If you do the numbers it is clear that the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leadership has chosen bloodshed over ballots.
The PAD has abandoned electoral politics. With no coherent or credible political platform their only hope is that sufficient blood will be spilt to prompt a military or royal strike against Thailand’s democratically elected government. But the army appears unwilling to act. The queen has publicly shown her support for the PAD, but the king himself has remained silent. And the international community, for its part, is standing firmly by the government.
Make no mistake, the PAD leadership wants blood on the streets and have rushed to turn the imagery of violence to their advantage.
The numerous well-intentioned statements and petitions that are circulating calling on “all sides to avoid violence” are missing this basic point. Violence is not an unfortunate by-product of the current political standoff. It is now the core plank in the PAD provocateur platform.
What occurred last Tuesday is the inevitable result of a deliberate strategy that the PAD has pursued since early 2008. In the wake of the disappointing 2007 election, which returned a Thaksin-esque government to power, the PAD has abandoned any pretence of respect for electoral decisions. Their central ideological claim has been that the “tyranny of the majority” can only be overcome by extraordinary action. Just how extraordinary remains to be seen.
The “tyranny of the majority” is a bogeyman that has been effectively deployed by the PAD to create an impression of a government that enjoys a hegemonic dictatorship of democracy.
But how firm are the electoral foundations of the government’s so-called tyranny?
Let’s take a look at the December 2007 election results. In that election there were two electoral components – a constituency vote in which 400 seats were up for grabs; and a “party-list” vote for an additional 80 seats.
The government’s People Power Party (PPP) won 199 constituency seats with about 37 percent of constituency votes cast. It was a solid victory over the Democrats who won 132 seats with about 30 percent of constituency votes cast. And that is where the electoral difference lay. In the party list system the vote was virtually even, with PPP gaining only one more party list seat than the Democrats.
Overall, PPP won 233 seats, just 7 short of an absolute majority. They clearly won a right to govern and it is unsurprising that minor parties joined with PPP to form a coalition. It was, under all the circumstances, a solid PPP victory. But does the result really form a basis for electoral tyranny? Is now the time for opposition forces to abandon electoral hope? Does a 7 percent victory in the constituency vote justify a street rebellion? Is there no other way of changing an elected government?
Just think about the figures for a moment. On the face of it, if four out of every hundred constituency voters had cast their votes for the Democrats instead of PPP the political landscape after December 2007 would have been very different. If the Democrats had managed to win just 34 more constituency seats they would have been the largest party in the parliament with, one must assume, a very strong claim to government.
And there were plenty of constituency seats that could have been won. We’ve taken a quick look at the constituency results, and some of the figures are very interesting indeed.
We have identified 22 close constituency contests where a Democrat was the highest ranked unsuccessful candidate (remember that most consistencies elect more than one MP). On average, across these 22 constituencies, an additional 6381 votes would have put an extra Democrat into parliament. Some contests were very close. One Democrat missed out by just 36 votes, another by 539. In many contests only a few thousand votes, less than a couple of percent of votes cast, were required for an additional Democrat seat in parliament. There were 12 seats where a Democrat candidate lost by less than 5000. Just over 140,000 votes, in total, would have delivered an additional Democrat MP in all of these 22 constituencies. This represents just over 1.25 % of the total constituency votes cast in these contests. Hardly an insurmountable target.
Note that this is a very preliminary analysis based on cases where a Democrat was the highest ranked unsuccessful candidate. There are other cases (we have identified 6) where lower ranked Democrats could have succeeded with similarly modest increases in their vote. Of course, there are also constituencies where PPP would have lost to minor parties with small shifts in voting patterns.
And, don’t forget, there is also a substantial percentage of the electorate (around 20 percent) that didn’t vote in 2007 that could probably be persuaded to enter the electoral fray by a well executed political campaign. Motivating just one in ten of these to get out and vote against the PPP could have an enormous impact.
The notion that the current government enjoys an unassailable electoral hegemony is simply wrong.
