To make this statement clear, it is good to first explain authoritarianism as a political system (courtesy of Wikipedia).
In authoritarianism there is no sharing of power: the leader or leading group unites all powers in one hand. There is no separation of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), in accordance with the principle of the “Trias politica”. Thailand now knows this situation by introducing Article 44. With Article 44 in hand, Prayut controls the entire country.
Prayut's exercise of power is also not controlled, except by those in power themselves. The typical manifestations of democratic control (political pluralism with respect for opposition parties, a free press allowed to express opinions and analyzes contrary to those of the regime, respect for essential civil rights, including freedom of expression) are not tolerated.
The legitimation of authority and the policy choices made is authoritarian: the decision must be accepted because it comes from those in authority, and not because of a rational explanation. In this model there is even room for citizens to internally disagree with the aims of the authoritarian regime, as long as they conform in their actions to the will of the leadership (observe the law).
Although I myself support liberalism and am in favor of as much freedom as possible for the individual (as long as he does not restrict the freedom of others) and as little power as possible with the state, I do realize that what I consider a good political system is not so but suitable for every country.
Because there are also examples of countries where authoritarianism works well, such as Singapore (at least from an economic perspective). On Sunday, March 29, Lee Kuan Yew was buried, the man who made Singapore prosperous in thirty years in an authoritarian way. After the British colonization, Singapore has developed from a poor third world country to one of the most prosperous countries in the world. The Port of Singapore is one of the busiest ports in the world. Per capita income is comparable to that of Western countries.
Lee Kuan Yew ran his country like a business and did so in an admirable manner, according to many. The difference with Prayut, however, is that Lee became a lawyer after his economics study and not a soldier.
Thailand's democratic governments in recent years have failed to eradicate corruption and bring economic prosperity. Self-interest, mismanagement, populism and opportunism have plunged the country into a deep economic and financial trough. The treasury is empty and the economy is faltering.
Soft healers make stinking wounds so a hard and direct approach to the problems in Thailand is necessary. Maybe an authoritarian leader like Prayut isn't such a bad option after all?
Do you agree or disagree with this? Then respond to the statement of the week: Authoritarianism is good for Thailand!
How can you approve this, the man wants to jail for 5 years if you show half a chest, he has made a war zone of the beaches, the tuktuk and jetsky mafia continues as it always has been, now he still wants the bars close at 12 noon.
In principle, I think any form of government where equal opportunities and real freedom are in order for everyone.
I think the most cruel form of government is liberalism, it paints an image of freedom, but in fact that "freedom" is only for a select few.
Power is just as addictive as (much more addictive than) money.
Most people will never have enough of it.
Where Singapore was economically well organized, freedom for the population was limited.
The other example, however, is North Korea.
There also reigns absolute power and the population dies of hunger.
There have been more countries where absolute power has not been successful.
Almost nowhere has it been successful.
Not in Germany, not in Russia, not in China, not in Japan, and so on.
De Montesquieu talked about separation of powers, I myself see it more in 4en where the people judge the Judges, then the circle would be complete?
Hugo de Groot spoke about the law of war and peace (iure belli ac pacis) piece of international law.
A lot has been thought about it, but anyway the power of 1 person or group is "always the end of Freedom for the People."
It also always surprises me when these people say without batting an eyelid "It is for the happiness of our people", whether the average person in a country is not able to participate in decision-making!
AND EXPATS!Yes, in my opinion, outsiders are also allowed to say something. In a modern society, the World also belongs to it, there is no country that can afford to isolate itself without descending to Dictator level,
Time will tell but democracy is getting more and more fragile at the moment in the World
As long as the Thais themselves do not want to and there is still so much corruption, nothing will change.
My autonomous reflex, like that of the Western democracies (US, Europe), is basically to disapprove. Yet you do not really see those Western democracies insisting on imposing (heavy) sanctions here. Why? Probably because they see that there does not really seem to be a ruthless dictatorship and the alternative: parliamentary democracy mainly seemed to paralyze this country.
A parliamentary democracy mainly works in civilized countries with some degree of income equality, good social services with little or no corruption. These preconditions are missing here, so the (immensely) rich and/or corrupt litigate all their poor political opponents with their fancy lawyers on the basis of often, let's say, dubious legislation. And at the end of the day they just have their way / power. Why democracy?
I live and work in Thailand and have really not encountered anyone who has complained about the situation that has arisen. That's not to say that those people aren't there, but still. On the contrary, most find the army very hot and sexy and like to show that they support it.
In this country, the discussions are not about a personal budget, free choice of doctor and other such luxury matters. This is about an elderly person receiving an AOW of 500 THB (13 euros) per month. While civil servants live in big houses, drive big cars, etc. Guess how is that possible?
I too believe that the corruption that is deep in the genes of most of the inhabitants of this country (according to surveys 75% of the population approves) is the root of all evil. No parliament or dictatorship can compete with that. As long as the army creates order and structure and takes some grabs to graze, people here have long been satisfied with that, under the given circumstances.
