The Tyranny of the Minority vs the Tyranny of the Majority

By Thanong Khanthong

When the anti-government protesters took over the Government House on August 26, 2008, they claimed that it was a triumph of people's politics in the name of civil disobedience. The protesters, known under the name of the People's Alliance for Democracy, are still guarding the Government House. Following clashes with the authorities on Tuesday morning, with two dead and more than 400 injuries, any hopes of a reconciliation are dashed.

The PAD protesters have already staging protests against the People Power-led government for more than three months. What they demand essentially is the removal of the remnants of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra's political power from Thai politics once and for all. They also want Thailand to embrace New Politics, whatever that means.

A riot police throws a Chinese-made tear gas grenade into the anti-government protesters on Black October the Seventh, 2008 

Thaksin has already jumped bail and is now seeking a political asylum in the UK. Samak Sundaravej has also lost his premiership from a Constitution Court ruling. But Thaksin's people are still having political power. His regime remains intact. Somchai Wongsawat, the new prime minister, Thaksin's his brother in law. It is now clear that Somchai is serving as another nominee.

Outsiders might be asking what is going on in this beloved country whose its people are so charming and generous. Witnessing the political turmoil from the TV and newspapers, one American banker has also asked why Thailand has no respect for the rule of law at all. He looks upon the protesters as the Tyranny of the Minority -- those who want political change without paying any respect to the rule of law or the democratic process or waiting until the next election comes.

Other outsiders and foreign media are asking similar questions: How can the street protesters occupy the Government House, which is the equivalent of the White House, and nobody can do anything against them? How can the street demonstrations unseat a democratically elected government? Would there be any violence after the clashes on Tuesday? How long would this Somchai government last? And most importantly, would the political conflicts lead to another military coup?

Thaksin's protesters vs Thaksin's supporters

About 12 million people dislike Thaksin, while 14 million Thais support him. Thailand is neatly split. It is similar to the North/South conflict during the US Civil War in the 19th century.

The 12 million people voting against him are mostly the people from the South, which is the political base of the opposition Democrat Party, the Bangkok middle class and the urban voters. The 14 million supporters of Thaksin are mostly rural voters in the Northeast and North of Thailand.

Thaksin succeeded in the strategy of divide and rule between his premiership in 2001 and 2006. His legacy continues to this day.

Thaksin's protesters view that his regime, now reincarnated as the People Power Party, represents the Tyranny of the Majority. It is corrupted and represents Thai politics as we know it.

Thaksin, get out!

The Thai politics as we know it is the electoral process, where the politicians buy the votes and take over the government to distribute the wealth among themselves and their cronies, leaving the general public with the left over bones. Once the politicians are in power, the people have no way to hold them accountable.

Investing in the Thai politics yields very attractive return. The sovereign wealth funds, which have spent billions of dollar to buy into Citibank's recapitalisation last year, get a tiny stake each in the US bank. They also have little control in the management of Citibank.

But in Thai politics, an MP is worth around Bt30 million or around US$1 million. To have a majority control in Parliament of 470, one needs to spend only US$200-US$300 million US dollar to bring the majority MPs to one's wing. The MPs then go on to buy votes from the voters.

Then one is in a position to run the whole country, manage the annual budget of about Bt1.8 trillion, exploit the government concessions and natural resources.

The investment return in Citibank is incomparable to the investment in Thai politics.

The protesters occupying the Government House do not want this kind of democracy as defined loosely and singularly by the electoral process. The Thai democracy as we know it follows the vicious cycle of election, corruption, military coup and then a new constitution throughout the erratic democratic path of Thailand since 1932.

The anti-government protesters look upon the People Power-led government as Tyranny of the Majority. In this arrangement, once the politicians get elected, they take over the government and move on to appoint their own people to serve their self-interests without listening to opposition or criticism. They go on to undermine the check and balance system.

But Thaksin's supporters, largely in the Northeast and the North, view that Thaksin and his people play by the democratic rules. They have been elected by the majority of the Thai people. Moreover, Thaksin is their champion because he introduces universal healthcare and cheap credit to them.

The rural voters view that all governments are corrupt. Thaksin government might not be an exception. But at least, the voters can get something in the form of populist policy out of the Thaksin government whereas past governments have ignored their plight. Thai politics belong to the elite in Bangkok.

The anti-government protesters want democracy without corruption and nepotism. The rural voters look upon democracy as a festival when the politicians hand them money or feed them with good food or take them on a holiday tour. Democracy for the rural voters means the politicians bring them populist policies and look after their welfare because they have voted for the politicians.  

Ironically, the champion of the poor is Thailand's richest person, whose wealth of almost US$2 billion kept in the banks is being frozen. By all standard, Thaksin is an elite, who knows how to get around the political system.