Like any elected government, PPP is electorally vulnerable and could be defeated. Its performance since the election has hardly been stunning. It has been pummelled by the courts and the media. It won’t escape the electoral backlash that follows the international economic crisis. Factions within the deeply divided PPP are flexing their muscle. Party dissolution and reformation will shift the political landscape yet again.
Plenty of parliamentary seats are there for the taking.
But the PAD leadership doesn’t want to embark on a broad based political campaign to unseat the government by electoral means, either in alliance with any existing party or independently. The PAD might not love the Democrats but they clearly represent a basis for an alternative government.
In October 2006 we saw Sondhi Limthongkul speak (at SOAS in London) about his plans for an education campaign to win over a vanguard of provincial middle-class voters as a counterweight to Thaksin’s populism. It was an elitist vision, but still an electoral one. But Sondhi’s electoral stamina was short-lived. Now it seems that persuading a small percentage of the electorate to vote against the government is beyond the wit of Sondhi, the PAD and their formidable public relations machine. Instead they have adopted an electorally unsaleable “new politics” in which some parliamentarians (perhaps 70 percent) would be appointed. There is simply no need for such electoral defeatism.
We can only conclude that Sondhi and the PAD leadership have deliberately chosen blood rather than ballots.
They will happily sacrifice the bodies of their hard-core supporters because they have neither the ability nor the will to shift the hearts and minds of even a small portion of Thailand’s swinging voters.
27 responses so far ↓
1 Vorapoap // Oct 14, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Hrrrrrrrrrrr. I am lazy to write this thing, but can’t help….
PAD has announced long time before (more than a month) that 70/30 is just a quick example.
The authors should be more updated about the New Politics before thinking to write about it.
I wouldn’t say more… This article is absolutely biased base on anti-PAD side.
PAD’s announcement on New Politics
2 robuzo // Oct 15, 2008 at 2:22 am
“The proposal on the PAD stage of a 70 : 30 ratio of public representatives to elected representatives is merely an example of how the old-style politics should be replaced and is open to discussions. ”
Weasel words. If they aren’t serious about having “70:30″ as part of their platform they shouldn’t have used the “example.” Surely they believe such a setup is at least viable, and that alone is sufficiently damning.
The essay is hardly based on an anti-PAD bias. The authors strongly suggest that if the PAD leadership had sufficient patience and conviction they might gradually come to do well against a faltering PPP. Instead Sondhi and Chamlong have decided to show their fascist stripes, and are willing to sacrifice the lives of others to get their way.
3 Ed Norton // Oct 15, 2008 at 2:52 am
Vorapoap at Bangkok Pundit: I am the author of http://pad.vfly.net
So you know what you get.
4 AA // Oct 15, 2008 at 3:59 am
No kidding, Vorapoap, that this article is against PAD. The reason why people should be against PAD is apparent enough. No matter how much “people participation” you put in your document, the concept is clear: “people” means us, anyone else who supports Thaksin is bought and therefore not a part of the people. Otherwise PAD would have accepted the vote a long time ago.
P.S. Spare us the claptrap about PPP buying votes. With or without vote buying from any of the parties, people would have voted for PPP anyways. The polls are clear enough. Now why didn’t Sondhi try convincing these people? Is he only good at preaching to the converted? Could it be because most of what he says is extremely biased hearsay?
5 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Oct 15, 2008 at 6:43 am
re: Vorapoap
The authors should be more updated about the New Politics before thinking to write about it.
I assume the authors, and others, are already updated about “New Politics” considering it is exact same brand of corporatism that Benito Mussolini proposed in his essay, “The Doctrine of Fascism,” published in 1932. (1932? Hmmm…that date sounds familiar.)
A shame that the term “fascism” has been so abused and misapplied in current discourse that one cannot recognize what is a textbook example of it .
6 Vorapoap // Oct 15, 2008 at 9:10 am
anyone else who supports Thaksin is bought
Who did mention that?.. My uncle also support Thaksin, I don’t think he has been bought. This sounds like “Any PAD is paid to join the protest in Bangkok”.
