Unfree elections in Thailand
Discussions about the current political situation in Thailand often revolve around the role of free elections as an expression of the will of the people.
The discussion has intensified not only among expats, but also among the Thai population as the national elections of February 2 were boycotted by the largest opposition party, opposed (and in some cases made impossible) by the PDRC and now also invalid by the Constitutional Court declared. The latter is not unique, as the April 2006 elections were also annulled.
I focus here on the democratic and quasi-democratic processes associated with national elections. I can now tell you the conclusion:
- There is more unfreedom than freedom in free elections in Thailand.
- That the elections express the will of the people in terms of their desired governance of this country is highly questionable.
The processes I outline here are not my own, but are the conclusions of many studies done over the past 10 to 15 years on the political situation in Thailand, both by Thai (journalists and academics) and by foreign journalists working in various forums and on their own websites and publish logs.
Process 1
The vast majority of parliamentarians are not elected for competence or political ideas, but for popularity.
375 seats in the Thai parliament are occupied by people elected from their own constituency. Although this fact suggests that there is a strong link between the ideas of the parliamentarian and his immediate supporters, the practice is that the most popular politician wins the elections in his/her district.
This popularity is personal, as well as family or clan related, and has little or nothing to do with the political ideology of the candidate, not even with the party he/she represents.
For example, it repeatedly happens that if a father leaves politics (regardless of the political party he stood for), mother, daughter, son or a member of the in-laws easily wins the next election. Before the 2006 national elections, Thaksin offered (locally) popular politicians a lot of money to switch to his party. And so he won the election by force majeure.
Process 2
More and more money is needed to build popularity and local networks. Politics in Thailand is primarily money business.
Increasingly more money is needed to become popular in your own constituency. After all, it is about maintaining a local network and applying patronage. This should actually happen all the time because more and more politicians are being watched who only do this when the elections are coming up.
In that case, this is referred to as buying votes (directly or indirectly). And if that is proven, the candidate will of course have a problem and will receive a yellow or a red card. In addition to paying for the drinks and food at every neighborhood party with great regularity, giving (relatively a lot of) money to neighbors who get married or have a child and substantial donations to the local temple is another strategy to get through parliament and your connections. arrange money or facilities for your own constituency at ministries.
For example, in some constituencies that were flooded in 2011, residents received 20.000 baht per flooded house, and in other constituencies with exactly the same problems, 5.000 baht. In my own neighborhood (which was partly flooded), the residents had to wait more than 1 year longer for their money. People with an illegal building received money in one constituency, but not in another. The difference was the political party of the elected member of parliament.
This 'money and patronage based political system' makes it difficult for newcomers to enter the political arena. Without money (or a sponsor who expects reciprocal favors of course) a victory of a newcomer (with whatever wonderful ideas) is practically impossible.
The growing middle class (not only in Bangkok but also in Udon Thani, Khon Kaen, Chiang Mai, Phuket and other cities) feels barely represented in the current parliament and has little chance of changing that.
Process 3
Political parties are not based on political ideas (such as liberalism, social democracy, Buddhism or conservatism) but have been and are controlled by business empires.
From the beginning of parliamentary history, political parties have been set up and financed by wealthy Thai entrepreneurs. Sometimes the founders quarreled with each other, a split followed and a new political party saw the light of day.
The opposite is now more common. Because winning the elections costs so much money, there are more mergers between parties. Small parties merge into a larger party simply because there is more money available, and re-election is more likely.
It is striking that in Thailand a political party has barely existed for 10 years. And then I'm not talking about the dissolution of a political party by the court. Given the waning popularity of the PT, Thaksin (according to the Bangkok Post) with the idea of running in the recent bipartisan elections. Later, these two parties would merge in parliament and hopefully win an absolute majority.
Politicians also often switch political parties. The reason is to be assured of a seat in parliament for the next 4 years. Research shows that such switching behavior is hardly punished by voters.
No one (including me) will deny that Thaksin has given the poorer population groups a voice, more self-confidence and more self-esteem with his political party(ies). In his first term of office, he could therefore count on a lot of support, and not only from the population in the North and Northeast.
Many of my Thai friends in Bangkok voted for Thaksin in 2001. That love cooled when it became more and more apparent that Thaksin mainly took care of himself and his clan, showed arrogance towards the Muslim minority in the South, the Thai people who had not voted for him and everyone who criticized him.
