Comments on: Is Thai democracy really so bad?

By: Robert Albritton

Robert Albritton — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:21:52 +0000

In the chapter, “Developing Democratic Elections Under a New Constitution in Thailand,” we point out that only 70 % of respondents could formulate a clear concept of the meaning of democracy in an open-ended question. Among those who offered a definition, however, 38.2% said “freedom” or referred to “civil liberties.” 15.2% said “political equality;” 11.9 “Individualism;” 7.7 said “Equality, Justice, or Fraternity;” 7.2 said “Participation and Citizen Empowerment.” Less than 1% said “Good Governance” or a related term. In the 2006 survey, we also offered a fixed choice response. On this question there was a higher response rate, but the responses were very similar. In general, we find consistently that Thais have views of democracy very similar to residents of European and American countries. By the way, these are true probability samples of the population, face-to-face surveys conducted in the language of the the respondent’s home (including dialects).

By: Robert Albritton

Robert Albritton — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:37:50 +0000

Yes, there are different ways of defining democracy, but the minimum qualification is that governments are elected by the people. An authoritarian society may be perfectly benevolent, but, however “liberal,” “transparent,” or “uncorrupt,” it is not a democracy. Thais may not want mass democracy, but to call unelected governments “democratic” is absurd. Much of the debate about what is happening in Thailand argues that non-Thai concepts of democracy are not appropriate for Thailand. That may be true. My objection is to calling autocratic forms of government a “democracy.”

By: Ed Norton

Ed Norton — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 18:25:38 +0000

Why not look at the survey that goes with the results to see what “democracy” means for the participants? Look at it at: http://www.jdsurvey.net/bdasepjds/easiabarometer/eab.jsp

I have to agree with Saroj’s statement that the results show that: “Thai people in general prefer democracy than any other forms of government. I think this is highly significant.”

This is important research, and while one might question its positivism and so on, these results deserve to go into the mix when thinking about the future of the Thai political system.

By: Soraj

Soraj — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 08:00:45 +0000

Of course one could always point out there are many versions of democracy or different interpretations of the word, and one could also point that that the researchers inform their informants as to which version of democracy they entertain, and so forth. But I think the main point of the paper is that Thai people in general prefer democracy than any other forms of government. I think this is highly significant.

In a way it seems to me hardly surprising at all to find out that Thai people prefer democracy. But it’s very surprising to see other people such as Koreans or what not do not seem to prefer it as much as Thais do. I think this latter finding stands more in need of explanation than that Thais prefer democracy. It should be rather obvious that a people anywhere would prefer that they are able to govern themselves rather than submit themselves to some higher authority?

The Albritton and Thawilwadee paper is done out of the context within Thai society where there has been widespread discrediting of democracy. This has gone on for as long as there is democracy in Siam or longer. And the argument is the same tired, old one. What Albritton and Thawilwadee have significantly contributed is to point out that, empirically speaking, the argument of the élites does not hold water. The élites would have it that Thai people prefer stability and the well intentioned guiding hands of the bureaucratic and urban élites rather than the chaos of democracy. But they are wrong. This should be a message to the PAD.

By: Elli Woollard

Elli Woollard — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 13:17:35 +0000

I wonder if Thai people perceive democracy to have worked better in their country partly because democracy in Thailand was not preceded, as elsewhere in Asia, by either a strong dictatorial state or complete chaos. While Thailand has of course had several coups, it has never had a prolonged authoritarian state in which the public have been encouraged (or coerced) into taking part by becoming members of a sole political party or joining a secret police.
In the 1960s, a highschool teacher in California conducted an intriguing experiment to discover how facism worked in practice – his students, for example, were taught slogans and a salute, and were encouraged to inform on each other and beat up any dissenters. What surprised the teacher was how much not only he, but his students, seemed to enjoy it.
Where authoritarian states of this nature have collapsed (as in Mongolia, or – to look outside the region – Russia), the citizens are left with little sense of purpose, and, apart from a minority who get rich on the back of regime change, often reduced economic circumstances. Moreover, the decades of authoritarianism have left the people with little idea of how to put democracy into practice. In such situations, democracy often flounders at best, and fails completely at worst.
In Thailand, where the dictatorships have not been marked by a strong central state or the dominance of a single party, underground democracy has been able to flourish to a much greater extent. Equally, the dictatorships have not done anything for the people – they have not, for instance, provided free healthcare or guaranteed a job. I would argue that just as West Germans tend to be more satisfied with democracy than their counterparts in the former East Germany, so too are Thais likely to be more satisfied with the democratic process than people in other Asian countries, in part because Thailand has, apart from brief periods of dictatorship, been generally more democratic.

By: Clean out of magic bullets!?

Clean out of magic bullets!? — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:17:03 +0000

You seem to be highlighting the local tendency to ‘want to believe’ at any any cost. That desire is usually satisfied quite easily if enough politicians give the necessary inducements. Democracy would probably work better if the electorate were stuffed full of people who didn’t have a good word to say about their political reps. Things usually work better when folks are in a position to realize that any money that a politician pushes under the table has probably been previously stolen from themselves.

Look at the local education system for further example. Folks have been fooled into allowing the tutor system to teach most of the stuff that is supposed to be taught in schools. Having shelled out big bucks for this dubious privilege, students & their parents then expect tutor schools to be a magic bullet to their future. They thus think that they will absorb all of the useful info they will need for a future successful career without making any real effort to personally connect with the subject matter.

Your ‘feelgood’ results probably indicate nothing much more than a local desire to find the political magic bullet without actually having to personally lift a finger to make the political system really work.

By: Colum Graham

Colum Graham — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:34:01 +0000

I disagree with the conflation of liberal democracy and popular democracy in the conclusion of the paper. The paper only mentions ‘liberal’ twice, and I don’t think a democratic system for a nation can be wholly functional without an attachment to liberalism. The democracy the paper is talking of is simply electoral democracy which can be illiberal.

If Thailand were without international pressure, how would Bhumibol, and therefore the majority of people, value democracy? I think answering this question would prove more the current state of democratic health in Thailand. Although my question may be loaded, I do believe that with sustained popularity of an electoral democratic system, liberal empiricism can be acquired with all the mistakes that are about to be made.