I did.
:)
Why do you say, Naked Farang, that the best hope for democracy is in
creating any particular kind of establishment?
This gets even more confusing when you say that the best hope is not just
any old establishment, but one where there are only two main voting
options.
I can't wrap my head around this at all.
(P.S. Still unconvinced the UK system is built around 2 strong parties.)
Naked Farang
08 Mar 2011, 04:42
@Ben: First, I'm not sure how you can say that the UK system is anything
other than 2-party based: Labour and Conservative. The Libs/Dems/SDP in
various incarnations have offered some middle ground, but Labour (centre
left) and the Conservatives (centre right) appeal primarily to the working
classes and the middle to upper classes respectively. They do this by
offering liberal socialist and capitalist manifestoes respectively.
Although they have moved closer to the centre of the political spectrum
over recent years, they are still distinctively different in terms of
ideology.
As for Thailand, as I have said many times, having too many small parties
whose only MO is to line their own pockets simply leads to horse trading
when it's time to form a coalition government. The result is a weak
government with no real power and even less interest in serving the
electorate.
If there are 2 or 3 main well-established parties with strong ideologies,
then voters for whom democracy is still a bit of an enigma will be less
swayed by a powerful personality and more inclined to vote for an ideology
that is aligned with their actual needs. AND the party will be more obliged
to deliver its policies.
Ben
08 Mar 2011, 17:01
I understand you think 'a strong 2-party system' is a possible solution,
because you think it solves some particular problems. It's hard to
disagree with this in the abstract.
Why you think it is the solution or the place to start, I have no idea.
[On the UK, you're the one trying to convince me it's adequately described
as a 'strong 2-party system'. I haven't said what I think it is. Nor am I
bothered to. But I will say I have a hard time parenthesizing so much
information to fit the '2-party' claim.]
Naked Farang
08 Mar 2011, 18:34
@Ben: I have my opinions of what would best suit Thailand and its people
based on my own observations. I have explained my reasoning several times
above. However, I am completely open to hearing viable alternatives. I'd
love to hear and discuss your ideas on the best way for democracy to get a
foothold in Thailand.
Paul
09 Mar 2011, 05:05
Although it is going off topic from Thailand, here is a good review of
democracy in the USA and one of the big problems it currently
faces:http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited/
Ben
09 Mar 2011, 07:31
@NF: Yes, you've given your opinions on what actions of the political class
would best suit Thailand.
What I can't understand is why the actions of the political class are the
subject of your solution and 'the place to begin' in the first place. What
a bizarre focus for the 'flourishing of democracy': the behaviour of the
rich, not the people.
The fact that your answer still begs this question is one source of
divergence of opinion. Many others are wrapped up in it.
@Paul: Thanks. These are real problems.
Naked Farang
09 Mar 2011, 18:20
@Paul: Great link. An excellent look at how democracy has failed in the US.
The problem in the US, as I understand it, grew from the fact that there
was no ideological balance between the main parties - they were both right
of centre and that is dangerous because a lack of mild democratic socialism
in the political spectrum has given capitalism way too much power. I guess
the xenophobic witchhunts for reds under the bed played right into the
corporations' hands.
This is exactly why I have stressed many times that a democracy needs
balanced ideologically opposite parties - so that the people have power and
choice.
Naked Farang
09 Mar 2011, 18:24
@Ben: From your last couple of posts, I think that you may be focused on
the US version of democracy rather than the ideologically balanced version
I have advocated.
I am still waiting to hear what your propose as a better alternative for
Thailand.
Ben
09 Mar 2011, 20:31
@NF: No, I'm not focused on the US version of democracy.
Like I have said many times: "What I can't understand is why the actions of
the political class are the subject of your solution and 'the place to
begin' in the first place."
If you don't want to answer, that's your prerogative. But I've raised my
problem many times now. It has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do
with what/whose actions you think the focus of the solution should/can be
in the first place. I ask why you focus there. No answer comes.
> "I am still waiting to hear what your propose as a better alternative
for Thailand."
I haven't shown any interest in doing this.
Paul
09 Mar 2011, 20:54
Another link, and this one seems to be going in the direction of what I
think Thailand needs to be democratic, to stop the big scale corruption,
stop the coups,...:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/03/10/opinion/A-grassroots-coup-cannot
-stop-at-public-hearings-30150478.html
And in support a quote from Gandhi: "My notion of democracy is that under
it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest. No
country in the world today shows any but patronising regard to the weak.