The Thaksin's supporters view the protesters as nothing more than sore losers, the Tyranny of the Minority, who have no respect for democracy. The Thaksin's supporters challenge that if the protesters do not like the government, they should wait after four years and try to prove their point in the election polls.

We love Thaksin

The supporters of the Tyranny of the Minoarity argue that they are not good at manipulating the election polls. Come any election, the Thaksin's people would win because they have so much money in store. The democratic rules must be reformed to make it easier for capable people to serve politics -- not just the old-faced politicians alone. 

The anti-government protesters want new politics with governance, removal of money politics, and genuine check and balance. They do not trust the politicians.

The pro-government supporters want the political status quo (let's prove it at the election polls). They believe the politicians, who are their representatives, have done their job adequately. No matter how the constitution is reformed, they will continue to pick the old faces as their representatives in Parliament.  

In effect, Thai politics is kept in the box.

The Politics of Distortion

Most outsiders, including well foreign media and foreign governments, view that the Military, the Elite, the Establishment and the Bangkok Middle Class are anti-democratic and working openly and behind the scenes to bring down the democratically elected government of the People Power in order to protect their "interest and privilege." The Democrat Party has also been branded as belonging to this faction of sore losers.

On the other hand, Thaksin, the People Power Party, the rural voters in the North and the Northeast are cherished as "democratic lovers".

Let's see the chart below.

                                          Monarchy

________________________________________________

(Anti-democracy?)                                    (Pro-democracy?)

Military/Establishment                                 Thaksin Shinawatra

PAD/Bangkok middle class                            Rural people

Democrat Party                                                People Power Party

12m  voters                                                       14m voters                           

South, Bangkok                                                 North, Northeast

Independent media                                          Pro-government media

                                                                             Foreign media, foreign govt

New politics                                                        Political status quo

                                                     Judiciary

                                             Business and financial sectors 

**************************************************************                                                                         

Note: The Monarchy is above the politics and the polarisation. The Judiciary and business and financial sectors are get caught in between the country's polarisation at this critical juncture.

The Monarchy. The Monarchy is above politics and above the polarisation. The Monarchy favours political stability, rule of law and prosperity for the country. If there is political stability, the Monarchy will also enjoy stability. If there is political instability or social upheavals, the Monarchy will also suffers from the instability.

The Monarchy feels uncomfortable everytime Thailand faces instability. This is an important fact. The Monarchy can't favour any parties because it will lose its impartiality. The Monarchy was disturbed by a request for a royally appointed prime minister in 2006 because that could not be constitutionally done. The Monarchy is now disturbed by all parties in conflict at the moment because they don't use their wisdom or make self sacrifice for the country to move ahead again in a proper fashion.

The Monarchy observes the constitutional rules. Contrary to what some books would like us to believe, a weak democracy and a weak rule of law equally undermines the strength of the Thai Monarchy. In short, if there is balance in the Thai system and the Thai people are happy without any divide, the Monarchy will also enjoy stability. The Monarchy can co-exist with genuine democracy in the Thai context.

The Monarchy does not prefer political instability so that it could side with the Military to defend its "privilege and interest" as the wrong-headed The Economist magazine has wrongly claimed. The political instability undermines the Monarchy's stability too.

Similarly, Thailand's interest is to see political stability in its neighbours such as Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia or Burma. Thailand does not enjoy stability if its neigbours face political instability or economic hardship. If Thailand's neighbours achieve stability and prosperity, Thailand will also benefit from that neighbouring  stability and prosperity.

The United States also prefers a healthy and stable Mexico rather than enjoying seeing another peso crisis.

The Monarchy system of Thailand should also be seen in this context regarding its relationship with other domestic institutions.  If there is balance in Thai society and all the domestic institutions are strong under the rule of law, the Monarchy will enjoy stability.

His Majesty the King's role is impartial. He strictly follows the tradition and the Constitution. He has several times warned the Thais to unite and to use their wisdom to prevent the country from sliding into calamity. The King has used the word "calamity" or lom jom several times.

Abhisit Vejjajiva, the Democrat leader, called for the former prime minister Samak Sundaravej to dissolve the House to defuse the political crisis. By implication, if the politicians could't resolve the political crisis, they had to return the power to His Majesty the King.

After the election was completed, the King would return the power back to the people through Parliament. In this sense, there is always continuity of power in Thai politics, with the Monarch as the ever-present institution.

When King Prachadipok, or Rama VII, lost his Absolute Monarchy in 1932, he did not hand his sovereign power to anybody or any particular group of people. He simply wrote a blank cheque of his sovereign power to the Thai people.

