Cor : Thailand: Here we go again..
The coup immediately used Thai TV stations to air patriotic songs and images of the current Thai King, who it is believed will have given tacit consent to the coup. Having just returned from Thailand, during the festivities for the King's anniversary it became very clear the importance he holds for Thai people. He is revered not because of the office he holds, but also for his dedication in bringing Thailand toward prosperity and helping the poorest. He is generally seen as the architect of all that is good in modern Thailand. Such is the patriotism toward him that enforced television broadcasts (stopping England’s world cup game being shown) was met with people standing up in adoration of a man they love; and would die for.
The Thailand coup exposes one of the failings of modern democracy – the time lag between being able to remove people from office. Thaksin’s corruption came through his own greed and often at the expense of the public good, yet it took a military coup to remove him. Democracy here has failed, due to its lack of responsiveness to public opinion regarding Thaksin.
This coup ought to be supported, if it promises to deliver the civilian elected government within two weeks as has been promised by army commanders. However, to what extent can we see Thailand’s democracy strengthening if the royal loyalist military, alongside the King can remove governments at a whim?
The removal of Thaksin will benefit Thailand. Now, Thailand must ask: who really is in charge? Until that is the sovereign people through the ballot box, then Thailand’s democracy will never strengthen.
Discussion and Debate on Westminster, British Politics, Economics and
Current Affairs
3 Comments:
"Democracy here has failed, due to its lack of responsiveness to public opinion regarding Thaksin."
Democracy did respond to public opinion, they boycotted the last elections, helping Thatskin solidify his position. Why did they do this? Because Thaksin has huge support in rural regions, the opposition wouldn't have won anyway.
Has democracy failed to respond to public opinion or has the public opinion of the minority overthrown a leader popular in, at the very least, rural areas?
All the major opposition parties also boycotted the last elections, which meant the public had little choice but to not bother voting as it was Thaksin, or Thaksin. Also, the rural areas are often unaware of most political developments within Thailand (as I found out) - due to less media savvy people who were living on the notion of his old healthcare etc policies.
In alot of the southern regions, Thaksin was unable to even get the 20% required voting - and these *are* more rural regions. The rural support has been dwindling, particularly following populist (but no action) policies. Although my evidence for this is based from personal accounts, so I can't validate that claim. Particularly important is the tacit consent the coup has from the King, who, commands a far greater respect than the Prime Minister in Thailand, particularly rural areas. I would argue that this tactit support may swing even more people against Thaksin within rural areas.
So, no, I don't agree that a miniority has overthrown a leader.
I thought that the people see the Thai government as stewards; they're just taking care of business because the king's too busy. Whatever major political developments occur, coups and elections and despositions (?), the king is the universal constant - and his combination of sanity and absolute power has kept Thailand safe from corruption, dictatorships, and the other detritus of US-brand democracy.
It's not so much a failure of democracy - although its relative lack of power to overthrow corrupt governments is just that - as much as that Thailand has never really had a proper democratic system. They're just lucky to have a benevolent dictator heading it all up...
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home