Western democracy as it functions today is diluted fascism. True democracy
cannot be worked by 20 men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from
below by the people of every village."
Naked Farang
09 Mar 2011, 21:06
@Ben: "What I can't understand is why the actions of the political class
are the subject of your solution and 'the place to begin' in the first
place."
By "political class" I assume you are referring to the parties. In this
case, I have made my position known several times already.
There is strength in unity. But, that unity must have a common link. This
link is an ideology.
In the political spectrum, there are 2 opposing ideologies: socialist and
capitalist. In extremis, these are dangerous and unworkable concepts. When
moderated and balanced against each other, they offer voters the best
chance to choose a representative that will act in their best interests and
make their voices heard. This is what representative democracy is all about
after all. It is not perfect, but I know of no better system when we are
talking about millions of people.
True democracy is as unworkable as communism and other idealistic political
concepts because it would require a national referendum on every single
issue.
In the solution that I propose for Thailand, there is absolutely no harm in
having a third central party to give voters an extra choice when they feel
their chosen party is not fulfilling its promises. Equally, small minority
parties can play an important role in highlighting specific issues.
The "political class" therefore is the manifestation of the people, chosen
by the people to represent them and their needs.
It's a pity that you choose not to contribute to a solution for Thailand. I
am always happy to be proven wrong when a better solution is presented.
Naked Farang
09 Mar 2011, 21:54
@Paul: Going back to the start of this thread, and to my eralier articles,
I have often advocated decentralisation as a critical factor in Thailand's
development. I couldn't agree more with this. In particular, the North,
North-east and South of Thailand need to have a stronger voice.
Paul
09 Mar 2011, 22:03
:-)
Ben
10 Mar 2011, 06:21
@Paul: I have recently been appreciating comments by Prawase Wasi as well.
@NF: You make a lot of big claims that I don't agree with. They have gone
unexplained.
> "By "political class" I assume you are referring to the parties."
I'm referring to the class of people, moneyed or at least middle class, who
can move and sway in political parties. This group of people exists in all
countries with elected politicians. A group of people who have certain
powers over others: a position to which not everyone has access.
> "There is strength in unity. But, that unity must have a common link.
This link is an ideology."
It is not the only possible link. Nor do I buy the notion that it's the
strongest. Nor do I buy the notion it's the safest. Nor do I necessarily
buy any other way in which ideology is the superior link. If I don't buy
this, why would I follow your argument?
(Are there other links? Of course. For example, the comments Paul posted
by Prawase Wasi, referring to a network of councils and natural leaders and
organizers. Completely different way of organization. When I read K
Prawase's comments, I picture something like the IAF in North America or
like Citizens UK. I do not picture links of money or ideology. A
different possibility.)
> "[Two opposing ideologies] offer voters the best chance to choose a
representative that will act in their best interests and make their voices
heard. This is what representative democracy is all about after all."
This is a very big claim: by phrasing problems in terms of ideologies, you
have the best chance to be heard.
> "The "political class" therefore is the manifestation of the people,
chosen by the people to represent them and their needs."
Any class that has certain powers over others is not just a "manifestation"
of everyone.
> "@Paul: .... I have often advocated decentralisation as a critical
factor in Thailand's development. I couldn't agree more with this."
There's a lot more in Prawase Wasi's comments than this.
> "It's a pity that you choose not to contribute to a solution for
Thailand."
No, it's not, really, but I appreciate the sentiment. :)
James Grant
10 Mar 2011, 08:01
@Ben you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing. NF is proposing
what he thinks is a better system than what is in place now. Of course what
NF is proposing isn't necessarily a sure fire way to solve all Thailand's
problems, but at least he's trying to propose something and start a
discourse. Without offering any of your own ideas to solve the problem, you
just come off as being anal.
Let's hear your ideas.
Naked Farang
10 Mar 2011, 08:43
@Ben: I'm afraid you've completely lost me now. When did I say the 'moneyed
and middle class' are the solution?
Two of the biggest problems with Thai politics as I see it are that only
people with a university degree can become a politician, and the poor are
prevented from attaining a university degree because of the prohibitive
price of a good (by Thai standards) education.
This is wrong and needs to be overturned.
