Comments on: One vote, one value

By: 21Jan

21Jan — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:18:08 +0000

Nganadeeleg, at as you know of course there was a very vocal minority opposing Thaksin last year (mostly for other reasons than the killings but that doesn’t matter) and I saw this as a very good sign for the progress of democracy in Thailand (until they started to call for an appointed government) but I had the impression that no side wanted the demonstrations: The PAD wanted of course Thaksin and the TRT gone and Thaksin wanted them “to shut up” but also neutral people saw the demonstrations as a threat to some kind of imagined national unity not considering the fact the democracy needs dissent (and the fact that Thaksin tried to silence and intimidate some of his critics shows that he didn’t understood it either).
You say:”The coup leaders have stated their reasons..”, but I say that the world has never seen military who states that they staged a coup because they were a powerhungry bunch of guys – they will always mention noble motifs. For me the start of the constitutional process and the – I would call it – “blame and hide” tactic (accusation in the media but no legal action) concerning the previous government shows that the military/royalists surely want a bigger piece of the pie (although I think you are right that it is unlikely that they will stick to power directly).
The idea of a philosopher-king as outlined in “Πολιτεία” sure has its charm – especially for people with philosophical education who can imagine themselves destined to rule – but I think this is an idea which might have worked 360 BC in the small state of Athens but not in todays globalized world in a country as large and as diversified as Thailand.
Concerning the self interest reasons to vote I want to repeat once more that this is not about money (at least not always) you could – for example – vote for a party who plans to distribute some of the countries wealth among the poor because you might think that otherwise the rifts in society might lead to revolution – so you vote for less money in your pocket (assuming that you are not among the coutries poor) but for long term stability. If everyone votes in his own best interest even corrupt politicians shouldn’t have a chance in long term because if they try to fill their own pockets, the pockets of their cronies and please the majority of the voters they will do serious and visible harm to the economy and/or a very large minority of people and so they will be voted out when their missmanagement becomes obvious (but I live now in a country where politicians have to resign when they use their frequent-flyer-miles for private purpose so I might be too optimistic). To summarise my thoughts on the election-process I see no alternative to voting in self-interest.

By: anon

anon — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:35:06 +0000

Well, unlike Hollywood movies, most prostitutes that I know don’t wear jewelry. In fact, outside of work they tend to look incredibly plain and live very spartan lifestyles. The ones that are university students tend to dress less provocatively than normal students.

As for the suspicions of their parents, I really have no idea. When I started working, my mother expected me to send her a certain amount of money every month. If she suspected that I took to drug dealing or pimping to support her, she never told me so.

Based on your attitudes though there certainly seems cause for suspicion. It seems you’re assuming that any country girl who becomes successful in the big city has to have slept her way to the top.

By: nganadeeleg

nganadeeleg — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:43:10 +0000

anon said: “I’ve never slept with a single prostitute (and I’ve slept with dozens of them) who was sold into prositution by her parents. In fact, I’ve never met a single prostitute who told her parents how she was making a living.”

Did the parents ever wonder where the daughter got all that money from that she sends back to them, and also uses to buy jewellry etc?
Are you saying they have no idea?
Do the parents believe that uneducated girls are highly paid as cleaners, factory workers and waitresses in the big city?

And their vote is worth the same as mine!!!!!!!

By: nganadeeleg

nganadeeleg — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:32:27 +0000

21Jan: On the one hand you think the Thai public will vote out Thaksin (one day), and on the other you note there was not much outcry from the Thai public about the extra judicial killings.

Doesn’t that ring any bells for you?

I’ll spell it out for you:
- There WAS outrage at the extra judicial killings – but those people were in a minority.
- There were also people opposed to Thaksin, but they were also in a minority.

The coup leaders have stated their reasons for the coup, and any other reasons you, me or others may come up with are pure conjecture and speculation.

Here’s some speculation on my part:
Caretaker PM, Thaksin, had organised violence for the rally planned on the next day, and would in effect stage his own coup by coming back to restore order by imposing martial law.
The coup leaders got wind of that plan and decided to act first.

As for democracy, I don’t like it much for the self interest reasons you outlined, and also because other peoples votes are worth just as much as mine. Yes, I know I’m elitist.
I think the ultimate system would be something based on Plato’s philosopher kings theory but rather than one ruler I would prefer a committee of the virtuous, with some form of democracy amongst them.