Whenever the Thais can't settle the political crises among themselves, they return the power to the Monarch before they try to move ahead again with the blessing of the Monarch. This is how Constitution Monarchy is working in Thailand, with the King as the benovalent Monarch.

Forbes has recently published a survey finding that the Thai King is the world's richest Monarch with a wealth of US$35 billion. This is a total misunderstanding.

The magazine does know the difference between the assets of the Crown Property Bureau and the assets of His Majesty the King. Any personal assets belonging to His Majesty were derived before he ascended the throne. After he became king, all the assets belong to the Crown. The Crown Property Bureau is a public institution, like the State Railway of Thailand or Egat, owned by the Thai people. The Royal Grand Palace is a property of all the Thai people.

Of the vast landholdings of the Crown Property Bureau in Bangkok, only 17 per cent of the holdings is developed with commercial purpose. The rest is being rented out to government agencies and organisations and the local communities at charity rates.

One just can't calculate President Bush's wealth by adding the White House to his net worth.

The Military/Establishment. The Military and the Establishment have been branded as "pro-coup", whereas Thaksin has been cherished as "democracy defender". So far Gen Anupong Paochinda, the army chief, has been trying to play a soft hand. He is the most powerful figure in Thailand at the moment because he has the guns and the tanks.

Please give me your sincere view. Should I stage a coup, Khunying Pornthip?

But he has insisted that he has sealed the door to a military coup, which is not a way out for Thailand. The military coup in 2006 was a failure in restoring a new political order, so the military is not likely to repeat its act unless there is a Civil War. The 2006 was staged to pre-empt clashes between the PAD and the Thaksin's supporters. Now the cycle has returned.

In general, most Thais had mixed feelings about the 2006 coup. Dr Ammar Siamwalla, the well-known economist, then said he was sad with the 2006 coup but he was not angry with it.

The 1991 military coup staged by Gen Suchinda Khraprayoon served the military's self-interest. So the coup was highly unpopular, although the Chatichai government was branded as Buffet Cabinet. The 2006 coup was a reluctant coup staged to pre-empt the clashes and to restore political order. Both failed miserably.

Now Gen Anupong has power because whenever the politics is weak, the role of the military being enhanced. This is the equation of Thai politics. Weak politics means the politicians and the people are at odds against each other.

Samak declared the State of Emergency on Tuesday, September 2, 2008 in order to give Anupong the sword to quash the protesters occupying the Government House. But Anupong was reluctant to use force, preferring to resort to the diplomatic channel to end the political crises.

Somchai Wongsawat, the new prime minister, inherits the three-year political conflict. Now we are witnessing the political crisis flaring up again.

Again, the military does not want to stage a coup. But if the politicians, the PAD and the Thai public in general continue to squabble without any solution, and in so doing damaging the economy and national stability, the military will only be forced to act finally.

The military now views that the best way out for the country is a political compromise, with a possibility of a National Unity Government. It does not want to get itself into the big mess again.

The military and the establishment would like Thailand to achieve political stability for the long term. It is in their interest. If the Military likes to preserve their power, they would not have called the general election one year after the coup. They could easily serve power for longer years. The Military now listen to the world's public opinion, which goes against military regime.

The military or the elite do not have the money or privileges as claimed because they do not collect the tax and spend the tax money or award out the concessions. The Finance Ministry collects the tax, but the politicians in office spend the money and hand out the government concessions to their friends. The national budget, the bureaucratic appointments and the concessions are in the hands of the politicians. The military only depend their livelihood on the annual budget and at times make commissions from military hardware procurement. The elite only owns the land, but not the cash.

The People's Alliance for Democracy/Bangkok Middle Class.

The PAD has fortified at the Government House compound, and demanded the end to the People Power Party rule. The PAD's argument is that Thai politics is narrowly involved with the politicians only. Once they get elected, the public has no way to get involved or get their voices heard. The politicians go their own way to enjoy, while the whole country suffers. New politics will create more people participation.

Their tactics might violate the law and raise our eye-brows, but their aim is for better politics. The frustration against politics as we know it has been going on for fears, only waiting for the right time to explode. Whenever we have changes from the politics as we know it, the old politicians come back again after the election to run the public office to reinforce the vicious cycle.

We have done nothing wrong, We only exercise a legal act of treason against the state.

The PAD has lost its popular appeal after it has taken over the Government House. Most people are disturbed by its violation of the law.

Let's take a look at the American Revolution. This is from Wikipedia:
"The Boston Tea Party was an act of direct action protest by the American colonists against the British Government in which they destroyed many crates of tea belonging to the British East India Company on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution and remains to this day one of the most iconic events in American history."