What initially seemed to be an emancipation of the poorer sections of the population has turned into using their numbers (only during elections and protests) and appeasing them with populist measures that have both advantages and disadvantages (more income but also more debt; more money for the cultivated rice, more debt for the Thai government).
Process 4
There is a close entanglement (often family ties) between politicians and top officials.
In the now dissolved parliament, 71 of the 500 members are related to each other and that does not apply to one party specifically, but to all parties. I can't believe that political competence is anchored in DNA and passed on through blood relationship. Everything indicates that a relatively small number of families (sometimes warring factions) are fighting for power in this country.
It gets even worse if you look not only at the members of parliament, but also at regionally and locally important administrators and top officials. The (still incumbent, democratic) governor of Bangkok, Sukhumbhand, is a first cousin of the Queen.
The now-incarcerated Pattaya mafia boss Kamnan Poh has three sons, one of whom is a minister in Yingluck's cabinet, the second governor of Chonburi and the third mayor of Pattaya. Two of these sons each own a football club, Pattaya United and Chonburi. What do you think? Are all kinds of government regulations and procedures easier or not if one or both football clubs need new facilities or foreign players?
The promotion structure within the army has already been analyzed in many places. People who used to be in the same class play the ball and the lucrative jobs at each other (and their families) for years, or transfer you to an inactive position if they don't like you. Is quality considered? Perhaps the quality of listening to the most powerful in the group and keeping your mouth shut.
Process 5
There is hardly any internal democracy in a political party.
There is also hardly any democratic decision-making within a political party. A small group of leaders call the shots. This is the case in almost all parties. There are no local branches of the Democratic Party or Pheu Thai; there is no political, public discussion about reforms in agriculture, education, defence, corruption, road safety or tourism. There are no national congresses where the party program for the elections is determined. There is no party leader debate on TV just before the elections.
Who here is pretending that the voters are too stupid to judge? The political program of the largest party, the Pheu Thai, reads like the Communist Manifesto without any concrete point of policy. It is more vague and elusive than the program of the Libertarian Party in the Netherlands.
It is symptomatic that in 2014 many political parties talk about reforms, but that no party has a single concrete idea on paper. Apparently people are only now starting to think about this. And one must be helped by the business community and the academic world.
Postscript
I am a Democrat at heart. And that is precisely why it hurts me that politicians in Thailand are so throwing away real democracy. They are not really interested in the opinion of the people and in solving the real problems in this country. They are interested in the continuation of their power. They need 'free' elections for their mandate, which they constantly abuse. It just has to be said.
Submitted communication
Looking for a nice gift for a birthday or just because? Buy The Best of Thailand Blog. A booklet of 118 pages with fascinating stories and stimulating columns from eighteen bloggers, a spicy quiz, useful tips for tourists and photos. Order now
Good piece and educational.
What about democracy in Thailand?
Fernand Auwera, a Flemish writer, once put it nicely: Democracy is something that politicians talk about like a woman of easy morals talks about love.
Indeed Chris, although I wouldn't say that Perlentarid are chosen based on popularity but based on a paternalistic society that still prevails outside the geote cities with a strong middle class. Traditionally, political parties are provincial or regional power groups where the Patron determines who can be elected. Thaksin was and is a master of this system of patronage and managed to bundle the provincial power groups into a national power group. Suthep is also a result of this system, but was unable to manipulate it beyond a few southern provinces.
Good examples of still existing parties at the provincial level are the Phalang Chon Party of the Khunpluem family in Chonburi and the Chartpattana party of Banharn Silapa-Archa.
Chris,
I think your description of the nature of the current political parties is correct, there is much wrong with it and much needs to be improved. But I do not agree with you that 'there is more lack of freedom than freedom in free elections'. The Thai people have become empowered, they deliberately and consciously choose a candidate from a party that appeals to them the most; and that this happens mainly on the basis of populist programs should not come as a surprise. The elections therefore do express the will of the people, which does not alter the fact that much can and must be improved.