For the rest of argument here, only the time can tell.
7 robuzo // Oct 15, 2008 at 11:13 am
L S Schwartz writes: “A shame that the term “fascism” has been so abused and misapplied in current discourse that one cannot recognize what is a textbook example of it .”
You are right about the overuse of the term fascism; certain recent “conservative” uses of it in the States come to mind. There is much more to fascism than corporatism, of course, and here’s a good start for a “textbook example” for consideration of the topic- Umberto Eco’s “Eternal Fascism:
Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt” http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html
I’ve done my own comparison of PAD action with Eco’s brilliant 14-point checklist, and find their behavior and “policies” match up nicely to all all but maybe a couple of items. In addition to the obvious such as “the cult of tradition,” “irrationalism,” and “disagreement is treason,” how about this?
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups. In our time, when the old “proletarians” are becoming petty bourgeois (and the lumpen are largely excluded from the political scene), the fascism of tomorrow will find its audience in this new majority.
As to bloodshed over ballots, Eco has that covered, too:
. . .the Ur-Fascist hero craves heroic death, advertised as the best reward for a heroic life. The Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death.
8 Vorapoap // Oct 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm
It is funny, while many foreigners are accusing PAD of being fascism. There are many articles in Thailand that describe Thaksinocracy or Thaksinomic or Thaksin Regime is very much alike to fascism. I am not a political science student, so I will leave this until I know enough to speak.
9 Srithanonchai // Oct 15, 2008 at 5:22 pm
In Sondhi’s Phuchatkan of October 14, former professor of political science, Chai-anand Samudavanija, had an article headlined “Go Underground.” His point was that “the people” (PAD) had protested “peacefully,” and that this had not been successful so far in “removing the corrupt politicians from the political system.” Therefore, people might have to go underground and “deal with these politicians themselves violently.” Chai-anand also mentioned “blacklists.” Thus, what he suggested to the PAD audience of this paper was that going underground and systematically assassinating politicians “to remove them from the political system” would be the right think to do.
“Shameless” is not strong enough a word here. On the frontpage of Phuchatkan of October 15, we see a big picture of Anand Panjarachun, flanked by Sondhi and Phiphop, presiding over the cremation of the PAD guard, who was blown up by a car bomb. How is this for people who want to throw up? In the text next to the picture, Sondhi L. accused Thaksin Shinawatra of having bought up high-ranking soldiers and policemen in order to destroy the Monarchy!
Thai Rath had this to say on the present situation (as translated in the Bangkok Post of October 14): “The PAD is resorting to a propaganda campaign that is worse than communism. Three decades ago we fought against communist insurgents in the jungle. Now we are fighting in the capital. The country’s survival is now at stake.”
Here is an article from Bangkok Post, 15 October 2008 (pasted, because it will soon be gone from BP’s web site):
News THINK
The PAD is equally to blame for Oct 7
SOONRUTH BUNYAMANEE
I agree the government and police must be held responsible for the Oct 7 violence on the streets of Bangkok which cost two lives and left hundreds of people injured.
But I don’t think those two parties are the only ones answerable for the incident.
On Oct 7 the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) leaders led thousands of supporters to seal all entrances of Parliament House in an attempt to block MPs and senators from announcing the government policy and formally launching the Somchai Wongsawat administration.
Based on the PAD’s earlier move to occupy Government House, it was not pessimistic to expect a repeat at the Parliament, so the police operation to disperse the protesters to pave the way for the assembly was acceptable and not a crime against humanity.
Where the police went wrong was not in their decision to disperse the demonstrators but the way they went about it.
It’s not hard to imagine what the police were thinking when the PAD’s seizure of several state agencies and Government House on Aug 26 was still fresh in their minds.
On that occasion, order was maintained as police and the government exercised patience in order to avoid violence, for they knew that if it happened, the brunt of the blame would fall on them.
PAD leaders always say their protest is based on “ahimsa”, a Hindu doctrine which advocates non-violence and peaceful resolution.
The PAD could be worthy of respect if they truly were really following the path of ahimsa.
