Protests update

[fountainhall]

Look around Asia, where are these Democracies? Are there really any?

Take the Philippines as an example as it is a "democracy." I remember very well, all of Marcos' snap elections in the Philippines because I was there

I have beaten this drum before and been beaten down. But it does not change my view after 35 years living in the region.

Some answers have been given re democracies in Asia. I was also frequently in the Philppines in the years before Marcos was toppled and saw many of the evils of that dictatorship. I have also witnessed the continuing massive corruption of the political process and the continuing control by a handful of mega-rich powerful families. To say the Philippines is a funtioning democracy in which the mass of the people really understand the meaning of democracy is a rather sad joke.

Deomocracy never existed in Japan - nor in almost any other Asian countries - until the full influence of western powers was brought to bear, usually through force. Japanese democracy is an American bred fiction. I have lived there and seen it at first hand. The same is largely true of South Korea which during the Cold War America needed as a balance to North Korea, although major internal protests against the military governments and not incidentally the awarding of the Olympic Games in 1988 helped in its birth. Certainly on the face of it democracy functions more effectively, but in the present government run by the daughter of the assassinated dictator Park, it is regressing, the media is muzzled and certain powerful families are regaining their power.

Of Thailand's near neighbors, the democratic fiction does not even come close in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. In Malaysia and Singapore, the so-called democratic process was skewed from day 1. True, each citizen has a vote, but it is far from an equal vote. For that reason, only one party has ruled Malaysia since Independence and similarly only one party in Singapore. Indeed for years Singapore harassed it's single Opposition MP with lawsuits, making him bankrupt and outright lies (as later proven by the Supreme Court) all but sending him to an early grave. Malaysia is now embroiled in a monster corruption scandal involving state assets made public, only because the local media is muzzled, by the Washington Post. The total amount so far is US3.8 billion and rising. The Prime Minister and his son are directly involved and new laws have been enacted to ensure there can be no anti-government protests. Singapore banks have been caught up in the mess with several censured and two being forced to close.

Many Singaporeans are now unhappy at how little their vote counts for and are upset at the many government initiatives, including massive immigration that has doubled the size of the population in a couple of decades - in which they had zero say. But because their votes count for precious little in what is effectively a nanny state, there is little movement for change - a lot of talk, but no action.

The one beacon in the region is, rather ironically, Taiwan. A Cold War puppet of the USA and a military dictatorship until around 1990, it has embraced democracy and at the same time put in place the institutions needed to ensure that democracy functions pretty well. For I believe, as most do, that you simply cannot have one without the other, for that way chaos, power grabbing and more corruption of the system lie. Thailand's population had the vote, but effective systems to ensure a functioning democracy actually worked have never been put in place.

[Up2U]

Then nothing will change and only continue to get worse.

Well, that is what many fear and have been saying, hopefully they are wrong.

[Oliver]

Some people trust their betters- generals, princes and priests- to run their lives. I don't. And nor do most Thais, as elections have repeatedly shown. It's not as if generals, princes and priests across the world provide benign governance; they inevitably resort to vicious sectarianism, racism or old-fashioned repression to remain in power. And that's what it's all about - remaining in power to continue to enjoy the fruits of the labours of the working man.
Before the days of mass communication (and now the internet in particular) the poor could be sold the lies that " 'twas ever thus" or "ti's what God intended". Those days are gone.

[Up2U]

.... Before the days of mass communication (and now the internet in particular) the poor could be sold the lies.....

That's why controlling the the media is essential....
http://prachatai.org/english/node/6668

[fountainhall]

Some people trust their betters- generals, princes and priests- to run their lives. I don't. And nor do most Thais, as elections have repeatedly shown. It's not as if generals, princes and priests across the world provide benign governance; they inevitably resort to vicious sectarianism, racism or old-fashioned repression to remain in power. And that's what it's all about - remaining in power to continue to enjoy the fruits of the labours of the working man.

So you will accept that the rulers of Malaysia and Singapore are akin to dictators and tyrants since, despite one-man-one-vote, the systems are rigged to ensure the ruling parties stay in power. What is the difference from generals, princes and priests?

But I suggest that the problem with your principle is that in every discussion on democracy you find will be agreement on several essential requirements apart from the obvious one of the right to vote. Another is the obligation of citizens to know for what they are voting and how the various parties differ in terms of policy. Another is active participation in the democratic process. Another is a free press, an impartial civil service and a truly independent judiciary. Another is the rooting out of endemic rampant corruption. Another is the understanding amongst voters and politicians that you cannot get everything you want. Governments have to be fair to all sectors of society. Another is that everyone in a society is subject to the law. Governments cannot make laws to suit themselves and absolutely no-one is above the law. Another is the acceptance that that there is a right to protest but protests must always be within the confines of the law. And yet another is the acceptance of the entire electorate of a peaceful transition of power when that is the result of an election.

All this may seem somewhat academic, but it reinforces the view that the right to vote for those who will govern you is just a very small part of the overall democratic process. If you don't have the underlying democratic fundamentals along with all the checks and balances, you merely have a quasi democracy that is, frankly, fully capable of voting into power another Hitler or similar tyrant. So I'd love someone to post which country in Asia has in place the democratic checks and balances and the freedoms which will ensure this does not happen.

[frequent]

So I'd love someone to post which country in Asia has in place the democratic checks and balances and the freedoms which will ensure this does not happen.