By: 21Jan

21Jan — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:21:09 +0000

Vichai, my view concerning democracy might be simplistic – although I cannot see it this way – but yours is either naive or elitist. People don’t vote primarily for the good of the nation they vote for their own good (and if they vote for the former, they do it because they are in a situation where the national good affects to such a great extend their own well-being that they have to vote this way). Through my life I never voted with my pocket but I can surely say that I always had my own interest in mind when I went to the ballot box and you can’t tell me that you have only noble thoughts of nation and unity in mind when you are voting.
What you seem to think is either that everyone should eliminate personal interests (maybe through meditation) before voting or you want to give voting-rights only to people who pass a “voting exam” (and probably you are in line with the powers that be)
It took the italians 12 years to vote Berlusconi out of office but they finally did and I am sure the Thais would have done that one day with Thaksin without the need of a white (black?) knight.
But why don’t you respond to the argument that the coup was obviously only carried out to protect the interests of the old elite and that the moral justifications were only pretended. I think the possible events discussed in the “Chang-Noi-threat” are the most important reasons for the coup – it’s all about succession and not about some “unforgiveable real crimes” which you like to repeat like a broken record (although these crimes should be punished if there was a direct involvement of Thaksin and proof of it in a fair trial – but where was the outcry of the Thai public when the killings happened and when there would have been more evidence one way or another).

By: Vichai N.

Vichai N. — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:26:03 +0000

Very simplistic your democracy version is ‘21Jan’ and very flawed. And I did say your ‘puke’ threshold for condoning seriously flawed leaders would touch stratosphere ‘21Jan’ and that to me is strange coming from somebody who quotes Plato.

By the standards of American or British democracy, can you really sincerely tell me ‘21Jan’ that Thaksin Shinawatra would not have been promptly ‘booted’ out of office on his questionable ethics alone – - not to mention Thaksin’s unforgiveable real crimes of extra-judicial killings and self-enrichment while in public office?

By: 21Jan

21Jan — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:02:59 +0000

Vichai, your ideal of the benevolent tyrant is – how to say it – quite strange, even considering that it was Plato’s idea. The general idea behind democracy is that most people vote for their interests (through elections, through demonstrations, through petitions etc.) and then the majority got their interests served (Of course this is a bit simplistic, we need protection of minorities and institutions to check the elected during their term etc). We all should know by now that the coup was not because of moral reasons or to punish immoral leaders: Given the fact that most of the Thai coups had the justification of the immorality of the politicians Thailand should have the highest morality among politicians in the world, because they know that they will be overthrown after the slightest misdeed, but as we both know the Thai politicians are – at maximum – quite average cocerning their morality, so we can conclude that this coup – and a lot of the ones before – was a power struggle between the elites with the old powers / the network as (maybe only temporarily) winners and I think that we will see in the new constitution that the protection of their assets and influence was their main goal.
Also I think that there will be never a succesful trial against Thaksin because this would uncover the involvement of the old elites.

By: Vichai N.

Vichai N. — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:40:44 +0000

Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – - repeated reelection will NOT legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.

(a CORRECTION on my recent previous post above)

By: Vichai N.

Vichai N. — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:39:23 +0000

I truly grasp your meaning ‘21Jan’.

I have always known that there are many ’standards’ of Democracy. Just as people have different ‘puke’ thresholds for leaders who misbehave, so do people have different standards of how ‘true democracy’ must be measured.

But your standard of democracy ‘21Jan’ is what provokes a coup, not mine. Election is only the first hurdle to be an accepted elected leader. After the election, the elected must always earn his mandate . . not be repeated elections but by upholding constitutional ethiquetes and maintaining and upholding the rule of law. Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – - repeated reelection will legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.

By: 21Jan

21Jan — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 01:43:02 +0000

thanakarn, you don’t get it, don’t you. Democracy is ALWAYS about vote-buying one way or another. Vichai might be shocked but it is most of the time the personal benefit that let people vote and almost never some noble attitude: The middle-class votes for tax-deductions and infrastructure-projects and the upper class (most probably) for the politicians which they can influence (buy) most easily. If you have children you might vote green and if you are working-class you might vote socialist / social-democrat. You cannot blame the poor for voting with their pockets, because everyone is doing it (and that the poor sold their votes in Thailand directly for years is only due to the fact that they had the impression – at least until the arrival of the populist policies of TRT – that this would be the only gain they could get from elections because no party cared about their interests) Let me cite Ajarn Thongchai at the end who makes a valid point when he says:”Democracy anywhere in the world is never a rule of the educated, the smarter, the urban, or the better-informed. It is a rule by popular mandate. No matter if/ how ignorant people are, the elected government has the rights to rule. It is true that democracy does not mean only election. But election is THE ultimate and unviolable source of legitimacy to rule. The higher moral or good ethics is not. The higher education is not. The better access to information is not. Nor are weapons or any unelected aristocrats.”