If we step back from the recent violence and look back at the overall situation over recent months, we can see whether or not the PAD movement is serving the ahimsa principle well.
Before seizing Government House, PAD supporters occupied and blocked main streets in Bangkok-Ratchadamnoen Nok avenue and Phitsanulok road – to use as a base for their protest, causing a lot of problems for commuters and schoolchildren.
Then, as this proved unpopular, they turned their attention to Government House, taking complete control of the compound, which they maintain to this day, and denying the head of the administration access to his offices. Then followed the siege of Parliament.
PAD leaders insist its protests are peaceful and constitutional.
Let’s talk about constitutionality. PAD leaders claim their right to stage peaceful rallies based on the first paragraph of Article 63 of the 2007 charter, stipulating that “a person shall enjoy the liberty to assemble peacefully and without arms”.
Still, the PAD has never mentioned the following paragraph, stipulating that “restriction on such liberty shall not be imposed except by virtue of the law specifically enacted for the case of public assembly and for securing public convenience in the use of public places”.
In addition, Article 28 of the charter concerning the rights and liberties of the Thai people clearly states that “a person can invoke human dignity or exercise his or her rights and liberties in so far as it is not in violation of the rights and liberties of other persons or contrary to the Constitution or good morals’.’
I’m sure the PAD’s moves to block streets, seize Government House, and seal off Parliament have violated other people’s rights and liberties and caused public inconvenience.
Should the PAD leaders take responsibility for such unconstitutional actions, which they claim to be peaceful?
The PAD leaders should be held accountable for the Oct 7 bloodshed.
The way I look at it, the government and police can be blamed for the outcome, while the PAD leaders could be blamed for its cause.
Mr Somchai and the police chief have expressed “regret” for the incidents but I have yet to hear a single word of remorse from the PAD leaders.
They may claim their protests are aimed at helping the nation and reforming the political system.
That can be respected, but it’s not necessary for everyone else in the country to agree with them.
Moreover, those who disagree should not be labelled as non-patriots or be lumped in with those who have no virtue.
In our long experience, abrupt constitutional changes have not given us actual democracy. Patient learning can achieve this.
Why do the PAD leaders not put their trust in the justice system which is performing its duty?
10 AA // Oct 16, 2008 at 6:43 am
“Fascism” is too strong a term to describe PAD. At most they are a violent political cult.
Vorapoab, you may not have noticed, but articles on the Manager and speeches on stage by your leaders often talk about 1) vote buying, 2) receiving money from Thaksin, 3) being bought by Thaksin, and so forth. Do you honestly think that because UDD says it too means PAD should say it?
At this moment in time I’m actually disappointed (but not surprised) that the UDD has stooped down low to PAD’s level by practicing with weapons.
11 rookie // Oct 16, 2008 at 10:58 am
I am also very disappointed to see former PM Anand rubbing shoulders and getting close to PAD by attending the funeral of the PAD “chief guard” (whose cause of death has not been closely investigated by the khunying unlike the death of the young lady). This 7 Oct incident however clearly shows which people are taking which side.
12 Vorapoap // Oct 16, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Dear AA,
Honestly speaking, I understand that there were many times, things getting too much with hatred and emotions on PAD stage. Many speeches given by PAD leaders and speakers come from their personal speculation. But I also tried to understand them, there were many times it was a matter of life and death. And there were many time PAD fellows want to be stimulated and the leader can do it very well.
This is why there are so many PAD disagree with PAD leaders, however they still believe that these leaders (with some gray background of course) can certainly lead them to the common goal they have altogether.. I don’t think we can find a person like Mohandas Gandhi (India) with strong political feeling anymore.
Also the way they use the word “Ahingsa” are too much for me, many PAD think it is legitimate to protect themselves with golf club, slingshots and etc. But I think, if they really follow the Ahingsa way, they should sit still and let the Red Shirt came and hit them alone. Thai society would quickly realize which side they should condemn. However, that will look so stupid not to protect themselves, so they use the word Ahingsa when protesting around on the street. But they use urban defensive tactics when they were being attacked either from a police or from the red shirts.
