2. Institutions

There are so many “institutions” in society. Here I will consider three: elections (as a rule of the democratic game), political parties and the judiciary.

In a developed democracy, election results count. No military would bring down an elected government in the US or the UK. In Thailand, however, elections are just symbolic elements of democracy. It is the formal rule of the game but in the end, it doesn’t even matter (sounds like Linkin Pak’s song ^^). The elites, military and business, rule. People go to vote and then see their votes rendered irrelevant by military intervention. Then, the benevolent junta would write a new constitution and set up a new election and ask people to go to vote again. Then, if the new government turns out to be bad in the eyes of the middle class and the military elites, well, another coup might result.

So why ask people to vote? Why, as the Nation’s catchy slogan says, “our country, our vote” when elections ultimately do not count if the government is seen as bad by the eyes of the elites. Why make so much fuss about this “live debate” between PPP and Democrats, when eventually election outcomes do not even matter?

Another important problem in Thai democracy is that people go to vote in elections but rarely participate in between elections. Turnout in elections is generally high (over 70% in the last two elections) but non-electoral participation is very low.

According to a PhD dissertation which surveyed Thai people in Bangkok in 2000, half of the people surveyed are “rote democrats” – they consistently vote in elections but rarely participate in between elections. They vote in elections but never join party rally and activities, never write letters to candidate or the press, never sign a petition, and never join a lawful demonstration. Only 18% of those surveyed are “democratic citizens” – voting in elections and participating in between elections. The share of “democratic citizens” in the US is about 50%.

What happens when non-electoral participation is low? It creates a big gap between people and the government. Communication between the people and the government after elections is minimal. How many times do you communicate with the MPs of your constituency after the election is over? Very seldom or none.

This gap between people and the government can possibly be filled by the presence of strong civil society organizations, but as we will see later, civil society in Thailand is still not strong enough to exert pressure from different interest groups to the government. As of now, it seems that this gap is usually filled by strong personalities. Thaksin is one of those characters.

Let’s turn to political parties. Parties in a developed democracy are based on ideology. Party membership is high and members have alternative candidates to choose from. In Thailand, however, parties are personal followings rather than enduring institutions. Most parties are formed to fulfill the individuals’ own ambitions, not to pursue any particular ideology. Candidates choose which party to run, not the other way round.

Party switching is common and frequent as political factions change party for political and economic advantages (say, new source of funds. Just take a look at what happens after the TRT was dissolved, and also what happened recently when Prachai decided not to give funds to the Machima party candidates. The Machima party is on the verge of breaking down. The Democrat Party is of course the closest to what party should be, but it still has a long way to go. It’s still very much a rather closed party.

When political parties are generally weak and transient, it widens the gap between people and the government, encouraging people to seek strong personalities to fulfill that gap as well as encouraging the elites to intervene.

The judiciary system is also weak. The various independent bodies created by the 1997 Constitution fail to function effectively, providing a motive (or an excuse) for military intervention. The judiciary system still cannot punish corrupt politicians despite ample press coverage.

Nobody seems to be offering any good idea on how to re-design the system so that it works. Abhisit keeps saying "vote for the clean, honest candidate" and yet he doesn’t say how his government, if elected, would not be corrupt in the presence of many corrupt "ugly" politicians. How would he deal with the corruption of these political faction bosses without losing their support in a coalition government? It’s Mission Impossible 4.

The problem can't be fixed by any honest man. Chuan can't fix it, nor does any saintly figure. If corruption is to be fixed, the system needs to be re-designed (but that is also not enough.. I feel like writing a blog on corruption some time).

(to be continued)