The solution? Who knows may say……..
Well, I don't live and work in Thailand but am there regularly and I've heard plenty of complaints and criticism from the ordinary Thai. It just depends on who you deal with and apart from the fact that it can be very risky for the Thai citizen to express criticism, he / she will of course not do so spontaneously during a first contact, certainly not with a farang. Democracy has a different content and meaning in every country, but trying to silence any form of criticism on pain of a possible long stay in a dilapidated prison, never seems to me to be the will of the people. In my view, authoritarian leadership as a form of government is definitely NOT a solution. North Korea has already been mentioned in this context, but not so long ago Pol Pot led a reign of terror in Cambodia and Myanmar (Burma) has only recently become more democratic. How many countries in Africa do not have “leaders”, who for years held absolute power and enriched themselves at the expense of the “beloved” people. Now I don't want to make a comparison with the current ruler in Thailand, but every government must be accountable to / be controlled by an elected parliament. Incidentally, today I read on this blog that Thailand is seeking rapprochement with Russia, which has a leader who also does not like criticism and does not take the concept of “human rights” very seriously. Sounds like a dangerous development to me!
Regularly come across Thai who do criticize, they just won't do it in public, understandable because before you know it you go behind closed bars for years while you only say you have a different opinion than the ruler(s).
Yes, that is Thailand too…
You can never give your true answer if you lived in Thailand.
Doesn't seem sensible to me (dangerous)
Political systems come and go. That is what history teaches. Even though I am of the opinion that Western parliamentary democracy is not a real democracy, history shows that parliamentary democracy enjoys broad support. I doubt that a parliamentary democracy is a weak system. In Europe, parliamentary democracy has developed in a relatively positive way after World War II. It has brought peace, stability, economic growth and freedom. The current economic crisis does not change that. On the contrary. People have become aware of the excesses so that they can be dealt with. No one knows whether democracy will last for years to come. But of all the political systems in the world, a democracy offers the most guarantees for prosperity, well-being and freedom. This trinity is the basis of a happy person.
In my opinion, an authoritarian system is always doomed to failure. An authoritarian regime sooner or later leads to suppression of freedoms and fear among the population. Sooner or later a people will revolt against it, not willingly, then maliciously. Just look at the Arab countries. The sad thing is that in one country the population is being heard and the beginnings of a democracy are developing, while in another (strictly authoritarian) country a destructive civil war is ignited.
With the current political situation, Thailand seems to be sliding from a developing fledgling democracy to an authoritarian system as it existed before 1932. Prayut is the (military) man who mainly controls this. The fact that the political parties have been at odds with each other for years does not change that. No nation is capable of establishing democracy in a day. The Netherlands has also been doing this for a long time. Or have we forgotten that the Netherlands was far from democratic before WWII? That former Queen Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948 precisely because she had to relinquish most of her authoritarian power?
The Thai king also had to give up his authoritarian power in 1932. The Thai king is now no more than a symbol. He no longer has any power. But where in Europe power shifted from ruler to people, in Thailand it has evolved from a fledgling democracy to the current authoritarian power of Prayut.
Yesterday I responded to the news of Wednesday 8 April regarding Article 44. I would like to refer to that. https://www.thailandblog.nl/nieuws-uit-thailand/8-april-2015/
It may sound rather harsh and pragmatic, but I think the statement deserves some credit.
What has parliamentary democracy led to in Thailand? More political problems than anything else. My personal feeling about the current Prime Minister is that he has good intentions and also that he does not really want to hear of much opposition. But he is battling problems that have been going on for years. It is a pity that some countries have turned their backs on him and consequently chased him straight into the arms of politicians where some might prefer not to see him - Russia and China.
I hope that this Prime Minister:
1. eradicates corruption (shouting corrupt officials at the slightest corruption)
2. ensures that the economy will do better
3. and consequently, ensures that the population gets better
Singapore was authoritarianly led from a third world country to the top of the world in just 1 generation by its recently buried Prime Minister. If Singapore can do that, then Thailand can do it and any country can do it. This requires a strong leader and, to the regret of those who envy it, that is not really compatible with some freedoms as we know them here in Europe.
I hope to emigrate to Thailand within a few years, and I wonder what has changed after almost a year. What is life like now in Thailand for locals and farangs?
Bruno, you ask a concrete question, I live permanently in Thailand, since the coup I have not seen much change in Thailand.
Various excise duties have been increased, there are reports of corrupt figures being arrested and tried, sometimes I think this is also part of the political power game.
I know that there is still corruption, on several levels, otherwise not much to notice from the coup, mind you as a person living in Thailand, of course I read and hear about things that take place nationwide, whether that makes me happy or not, whether I agree or not, I read and hear it, talk about it with others, also Thai, but that's it, it's up to the Thai people to bring about the changes they deem necessary, in short as a person living in Thailand I myself have not experienced any noticeable changes as I had been in Thailand for many years before moving to Thailand.
