Published on January 31, 2005

In seven days, we will find out if Thai democracy will survive with the same form and substance that we have fought for with blood, sweats and tears in the 73 years since 1932. Or will it mutate into a different type of political system, with user-friendly coined labels chosen by the powers that be?

After all, the outcome of the February 6 polls will once and for all demonstrate, if indeed, Thailand is really a democracy and that the Thais are really democratic.

It will also reveal if Thailand is akin to developing countries that equate democratic discourses as democracy itself. If retaining a democratic shell is a sufficient form of democracy and backed by voters, then Thailand deserves the form of governance so prevalent in the past four years. Indeed, it is the reification of Thai democracy.

Dr Ammar Siamwalla was candid in characterising the coming election as a referendum. It is not really an election in the truest sense of the word. The voters are confronted with two obvious choices: A government headed by Thaksin Shinawatra or some other unknown and hard-to-imagine outcome. Such dichotomy is easy to discern. In fact, the ruling party has been successful in shaping the agenda. With the backing of a compliant media, especially broadcasters, it has made this election about nation building with a strong leader.

It is not about democratisation and a leadership with accountability. It is about decision-making and getting things done quickly.

As of today, Thaksin and his party have never, as a matter of record, made any commitment to guarantee justice, human dignity and civil liberty. His populist policies, built up on past give-away policies, especially the Bt30 healthcare and village funds schemes, have become the linchpin of this election. All the spins and PR blitzes, including the whistle-stop train tour, are just part of a well calculated coercive effort to establish his political supremacy as the country’s sole decision-maker.

Campaign platforms from the opposition camps with some similar populist elements pale in comparison. Both the Democrat and Mahachon parties have now changed their strategies and are appealing candidly for more seats to monitor the government and prevent the rise of dictatorship.

The Democrats’ latest “201” electoral campaign urging the voters to augment the opposition seats in the parliament to 201 is a case in point. The number represents the necessary votes in Parliament needed for calling a censure motion against the country’s leader. Thaksin has escaped no-confidence votes throughout his first term. And at this juncture he has also avoided face-to-face debates with other political leaders. His refusal to allow scrutiny of his record and future plans can be a dangerous precedent. Four years ago, he enthusiastically attended all debates to propagate his visions. Now he has become an untouchable political figure. Such dire straits for opposition parties have also inspired Mahachon to use the strongly worded slogan: “fighting against dictatorship and monopolistic business practices”.

To safeguard and build on the democratic freedoms of the past three decades, a vigorous checks-and-balances system must be maintained at all cost. Certainly, the best way is to have credible opposition parties in the parliament. Sad but true, the ordinary folks view the opposition as old-fashioned and also ineffective in performing its role. So the conventional wisdom goes, rather precariously, that it is better not to have the opposition at all.

Before Thaksin’s reign, there were times when opposition parties were also weak. But civil society organisations and the media would fill in and perform the watchdog role. Alternatives views coming from proactive non-official sectors and assisted by pluralistic and independent media have promoted healthy debates – one of the pivotal elements in a democratic society – on important issues such as constitutional drafting and privatisation.

The situation is much different now. Monitoring bodies mandated by the constitution – such as the Election Commission, the National Counter Corruption Commission and the Constitutional Court – no longer command public respect and trust. In the past four years, their institutional integrity and dignity have been under fire due to their partisanship. They have contributed to the overall climate of fear and intimidation, so pervasive in all strata of Thai society at this moment.

Even though opposition parties lack teeth, they are indispensable in keeping the government in power in check. Our democracy needs a critical mass both inside the Parliament and outside. An inefficient opposition, as the case may be with the prevailing condition, is still better than none at all. Having no opposition would mean political suicide for all of us. We must resist the temptation that Thaksin’s rule is a panacea and can be even more efficient if he is given carte blanche without his actions being criticised and questions asked.

If only one man holds power, even the country’s traditional institutions under the constitutional monarchy will be affected. Certainly, it would be hard to assess because of the taboo nature of these sensitive issues.

Come Sunday, history is in the making. Will Thai voters go all out for Thaksin or opt for democratic development?

Kavi Chongkittavorn

The Nation

Post your comment to this story here