There are many ways to help Thailand's poor, and decentralisation as
mentioned earlier is a big part of this. However, the key is education.
A truly representative party with a left of centre ideology would provide
this foundation and eventually lead to far greater opportunities and
participation for the rural poor.
At the moment, many of Thailand's poor believe that Phuea Thai is the
answer to their problems, but I don't believe it is. It consistently fails
to offer up a manifesto for the people but simply attacks the democrats.
A left of centre party of genuine ideologists would create a much better
Thailand for the majority of her people. Unfortunately, that party does not
exist because Thailand's political parties are populated by self-serving
individuals with no ideology.
Ben
10 Mar 2011, 18:11
@James: Your assumptions about me are wrong. I thought I'd been clear, if
indirect, about what motivates me. I don't agree with certain assumptions
of NF's. I think these assumptions have hurt other countries. I don't
want them to hurt Thailand.
> "Let's hear your ideas."
You've heard them many times. I disagree with some of NF's assumptions and
presuppositions. What would be the point in saying more? If I have any
other thoughts, they rely on rejecting these assumptions and
presuppositions.
If we agreed NF's assumptions are wrong, sure, I might have more to say.
If we don't, why bother? It will only confuse the conversation.
@NF:
> "When did I say the 'moneyed and middle class' are the solution?"
You focus on the actions of people in this group. You focus on the
ideologies of people who can form political parties. You claim this is
necessary, indeed the beginning, for 'democracy to flourish'.
You also claim that phrasing problems in terms of the ideologies of
political parties is the best way for everyday people to be heard. This is
a remarkably big claim.
In reality, political parties must rely heavily on organized money. They
aren't only organized people. They're also organized money. Political
parties get mixed up with a political class (I'm sorry if you don't like
this term or if it was confusing - but it's very real!).
I don't understand why democracy depends so heavily on these actions of the
political class, to the point that it can't begin to flourish without
them.
This assumption or presupposition is a very big one. I don't agree with
it.
> "only people with a university degree can become a politician"
As far as I'm aware, the university requirement for an MP has been removed,
although I may be wrong. I read this somewhere (and sometime) in the
Bangkok Post. It might be worth checking...
> "A truly representative party with a left of centre ideology"
Again, the assumption that an (any) ideology can 'truly represent' real
people.
> "A ... party with a left of centre ideology would provide this
foundation and eventually lead to far greater opportunities and
participation for the rural poor."
This is a different statement from others you've offered. It's certainly
less of a love letter to Ideology.
> "A left of centre party of genuine ideologists would create a much
better Thailand for the majority of her people."
Good luck creating and sustaining this mythical creature 'of genuine
ideologists' in any country. Has this mythical creature appeared in other
'strong 2-party systems'? Unbalanced power tends to interfere. Political
parties rely on organized money. This also tends to interfere.
The fact that you want to hedge people's futures on this possibility, to
any degree, is why I'm being 'anal', as James calls it. :)
Naked Farang
10 Mar 2011, 19:20
@Ben: I believe that true ideologists have existed. The founding fathers of
the US based a constitution on the best interests of the people. The Labour
party in the UK established a welfare system that was the envy of the world
for decades.
I think that you disagree with my proposal for a 2-party system in Thailand
because you doubt that there are ethically and ideologically sound people
to populate the parties. If this is your belief, then this is one point on
which we agree. This is why I have said that this is what I think Thailand
needs. BUT I never said it was an easy or even a likely option. The good
men (and women) are few in the current system.
I want the best for Thailand and ALL her people. I am trying to find
solutions and have made my suggestions but am by no means dogmatic and
remain open to all suggestions.
Looking at alternatives, I don't think multi-party politics works, so what
is left?
I would love to hear your ideas but you keep them to yourself. Why? Are you
Phuea Thai in disguise? Can you only criticise but not offer a constructive
solution?
If I am wrong, then fine. I am big enough to accept that I don't know all
the answers by any means.
If you are ready to share your plan, go ahead. If not, I think we have
taken this conversation as far as it can go.
Paul
12 Mar 2011, 02:03
@NF - I like what you said two posts ago and I can see why you see a two
party (or perhaps 3) as a solution if the parties had some differing
economic ideologies.
Basically, you are saying the parties would compete and some ideas of each
would get into public policy, and we may see better welfare, ... etc.