Stay far away from political activity and you can still go here just like 15 years ago, I am not considering leaving Thailand at all.
That is separate from the crash of the Euro, which is a completely different story, but not relevant here.
Wish you success with your emigration to Thailand.
Nico B
Singapore and Thailand cannot be compared. The Singaporean political culture (since the city-state was created) is completely different. Many political terms (authoritarian rule, democracy, etc.) lead to confusion because they can be conceptualized in different ways.
Some fundamental differences between Singapore and Thailand are:
1. Bureaucratic tradition. Asian states with a Confucian tradition often have a strong bureaucracy. The selection procedure is meritocratic. So in Singapore and in top positions in China you have to be good at what you do. In Thailand, connections are often more important.
2. Press the kettle. Singapore has experienced unprecedented pressure to develop itself as a successful independent state. Thailand has never experienced such international pressure. The result is more muddling through.
3. Openness. Singapore has thrown up its doors and the emphasis is still on importing high-quality knowledge. Singaporean students are taught in English. Thailand is significantly less open and more focused on preserving its own tradition. Thailand is therefore less accessible and international. However, signs of change are visible.
Thailand and Singapore both have mildly autocratic governments. Stability is important for the development of the Thai economy. However, I think it is important for Thailand to make the bureaucracy more professional. The gradual eradication of corruption is part of this. This requires a culture change that could take at least 20 years. Russia is also a good example of a state where the crippling effects of corruption have been complained about for over a hundred years and where corruption remains particularly extreme. This is because corruption has become the system. An independent press is indispensable for eradicating corruption.
The structure in a country can be such that you have to choose the best from less good solutions.
In a country like Thailand where the relations between the rich elite and the larger poor majority are so far apart, and in addition a large part of the population does not understand what real democracy means, as we know it, there will also be in the future a free election, the problems already visible.
In my opinion, the most important things that must be done in the coming years are, among other things, the fight against corruption, the strict monitoring of the existing laws, a better quality education, and a well-controlled wage development that is humane, and familiarizing the population with the standards of a real democracy, which, of course, should be given priority as soon as possible, if possible.
I am not normally in favor of an autonomous government, but a Thai form of democracy that is accompanied by constant unrest, and corruption is not a solution either.
Authoritarianism is necessary to eradicate corruption because democracy is too weak to satisfy this necessity
to end well.
Isn't that like casting out the devil with Beelzebub?
Assuming Prayut has good intentions, I think a period of totalitarian rule would be the shortest way to fundamentally change things for the better in Thailand.
However… Prayut doesn't have the executives for such a switch. Police, army, national and local governments are rotten to the bone and unable through inability and will to carry out the necessary measures… it would be cutting themselves and their positions are often not acquired on the basis of their skills . The Elliot Ness-like figures that Prayut needs are simply not there in Thailand and so he does not get further than some unimportant decrees, which are also short-lived, as it turns out again and again.
.
To assume that a soldier who, by the power of arms, deprives a democratically elected government and parliament of all political power and pushes it aside to then take all power to himself, has good intentions is (forgive me this term) the devil requests. Anyone who has any sense of history knows that sooner or later Prayut will stumble, leaving behind even more misery.
No democracy has come to what it is without trial and error. It takes time to arrive at a good democratic structure. With the power he already had, it would have been wiser to use his influence to bring the parties together in Thailand. By putting politics aside and taking all power himself, Prayut has entered troubled waters. To consolidate his power, Prayut will increasingly curtail freedom of speech until no one is left for fear of expressing his opinion. Examples abound.
The former army chief saw this well when he publicly apologized after the previous coup and indicated that a coup would not solve Thailand's problems. What Thailand needs is a government of national unity that can implement reforms that are supported by the people and politicians and can therefore count on broad support. Prayut took that chance from Thailand with his coup.
To begin with, Singapore seems to me a horrible country without any freedom and Thailand, despite the feudal aspect, seemed reasonably manageable. Gradually, however, I find out that Thailand is even more plurocratic than I thought and has always been quasi-democratic
Thaksin only wanted to bring his own clique to power by giving the poor North “bread and circuses” and getting the corrupt police on his side. But he had not counted on the powerful army that does not allow this and wants the country to go back 100 years in governance, as Khun Peter clearly sees.
Only this dictator is also about the power of money and therefore it is to be hoped that somehow enough democratic forces can develop to put an end to this authoritarianism, but so what. And I haven't even mentioned the corruption. I feel sad for my beloved "Free Thailand".
Moderator: The statement is about Thailand, not about the Netherlands.
Countries like Thailand cannot function properly according to the democratic model that we have. Thaksin was a manly putter and successfully ruled with a heavy hand, and now Prayut because this was desperately needed, otherwise things would finally get out of hand. Thailand was on the verge of civil war and luckily Prayut and his men came at the right time to urgently put things in order, which he succeeded in doing. It is quiet and the economy is running like never before with a strong baht. Only grades and results count, and the grade for Prayut is a solid 8.