And please notice that, I never use the word “our leader” anywhere.. including on my blog.. Actually, I barely talked about them, because I am still in doubt about some of them… However, the one who now I favored the most might be Somkiat Pongpaibool. His style of speech is really cool. He can easily become a stage performance. He is funny and his tone of voice flow up and down smoothly.
I also have personal comments on the rest of the leaders, but I think this is not the place to express my personal feeling about them.
13 Vorapoap // Oct 16, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Dear Rookie,
Anan should be there or else one of the privy council needed to be, as you see it is the royal cremation (sorry if I used the wrong term). He also stated “Thaksin is the key” to end all Thailand conflicts.
His death will be closely investigated and you will be shocked how cruel people can be. If you know him in personal, you will know how a nice person can be… and why he quit from the Thai police force before joining PAD some years ago…
And again, only the time will reveal the truth.
14 foreign correspondent // Oct 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Vorapoap writes: “I don’t think we can find a person like Mohandas Gandhi (India) with strong political feeling anymore.”
Aung San Suu Kyi fits that description. She abhors violence and has resisted calls for a more militant stance against an unpopular regime. That’s why the Burmese democracy movement has gained such global respect and visibility. And in many other countries – Ukraine, Serbia – nonviolent protest has been successful in ousting dictators.
An interesting question is why Thailand’s current street democrats don’t take the moral high ground. A political realist would point out that Burma is still under a cruel dictatorship, so PAD is right to get tough. But a cynic might say that violence is a necessary prelude in Thailand to a coup or another form of extra-constitutional intervention (national unity government).
I’m not sure I know the answer, but it’s not correct to argue that PAD’s ’self-defense’ (which often turns to offense) is the only option. If there were hundreds of thousands of unarmed protesters outside parliament, sitting peacefully on the ground and refusing to leave, prepared to be arrested on mass for their beliefs, that would be a powerful message to the PPP – and to the world.
What do you think?
15 songtham tawinwang // Oct 16, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I think Anand tries to appear as Mr. Nice, but don’t forget that at heart he ’s a shrewd businessman.
16 Vorapoap // Oct 16, 2008 at 4:15 pm
I completely agree with you, but it was unlikely to happen that way. The whole thing would turn upside down, if the unarmed / unshielded police walked straight into PAD, and PAD started to attack police without a reason. This PAD’s marathon protesting campaign has developed too far to behave like that.. you should also consider what happened in August 29 where police clashed into PAD and hit old men and women. You should also consider about the fear among PAD that police let the red shirt dressed up as police to attack PAD…
The line has been crossed. If people can’t step back, people will need to draw another line in front of them. It is sad but true..
PS. About Aung San Suu Kyi, I also agree with you…. probably I just forgot to put the word “in Thailand” in the statement.
17 Sidh S. // Oct 16, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Much of what is written here is based on a naive (or more likely feigned naivety) that Thailand, as a predominantly ‘Buddhist’ country, its people must be peaceful and passive – and so, by extension, political protests must be based on the ideal of Ahingsa (as practiced by Gandhi and Aung San Su Kyi). PAD does not fit this mold so the simplistic conclusion that they must prefer blood rather than ballots.
We must remember that the PAD wasn’t like this since day 1, they were a once bunch of TycoonSondhi’s TV fan, that when Sondhi was taken off public TV for being critical of PMThaksin, they followed his live show to Lumbhini Park. They have evolved and hardened over the years in response to multiple tactics, usually violent or threat of violence (e.g. @ World Trade), employed against them.
We must also remember that they have attempted to cultivate a nationwide network to stage rallies and protest. We must remember that when they were in Udon, a TRT/PPP territory, to hold a peaceful rally, the local powers that be colluded with the police, violently oppressed them (and I don’t recall New Mandala strongly condemning such acts then). How can a democratic “educational campaign” be carried out in that gangster-territorial atmosphere?
