Naruemon Thabchumpon
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
Article: Thailand in 2008: Democracy and street politics
Ockey J., Southeast Asian Affairs (Singapore) 2009 315-333
---***---***---
The lecture had two main parts; a more theoretical description of the political situation in Thailand, and practical examples of case studies involving civil society organizations (CSO).
The first part included a discussion of substantive versus procedural democracy. Procedural democracy is in effect the delegation of power to an elite (cf. average income of MPs with national average income) with intermittent opportunities for the rulers to be selected by election. Substantive or participatory democracy is where democratic decision-making occurs at all levels and individuals can substantively affect outcomes. Problems associated with these interpretations are not unique to Southeast Asia, they can also be found elsewhere, the EU, for example, suffers a serious democratic deficit. In Finland the statutory co-operation agreement negotiations (YT-neuvotellut) are negotiations in name only. A further example is the new Finnish University law – I was invited to a meeting with Finnish MPs from south-western Finland to discuss the topic, which was done very politely, the only problem being that after the meeting, and off-the-record, one MP admitted that all substantive parts of the law had already been decided since it was a prestige project of one of the parties of the Finnish coalition. Substantive democracy is problematic for the ruling group as it implies the removal of hierarchical structures and a loss of power. On a lighter note, I can say that I have problems with notions of participatory democracy in my family; my children often do not understand that in certain matters Daddy decides!
In the lecture, the claim was made that the procedural democracy definition adopted in ASEAN countries means that the populace has limited rights. A very nice distinction was presented of “rule of law” versus “rule by law”, and likewise the presentation of various competing discourses of democracy in Thailand was very good. The discourse of “good governance” to overrule democratic principles is one that I personally dislike. It is commonly used and belittles people; rulers imply that the populace is too dim-witted to understand complicated issues. Interestingly, one of the world’s more successful states, Switzerland, defines the people as the sovereign and through the right to call a referendum if sufficient numbers wish allows direct influence on decision-making at all political levels.
The lecture dealt with the situation in Thailand at two levels; the national political level, and from the point of view of a study of civil society organizations. At a national level the struggle between the Red and Yellow groups seems to be a power play between two elites with little interest in issues interesting the majority of the population. Based on Ockey’s article, it seems that PAD’s actions are merely old-fashioned 'ends justify the means' thinking. The Sondhi quote in Ockey; “… same objective which are to protect the country [nation], religion and monarchy [king]” (p 326) shows the common approach of finding an enemy, real or imagined, against which exceptional actions are required. Ockey concludes that “Thailand will become very difficult to govern” (p 331). I would say that this is because the ruling elite wish to rule for the people rather than with the people.
The part of the lecture dealing with CSOs presented nine case studies. Most involved major infrastructural projects, which regularly have problems (cf. Botnia’s Fray Bentos mill in Uruguay (now to be transferred to UPM) and debate over energy projects such as nuclear power plants). The problem is essentially a question of benefits and externalities; who benefits and who bears the externalities.
One question raised in the lecture is how CSOs should safeguard the interests of the groups they represent – within or without the current political system, i.e. evolution or revolution. The debate has been around for a long time; compare the ideas of Antonio Gramsci.
No comments:
Post a Comment