Quick Links
The Great Divide: Idealism vs. Politics in Thai society By The Minister of Foreign Affairs Kasit Piromya
Thailand's current political landscape is deeply divided, with many questions being raised about ideals, what is right and wrong, and one's responsibilities to society. The confusion stems from the efforts of various factions in the political debate to shape public awareness of issues in ways conducive to achieving their own objectives. To help clear up the confusion, the current political divisions can be succinctly delineated and summarised as follows:
1. Democratic constitutional monarchy vs. Republicanism
Ever since the transition from absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has been a parliamentary liberal democracy under a constitutional monarchy: A system with independent executive, legislative and judicial branches, and with His Majesty the King as head of state, who is above politics and is non-partisan. Because of the work that His Majesty has tirelessly done for the public good, and the exemplary role model he sets, he also serves as a unifying father figure for the general populace and the nation as a whole. This status and moral authority has served Thailand well through various crises and upheavals that the nation has faced. In contrast, a republic would not have a constitutional monarch, depriving the nation of this important, non-partisan unifying force. There are also questions whether an appointed or elected head of state would have the qualities of leadership and moral authority expected by the public, while also not being susceptible to the influences and even domination of the Head of Government.
2. Liberal democracy vs. Illiberal democracy
Liberal democracy gives importance to individual rights and the majority, but not at the expense of the minority. It encourages public awareness and participation in the political process. In contrast, illiberal democracy has all the appearances of the democratic process, but not its spirit. This condition has occurred in the recent past, when the majority party in Parliament succeeded in subverting the other parties to its will, creating a virtual parliamentary dictatorship in which it is able to run the country with impunity and without concerns for its obligation to the public.
3. Multi-party system vs. Single-party system
A multi-party political system gives the public choices. Parties must distinguish themselves by their ideals and policies, and when in power they are responsible to the public to implement these policies on pain of losing public support. A single-party system, by contrast, while seemingly promising stability, would discourage minority or dissenting views and encourage its leader to do as he or she pleases with impunity.
4. Meritocracy vs. Cronyism
Advancements for civil servants and government employees should be merit based, to ensure fairness and competence. In contrast, if such advancements are based on cronyism, as was often the case during the Thaksin administration, in which classmates and relatives of the prime minister advanced rapidly over others, the system breaks down, with people currying favours in order to advance. The result was favouritism being rewarded over merit and competence, and the way being opened for formation of power cliques, conflicts of interests and benefits to a few at the detriment of the many.
5. Issues-based politics vs. Money-based politics
A good political system should be based on issues and policies, with political parties representing certain ideals, issues and positions and seeking to implement them on the public's behalf. If money is instead the dominant criteria in securing political office, as has been done by some parties in Thailand, the result will be that these parties will tend to use short-term populist policies to garner votes, and when in power would need to "recoup" their investments while also being susceptible to the influences of their financial supporters, raising the potential for conflicts of interests and corruption while in office.
6. Social welfare state vs. Populist state
A welfare state is one in which the government implements well-planned, long-term policies to help take care of the basic needs of its people, i.e. education, healthcare, housing, pensions, unemployment benefits, etc. It provides a security blanket for the public, to encourage and support people to lead sustainable, fruitful and productive lives. This is in contrast to a populist state, in which the benefits and services offered by the government are intended only to drum up immediate political support, while the lack of proper long-term planning for such policies will lead to a detrimental financial burden upon the country in the future.
7. Politics is everyone's business vs. Politics is none of my business
Thailand's democracy has developed to the point at which the public must understand that politics is everyone's responsibility, and participation or non-participation both have consequences for the nation. It is the responsibility of members of the public to keep abreast of the issues, monitor the performances of the government, politicians, civil servants, media, academics and other interest groups, and make their voices and view heard. A vocal and responsible public is the surest deterrence against injustice and abuse of power. In contrast, if politics is seen by the public as "none of my business", eventually injustice and corruption will run rampant and Thailand and the Thai public will suffer the consequences.
8. Egalitarian society vs. Class-based (rich and poor) society
Thai society, which has developed through the ages, has many egalitarian characteristics, foremost being the potential for anyone, regardless of status, having the capacity to advance and prosper in society based on their own merits and entrepreneurial abilities. The history of Thai society is full of such people and families who exemplify these qualities. Yet there currently are sustained efforts underway to distort reality by claiming that Thailand is a class-based society, with clear separations between the upper and lower classes, between the rich and poor. This has incited divisions in Thai society and hatred between Thais, which are being used by certain persons to further their political ambitions.
9. Politics for the benefit of all vs. Politics for the benefit of one
A good political system is one in which politicians work for the public good, not personal benefit. It requires a high level of self-sacrifice. This is why countries with strong democratic traditions have constitutions with clauses stipulating that holders of political office divorce themselves from their personal businesses to prevent potential conflicts of interests.
In contrast, what we have seen in Thailand in the past are two types of politicians. One type leads a moderate life with no businesses or self-serving interests, while the other type seeks to avoid the law and conceal assets by transferring them to close relatives, along with refusing to clearly separate affairs of state from one's own business affairs. The latter has cost Thailand dearly and now is contributing to the deep divisions in Thai society.
Currently, Thailand has a head of government who strongly believes in the parliamentary system with the King as the head of state, who has no conflicts of interests and has the utmost faith in the ideals of liberal democracy, meritocracy, good governance, egalitarianism and social welfare for the population. These are all commendable qualities. What the general public now needs to consider is the overall benefit and well-being of the nation as a whole. One must no longer stand idly on the sidelines, but instead do what is morally right and stand up to what is wrong - namely the attempts by the opposing side to distort and undermine the core issues at hand, as outlined above, in order to regain power and influence.
Such an occurrence would only place power in the hands of those who believe in republicanism for Thailand, illiberal democracy, a single-party system, cronyism and money-based politics, while using populist policies to buy the soul of the general population. The result will be a nation in which the public is discouraged from actively participating in politics, but is instead told to place power in the hands of those who want to run the country and enrich themselves as they please. The result will be a nation in which the public is told that it is normal to be poor while others are very rich, In contrast, although we Thais do have our faults, we also have our strengths, our dignity, our self-reliance, our hearts and our minds, making us fully capable of working together to build a truly great and sustainable egalitarian society.
So, the only questions that we, the general public, should be asking ourselves now are these: Should we support and protect a leader who is committed to doing what is right for the public good and Thai society, without any expectation of power for personal gain? Or should we turn back the clock, and go back to a leader who has repeatedly insulted the intelligence and morality of the general public by lying, deceiving and breaking the law to achieve and maintain power for his own personal gain and enrichment? The answer, along with the future of Thailand, is now in your hands.
Source: The Nation
www.nationmultimedia.com
Please click here....Chinese Version
Bahasa melau Vesion
