Thailand's general election is around the corner. Political parties are registering their MP candidates. The race is on, and all the media attention is focused on it.

In my view, however, Thai democracy has seen very little progress, and its future indeed looks bleak.

Why do I think so?

Simply because the upcoming election and the new constitution offer no concrete solution to the fundamental problems in Thai politics.

What are some of these problems?

Well, I believe one of the most important problems is the FACT that elections ultimately do NOT matter in Thai politics.

The evidence is clear: Looking back in the past 50 years, we have witnessed all together 10 military coups. That's 1 coup every 5 year on average. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that military coups, not democratic elections, are the dominant form of power transition in Thailand.

One might argue that democracy has begun to establish itself in Thailand in the past 15 years, after the 1992 popular uprising. This argument, however, fails to recognize the obvious counter-evidence: the 2006 military coup.

Now, one might further argue that Thaksin regime was far from being democratic. To many, Thaksin was seen as a de facto dictator, and nothing, not even a coup, was worse than Thaksin.

However, I would contend that solving this political problem through undemocratic means (like staging a military coup) is by no means better than the Thaksin regime. It is definitely not the correct answer to our fundamental problem. Staging a coup is in fact a way to escape, not tackle, the problem. We are all running away from the problem, instead of facing it.

The fact that a democratic government who had come into office through victory in election was removed by a group of military officers confirms the unfortunate truth: democratic elections ultimately do not matter in Thailand.

Election matters only if the winning government is accepted by the Bangkok elites and the educated middle class. This is indeed a sad truth: Thai politics has always been elite-centric - it is the educated urban elites, not the rural mass, who has the right to determine the course of this country.

The underlying problem is that there exists a conflicting view between the urban middle class (most of whom dislike Thaksin and any corrupt government in general) and the rural lower class (most of whom support Thaksin and do not really care about corruption). This conflicting view has been and is still very much present in the Thai society.

Why do these two broad groups differ in their views? Anek Laothammastas explains this point very well in A Tale of Two Democracies. For the benefit of some readers who might not be familiar with this article, I shall briefly summarize Anek's argument below.

Anek argues that "for rural voters, democracy is valued not as an ideal, but as a mechanism to draw greater benefits from the political elite to themselves and their communities. To them, elections are very much local, not national, affairs... They feel obliged to use their votes as repayment to those who have been friendly, helpful, or generous in coping with daily difficulties while bringing progress and prosperity to their community."

Having lived and witnessed local life in a suburban area, I could not agree more with Anek's above analysis. Just picture yourself as a rural villager without the benefit of urban comfort. Your life depends on your local patron, who might be the village headman or some other local leaders. As a result, you don't care about corruption or government national policies. All you care about is following what your patron asks you to do in return of the favors the patron has provided you with in daily life.

This is why money politics is the norm in rural Thailand. This is why efforts made by the Election Commission or any other agencies to curb vote buying have been unsuccessful. (It's funny to see the EC make the MP candidates "swear" that they won't buy votes. What a naive and shallow way of curbing vote buying.) It is not because of the politicians' bad habit that they buy votes; it is the social structure and patron-client system in the rural areas that give rise to money politics. As long as there is no significant change in this social structure, money politics will always be there.

Now, let's turn to the educated middle class. Anek argues that "To the educated middle class, elections are means of recruiting honest and capable persons to serve as lawmakers and political executives." He further argues that "although the middle class admits that democracy is rule by the people, the people should be knowledgable and public-regardning... voters should transcend personal or local inerests." In other words, the educated middle class expects their government to be relatively "clean" and "competent".

The middle class, therefore, could not stand a notoriously corrupt governments like Chatichai or Thaksin. The government may be popularly elected by millions of voters, but the urban elites and middle class are willing to disregard these votes (justifying themselves by arguing that these votes have been "bought") and support any means, albeit unconstitutional and undemocratic, to overthrow the government. The elites and the middle class think that they have the right to decide on which government should or should not be in the office, and they believe they are doing it for the best interest of the country.

It is because of this gap in perceptions between the middle class and the rural class that causes "frequent interruptions in the process of democratization." It is because of our inability to find a peaceful, democratic and civilized way to bridge this gap that we often need military interventions in politics, such as the military coups in 1991 and 2006.

Comparing the coup in 2006 to the one in 1991, I see that they share a lot of similarity. In both instances, the coups were bloodless. In both instances, the coups were initially welcomed by many educated middle class. In both instances, the main reason for staging the coup was corruption of the government.

It seems to me that we  are going nowhere. We are in fact living in the same old repeated cycle.

The upcoming election offers no sign of progress. It will bring back weak coalition government, just like the old days. It will also bring back strong bureaucrats (military and civilian alike), just like in the old days.

It represents a move away from "popular democracy" and a return to "bureucratic polity", I might say. Yes, that same old "bureucratic polity" incapable of meeting the needs ot the mass and effectively managing the country in this fast-changing global environment.

It is true that Thaksin rule has shown that our "popular democracy" or "popular sovereignty" system has some weaknesses, but a return to "bureaucratic polity" is certainly not the correct answer.

What, then, should be the correct answer? 

My opinion is that the Thai urban middle class needs to change their way of thinking. It is good that the educated middle class are actively critical of the government. It is also good that we try to monitor the government on its corruption or bad policies These actions indeed are essential elements to democratic progress.

However, I believe we must not compromise our democratic ideals. We must not accept any undemocratic means to solve political problems and conflict. We must keep in mind that undemocratic means is not the answer, as has been proven several times in our political history. If democracy doesn't function as well as we want it to, we must not destroy it by relying on such a means as a military coup. We must not disregard the voices of the millions of people whose thoughts differ from ours. Rejecting their opinions are indeed equivalent to looking down on them.

Above all, we must get rid of the belief that we have the ABSOLUTE right to determine the course of Thailand, regardless of what others think. We may try to convince others to believe in what we believe in, but we must get rid of the idea that "we are more educated and better informed than some others, and thus we reserve the superior right to determine Thailand's destiny." In other words, we must start to respect other people's different viewpoints, not rejecting them like we did by welcoming the coup in 2006.

I strongly believe that this change in perception of the politically active middle class is the first important and necessary step that we need to take if we wish to see any real and sustainable progress in our society.