Agree - at least as a short term answer.
I suppose a concern is that Representative Democracy almost everywhere in
the world seems to be a failure in some ways. The problems aren't just in
Thailand.
Yes, the system can bring about some good. But it seems in each mature
version of Representative Democracy, the parties end up converging; they
end up as dictators - not servants of the people; and they are controlled
by the big money they need to get into power; oh, and they spend most of
their energy grabbing for power instead of improving the country they are
supposed to be representing.
So, although I agree, what you are suggesting would be an improvement on
the current situation - hmmm, maybe the current situation is what we will
always get with Representative Democracy, with 2-3 big parties.
I've started thinking:
a) Get rid of political parties - instead have real local people as
representative.
b) Decrease the power of the central government, and local-ize the economy,
farming and power
c) Get rid of the big elections that require big money. Have smaller,
maybe more often - elections, where real people can run.
Blah blah - anyway. We'll see what happens. I think we have some bad
times ahead for Thailand politically, but in the long run, people will
eventually rid themselves of the powerful arseholes that steal so much from
this country (the Yellow and Red shirts are included in this)
Ben
12 Mar 2011, 03:04
@NF:
> "I believe that true ideologists have existed."
Of course they have. I haven't denied it.
The fact that political parties can't be entirely made up of them is
another matter. The fact that political parties can't act entirely as
ideologues is another matter. The fact that political parties move among
organized money is another matter.
Much of what you say seems to conveniently swipe reality under the carpet.
> "The founding fathers of the US"
Incidentally, I'm a huge fan of Tom Paine. :)
> "The Labour party in the UK established a welfare system that was the
envy of the world for decades."
Ah, to throw caution to the wind and wax lyrical about Ideology once more!
The interwar Beveridge Report (upon which the 1945 Labour government acted)
also claimed that the system would solve "idleness, ignorance, disease,
squalor, and want". The fact that this propaganda subtly discourages
people from fighting for their own future and challenging Labour ideology
should not be missed.
We have to face reality. Labour was mixed up with organized money when
these policies were created. I don't deny that they were good policies in
themselves. But the policies were propagandized to suit and re-enforce the
power of the political class, too.
It's not all gravy.
> "I don't think multi-party politics works"
I don't think it is a sufficient or necessary answer either, no.
> "I think that you disagree with my proposal for a 2-party system in
Thailand because you doubt that there are ethically and ideologically sound
people to populate the parties."
I don't know why it's so hard to read what I've actually said.
I disagree with your wild claims:
- the 2-party system is a necessary starting point for democracy to
flourish;
- phrasing your problems in terms of ideology lets you be heard better than
any other approach;
- an ideology-driven group of people with special powers can truly
represent other people.
> "I ... am by no means dogmatic and remain open to all suggestions."
I have been suggesting that you examine some of the assumptions and
presuppositions that cause you to make wild claims and wax lyrical about
ideology.
> "I would love to hear your ideas but you keep them to yourself. Why?"
I already answered this for James.
> "Can you only criticise but not offer a constructive solution?"
Of course. If you're still refusing to consider my thoughts. I already
explained this to James.
> "If you are ready to share your plan, go ahead. If not, I think we
have taken this conversation as far as it can go."
Obviously we haven't. You continually dismiss my challenges to your own
presuppositions and claims.
Ben
12 Mar 2011, 03:13
I agree with a lot of what Paul says.
Paul
13 Mar 2011, 22:27
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/crimes/226511/killing-cheaper-than-vote-buy
ing
I think the fact that this is happening leads to some conclusions about
what is wrong with (Thai) politics.
Clearly having a political position is a very lucrative gig. A chance to
make lots of money. Worth killing people for. So this is point no 1 - if
we are going to clean up politics, then we need to ensure that the
politicians can't gain so much benefits from their position. If we don't -
we'll always attract crooks.
They are supposed to be public servants - lets make them that. And in
fact, I think our politicians and their families should have to use public
transport, public schools and public hospitals - you'd see the quality and
effort put into these things very quickly improve.
The politicians shouldn't be making decisions - we as voters should be
doing that. They should be just elected managers of their portfolio.
With technology what it is no-a-days, there is no need to have these people
making decisions - we could all be involved in that process via the
internet, or via small local processes. Certainly any big money / business
deals - they need to be totally transparent, and involve the public as much
as possible