What are you expecting fountainhall? Instant democracy? It took several hundred years of trial and error for the modern Western democracies to get to where they are today, and a lot of that development is uneven. The Greek democracy is not much more than a cesspit of corruption, for example. A democracy doesn't emerge in an even progression after years of autocratic, colonial or one-party rule. Look at South Africa as an example. Two steps forward under Mandela, at least one step back under his successors. I'd have thought one absolute criterion that you barely mention (apart from "checks and balances") is a fully-functioning, autonomous, independent judiciary. That doesn't exist in Singapore or Malaysia - and certainly not Thailand. Another is whistle-blower protection, a recent innovation in first world democracies who are, although appearing sclerotic at times, still evolving in their understanding of what it is to be a citizens' democracy. So asking for demonstrations of Asian democracy after less than 200 years of exposure to other thought systems than a hierarchical and non-rational one - the Asian reality until, at least. the Meiji Restoration started the slow grind towards the view of valuing all citizens equally - is somewhat unrealistic

The problem in Buddhist countries is especially acute because of the doctrines around reincarnation - you are who you are in this life because of your accumulated virtue in past lives. Therefore if you're better off in this life it's because you were more virtuous in past lives. Hence the emphasis by the junta in Thailand on having only virtuous people governing. By definition the huddled masses of peasants are not virtuous and therefore unworthy of participating in government precisely because they are peasants, and they are peasants because of the moral paucity of their past lives.

[fountainhall]

What are you expecting fountainhall? Instant democracy? It took several hundred years of trial and error for the modern Western democracies to get to where they are today, and a lot of that development is uneven . . . A democracy doesn't emerge in an even progression after years of autocratic, colonial or one-party rule . . . . I'd have thought one absolute criterion that you barely mention (apart from "checks and balances") is a fully-functioning, autonomous, independent judiciary . . . So asking for demonstrations of Asian democracy after less than 200 years of exposure to other thought systems than a hierarchical and non-rational one - the Asian reality until, at least. the Meiji Restoration started the slow grind towards the view of valuing all citizens equally - is somewhat unrealistic

I agree almost totally with your comments (although I hope you'll note I have stressed the need for an autonomous, independent judiciary). I certainly do not advocate instant democracy. Democracy has to evolve over time and those in a democratic society have to realise that merely voting for the party which offers the most goodies is the tip of a rather large iceberg. It is the structure of that iceberg under the waterline that really takes the time and it is that structure that is seriously flawed and full of holes in the Asian context.

It is some other posters who seem to imply that the introduction of one-man-one vote is virtually the be all and end off of democracy and that it can be thrust upon a society even though basic democratic fundamentals barely exist. I think it is of interest that in most cases worldwide that I can recall democracy did not just happen. If it was not forced upon a nation as a result of prolonged conflict with external powers - as in Japan, it came about as a result of a protracted internal struggle, often involving extreme violence as with France. And that I believe is a key difference with Thailand. Buddhist beliefs may well have played a role as democracy tried to take root, but the system as it existed was intensely flawed and created the sort of conditions which in other countries led to the rise in more recent days of populist leaders like Putin and Chavez. And we all know who, after his election, deliberately weakened the base of the iceberg in this country. That is fact, whatever else might have been accomplished.

[Oliver]

I have no illusions; I've experienced military occupation by "the only democracy in the Middle East" . When some callow youth in uniform sticks a gun in your face because you are looking at a colony, it doesn't make it any easier to know that his country allows all citizens to vote. Nor were the rocks those "hill-top" youths from a settlement used to smash -up the windows of my taxi any less dangerous. Vicious societies can be democratically vicious.
In Thailand , it's not just the issue of voting; it's the fact that such a high percentage of wealth, power (and guns) are in the hands of such a small group of people. What's your estimate? Ten percent? fifteen? When power is concentrated in the hands of a few , repression is inevitable.

[fountainhall]

In Thailand , it's not just the issue of voting; it's the fact that such a high percentage of wealth, power (and guns) are in the hands of such a small group of people. What's your estimate? Ten percent? fifteen? When power is concentrated in the hands of a few , repression is inevitable.

i entirely agree regarding the uneven distribution of wealth. I have no idea what the percentage of high rollers is but I'm sure it is very small. And that is totally unacceptable.

But I think you have to remember this is Asia and not the Middle East. In terms of economic progress, in the 70s and 80s Japan was the economic miracle - so much so that the Reagan administration forced the country to revalue the ¥ upwards by more than 40%, with Bush Senior turning the screw further. During the same period, 4 Asian countries developed at such a rate they were called the Asian Economic Tigers. In each wealth was distributed throughout their societies (although inevitably major inequalities remained). South Korea was a military dictatorship throughout that entire period. Taiwan was also ruled by the military that entire time. Hong Kong was a colonial administration ruled from London with zero democracy. Singapore was in name a democracy, but essentially it was a right wing dictatorship (although one with a strong social agenda).

And what of the democratic countries? The Philippines was a basket case with wealth held by an even smaller group of families than in Thailand and the democratically elected Marcos turning into a murdering dictator. Not even the advent of People Power in 1986 could turn the country around and so the wealth remains in a few hands. Thailand started to grow dramatically from the mid-1970s to the point that by the mid-1980s it was one of the fastest growing countries anywhere. That newly created wealth helped develop the emerging middle class, but precious little found its way to the mass of the rural poor.

And I find this a real conundrum. How could military dictatorships, a colonial administration and one near dictatorship do far better in terms both of total wealth creation and the distribution of that wealth within their communities than those democratic countries with elected governments?

[Moses]

In Thailand , it's not just the issue of voting; it's the fact that such a high percentage of wealth, power (and guns) are in the hands of such a small group of people.

As per CIA Gini index for Thailand is 39.4, Gini index for USA is 45.0. Gini index shows income inequality - than higher is number than higher is inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ncome_equality