A few critical notes. There have indeed been (and still are) parties that are based on political ideas. The Democrats have a typically conservative ideology, there was once a Communist Party, banned since 1976, a Socialist Party that collapsed when its founder and Secretary General Boonsanong Punyodyana was assassinated in February 1976. Between 1949 and 1952, six parliamentarians from Isaan with socialist ideas were murdered. The Phalang Darma ('Power of the Dharma'), the party of Chamlong Srimuang, was a party based on Buddhist ideas of which Thaksin was a member for some time in the late XNUMXs.
Why are those parties so weak in terms of organization? I attribute this to the frequent intervention of the military (18 coups since 1932, the Thais call a coup rátprahǎan, literally 'murdering the state') and the courts in the political process. The current political problems have their origins in the military coup of 2006. How can a political party develop if it is sidelined every five years? Politics must be reformed, that is true, and with outside help, but that cannot be done by completely halting the political process.
This also means that whatever you think about the structure of the parties, elections are the only solution to the current conflicts. The Thais want their voices to be heard. If that does not happen, then I predict major problems that will dwarf the existing problems of the parties you have outlined.
In that case I will cast a preference vote for Chris de Boer.
A very good story!!
Democracy is give and take, the majority determines a lot, but takes the minorities into account. (if it went well)
As if we have the wisdom here in the West:
EN: Vote for me A, and you will keep B out of the tower. And then call each other on election night to continue together. 15 seats in a borderline government with 76 seats = 1 glass of wine + 4 glasses of water.
D: 5% of the voters fail to draw = exit through the escape hatch. Still 7 seats in NL.
B: so many parties that the compromise is no longer even putting water in the wine, but water with a wine scent.
UK: the winner takes it all. With 17% of the vote, it is therefore theoretically possible to form an absolute government in a 3-party constituency country
USA: good for the country? My ash, because it comes from that other party.
Well written hit the nail on the head, but democracy also needs its time with us it also took a long time
“The vast majority of parliamentarians are not elected for competence or political ideas, but for popularity.” is De Boer's first statement, with which he wants to outline the lack of freedom and the lack of representativeness of elections in Thailand. Is that so different from us? I have the strong impression that in our holy western democracies we are constantly bombarded with popularity polls and never with (preferably weekly) measurements of the competence of politicians (and parties). There is nothing wrong with popularity, it represents the necessary bond between voter and elected. It is the essence of democratic elections that politicians present their ideas and competence in such a way that they acquire the vox populi, in other words: become popular. Only then can he practice his or her politics as what they are supposed to be: the art of the feasible in a complex field of conflicting interests.
However, there is an essential difference that you are overlooking in my opinion: how is the popularity obtained?
Look and that's where my sore point lies. This is not (yet) "bought" in the Netherlands, but in Thailand you start absolutely nothing without "purchases"
Indeed, popularity is a necessary bond between voter and elected representative, but how this is/is obtained is, in my opinion, a huge difference between the, as you put it, “holy Western democracies” and the Thai “democracy”.
De Boer's first statement is primarily about 'popularity' in general (the second more about money), but, admittedly, also (inevitably) makes the connection with financial resources. However, it is wrong to assume that this relationship does not exist in our sacred Western democracies. Take the largest Western democracy, that of the USA. In primaries for the presidency (there are still a considerable number of candidates in the race), the previews usually accurately analyze which candidates have good chances based on ... the financial budgets they have to finance their campaign. Numerous financial relationships and interests are also decisive for the candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives.
I want to respond briefly to this.
The Mr. Chris deBoer.
Also knows and sees how things actually work in Thai politics.
And he is certainly not the only one.
It no longer has anything to do with politics as we Westerners know it.
But only with friends clan and who has the most money and prestige politics.
The ordinary voter here is not much, after all they are all low-educated blockheads..
Jan Beute.
Dear Chris
A great political story with good substantiation.
Government parties are indeed born out of corruption in the way you describe.
Fortunately, Tino also largely agreed with your story. Unlike Tino, I think that some coups have also stopped corruption, which has benefited the country. (also many coups were bad)
Fortunately, Hans often jokes and usually means the opposite.
I have experienced your story as a good lecture.
If there are 375 seats to be allocated, then there are also 375 electoral districts in the elections?
a good greeting from Danny
Cris is a good writer, I take my hat off to him. But this sentence in the topic is the truth.
Can we, as outsiders, change something about that…………….no, as many others have already written here before me, this is indeed only a Thai task.
Nice and clear story, change takes time, the Thai is on the right track
Best regards
paul