We also must remember the deep culture of the violence-prone “Third Hand” (whether real, fabricated or employed) – often unruly arm of the security forces.
We must also remember, with 7th Oct as a clear evidence, of the ineptitude and incompetence of the security forces in crowd control and protest dispersals. Buying Chinese gas-bombs was questionable in itself, failure to test them for its impacts and training on how to shoot them (not at the crowd! Even for American or European-made gas-bombs!) beforehand is criminal. To repeat that mistake over the course of the day is also criminal. And this is already a vast improvement on their recent history of crowd control at Udon or Takbai.
As I’ve mentioned in many posts, I don’t support all of PAD’s actions and visions. While PMThaksin is the last person I politically trust, I thought PMSomchai’s calmness and willingness to talk is a breath of fresh air in this political atmosphere. I believe (maybe naively) that talks has already begun and hoped that things might just get resolved both short (maybe televised, facilitated public forums over backroom meetings and phone calls) and long term (societal inclusive constitutional amendment). The police mistakes on Oct 7th is tragic and now people who had met and talked (PMChavalit and Chamlong), presumably in sincerity, are pointing fingers at each other and accusing each other of lying…
18 Srithanonchai // Oct 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm
As had to be expected, Phujatkan (October 15) made good use of the Queen’s presence at the cremation of a women who died during the police attempt to control the PAD. The Queen is quoted as having said that she was a good girl who protected the Monarchy and the Nation. She was worried about all PAD protestors, and would later send some flowers to them. More than that, she “did what nobody could have hoped for” — she stopped in front of Sondhi Limthongul, who was lined up with other PAD leaders to see off the Queen. She briefly told him something that could not be disclosed to the public. “But when the ASTV and Phuchatkan teams as well as the other PAD leaders learned about what she had said to Sondhi, they were encouraged to vigorously fight on for Nation, Throne and the people.”
After Princess Sirindhorn had said in an interview that the PAD was not working for the monarchy but for themselves, the ultra-conservative aristocrat Pannada Diskun, who works as an advisor at the Ministry of Interior, sent a fax to Phuchatkan explaining that papers such as Khao Sot had inappropriately used the princess’ remarks for political purposes. However, her statement did not mean what people were made to believe it meant. In fact, it was a diplomatic and wise statement that reflected that the Monarchy was above politics.
I wonder what Khun Panadda will say to the ASTV, Phuchatkan and PAD people, who obviously interpret the Queen’s presence at the cremation and her remarks as strong political statements encouraging a certain course of further political action by the PAD. The UDD/DAAD people will certainly perceive the act and the words in a similar way, but interpret them rather differently….
19 BkkOptimist // Oct 18, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@ Foreign Correspondent – “That’s why the Burmese democracy movement has gained such global respect and visibility.”
Point is that taking the morale high ground in Burma hasn’t worked – has it?
Such global respect – that in the end does nothing for their cause. You put much to much faith in our Global system – Darfur, Somalia, Liberia, the list goes on and on – we do not have a global political conscience – we have not evolved to that extent.
20 Dean // Oct 20, 2008 at 10:51 am
About the first article by Andrew Walker and Nicholas Farrelly ·
These 2 writers seemed to have missed the point about the reason for PAD protests. If Andrew Walker & Nicholas Farrelly truly believe what they are saying, then they also would defend the leadership of Cuba, the leadership of Sadam Hussien in Iraq, as well as Mugabe in Zimbabwe…..all of these regimes were put in place by “democratic elections”.
These dictators were all elected. However the claims by PAD about proxies and nominees has even been admitted to by the ruling governments leadership. Does anyone honestly believe that a guy with less than 1year experience as an MP and who happens to be the brother in law of Thaksin is really in charge of the country and not the escaped fugitive?
Finally, the stupidity of the article written by Andrew Walker & Nicholas Farrelly is that they are attacking the PAD becuase of their clumsy solution for change to the system in Thailand. What they are not hearing is the reasons why this government should not be there. And there are many.
21 chris baker // Oct 20, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I like the sentiment behind Andrew and Nic’s little exercise, but the figures are not so optimistic. I did a simple exercise on the 2007 poll returns
At the 2001 and 2005 polls with all single-member constituencies, most victors won by a mile with only a very small number of close contests. Reverting to multi-member constituencies was expected to produce a fuzzier result, and indeed it did. A shift of 1 percent of voters to the top losing candidate(s) could have changed the result of 11 seats; a shift of 5 percent could have changed 60 seats; and a shift of 10 percent could have changed 104 seats.
But the impact of such shifts on the final party composition is not so decisive. If all the seats vulnerable to a 1 percent shift did change, the Democrats would make a net gain of 3 seats, 2 from the PPP and 1 from a minor party. At a 5 percent shift level, 32 PPP MPs would lose, but 23 PPP losers elsewhere would gain; while 18 Democrats would gain but 14 lose. The net effect would be a net loss of 9 seats for PPP, and a gain of 4 for the Democrats and 5 for other parties. At the 10 percent shift level, the net loss by the PPP rises to 20 seats, but the net gain for the Democrats is only 3, and the other 17 fall to the minor parties.
There is no reason to predict any regular and consistent ‘swing’ in Thai elections. This is just a statistical exercise. The result confirms that there are more close contests under the multi-member format, but there is no support for the proposition that the Democrats are close to an electoral breakthrough. While there are several seats which look within their grasp, there are almost as many others where they look vulnerable, particularly in parts of Bangkok and the east where they “took” the seat from PPP at the last poll.
22 Srithanonchai // Oct 21, 2008 at 3:47 pm
“The result confirms that there are more close contests under the multi-member format…” > I wonder how the situation would have looked like if there had been MMC in 2001, and especially in 2005, that is under rather different political conditions compared to the 2007 election.
23 More from a parliamentary cretin // Oct 22, 2008 at 9:25 am
[...] ongoing political crisis in Bangkok. I’m not sure if he had New Mandala in his sights, but the argument that opposition forces in Thailand should pursue an electoral rather than confrontational strategy [...]
24 Andrew Walker // Oct 22, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Chris, thanks for your comment. I agree that there is no reason to predict a regular or consistent “swing” in Thailand (or elsewhere). Statements about “swings” in any election are, of course, aggregations of all sorts of movements that are often quite regionally disparate. And I agree, it would be very over-optimistic to suggest that the Democrats are on the verge of a breakthrough. But the numbers do suggest that relatively small movements in voting patterns could make a big difference. An opposition strategy that combined efforts to achieve a national “swing” against the PPP with focussed campaigns in constitutencies that looked promising would make sense. It may not work – that is the nature of elections. And it may take time – here in Australia we had Howard for 12 years! But what is the alternative?
25 chris baker // Oct 23, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Andrew 24 “the numbers do suggest that relatively small movements in voting patterns could make a big difference.” Yes, I agree. I’m only pointing out that, if you look at the whole result systematically, then those “small movements” could change it in very varied ways.
In the Post this week, Korn claimed that the DP has done this kind of analysis and knows which regions/constituencies to target. Add that together with Abhisit’s consistent call for a house dissolution, it looks very positive.
But this week I heard a wonderfully Byzantine explanation of what is truly behind this. Plot goes like this: a. Parliament is dissolved; b. skeletons in the closet of three ECT members are revealed, resulting in dissolution of ECT; c. no election can now be held so a new (DP) government is formed answerable to the Senate.
Now I don’t give this rumor any more credence than the other however many heard last week. But, if it does come about…..
26 Srithanonchai // Oct 25, 2008 at 11:34 pm
“In the Post this week, Korn claimed that the DP has done this kind of analysis and knows which regions/constituencies to target.” > Wow – the Democrats have become this professional?
27 Thoughts on the by-elections // Jan 18, 2009 at 9:33 pm
[...] A few months ago, in the wake of the October 7 violence, we argued that the PAD had chosen “blood rather than ballots” in their campaign to overthrow the elected government. In defence of an electoral solution, [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.