Immigrants supporting the British Crown looked upon the Boston Tea Party as an act of treason or a violation of the rule of law, whereas those who supported independence cherished it as a heroic act. If George Washington had lost the war, he would have been executed on treason. Since he won the war against the British Crown, he was hero.

History is judged by the winner who writes history. If the PAD is quashed, history will look upon the PAD as ugly violators of the law or fake democratic fighters. But if the PAD prevails over the politics as we know it, the takeover of the Government House will be looked upon as one of the "iconic events in Thai history." 

The PAD protesters are made up with a strange group of people, namely the Bangkok middle-class, the NGOs, the labour movements, the political activists, the academics, the doctors, the well-educated Thais with master degrees or PhDs. They do not necessary follow the PAD's leaders; but they are fed up with politics as we know it and are afraid that Thaksin might come back.

In the political history of Thailand, the Bangkok middle-class -- not the rural poor -- have always played the prominent role in fighting against the military regimes and the bad politicians for the advancement of the democratic process.

Without the Bangkok middle-class, Thai democracy would not have come this far.

There is a famous Thai political theory, called Two-City Theory. The rural voters -- due to their majority votes -- may vote in the government, but it is the urban voters who bring down the government.

The Democrat Party has got caught in the dilemma. It, too, has been branded as anti-democracy because it boycotted the election in 2006 and is accused as a PAD sympathiser. The Democrat is being isolated in the emerging two-party system.

The Business/Financial Sectors

Now the wealth of Thailand lies in the hand of the private sector, the people who are in business or in the financial sectors. Thailand's economy depends on exports, which account for 60 per cent of the GDP.

The wealth or the privilges are not concentrated in the military/the establishment or the Monarchy as generally misunderstood.

Of Bt6 trillion total money deposited in the Thai banking system, Bt4.2 trillion is being held in less than 900,000 accounts. The rest of Bt1.8 trillion is deposited in 74 million accounts. Thailand has a population of 65 million people.

So who are holding the chunk of Thailand's wealth or the 900,000 accounts of Bt4.2 trillion?

They are the big businesses and family business groups. They are the big stakeholders of Thailand, who have benefited from Thailand's economic development over the past three to four decades. These big-time stakeholders of Thailand control telecom, banking, finance, real estate, exports, trade, liquor, retail (the Shinawatras, the CP, the Sophonpanichs, Chirathiwats, Sirivadhanabhakdis, Red Guar drinks, and so on.)

Land holdings also belong to the big businesses and family business groups. 

So far the business people, except the Shinawatras, have yet to make clear their political agenda. They prefer to stay behind the scenes, giving money to all political parties.

The private sector group, consisting of the Federation of Thai Industries, the Thai Bankers' Association and the Thai Chamber of Commerce, traditionally supports the government because its interest is tied to government projects and policy. The private sector does not care much about democracy or no-democracy in so far as the business environment is sound.

Over the past years, the business and financial sectors have also come to have influence in shaping the political outcome. They tend to side with the Bangkok middle-class. But during the Thaksin era, the business and financial sectors appeared to have tilted toward supporting the Thaksin regime. They follow their pocketbooks.

Thaksin Shinawatra and the People Power Party. 

To his credit, Thaksin succeeded in legitimising the electoral process. The Thai people in general do not care much about election because they believe that the politicians come and go. All politicians are corrupt. They buy votes. Governments can go any time and they do not have to stay for four years. 

But the Thaksin era has legitimised the electoral process of a four-year term like a US presidency. Thaksin's political power came from his massive money stockpiles and his mergers and acquisitions of the political parties in the Northeast. He built the Thai Rak Thai, which was disbanded. Now the People Power Party is its reincarnation. He has Puea Thai Party registered in case that the People Power Party is dissolved.

I love politics as we all know it.

But he also commanded genuine popularity among the rural people.

He pit the rural voters against the urban voters, dividing the country between those who loved him and those who hated him.

Great leaders are known for uniting the country; Thaksin succeeded in dividing the country into two ugly pieces. His legacy continues. Most important, he represents the politics as we know it. He is not for change, but for the status quo.  

In the past, even up until now, most Thais do not trust the electoral process. They even look down upon it. They believe that the electoral process can be easily exploited by vote buying through the patronage system. They view the democracy as nothing more than money politics.

But the outside world looking into Thailand narrowly focuses on the electoral process as the barometer. Increasingly, electoral process has come to represent the cornerstone of democracy, even though democracy, to function appropriately, needs a good system of check and balance.

A system of democracy needs other institutional machineries for it to function properly. Protesters against Thaksin view that Thaksin has hijacked democracy with money politics, but his supporters or outsiders look at the protesters as sore losers.

Foreign media, foreign governments and international community liked Thaksin because they viewed that he came from the electoral process. They also viewed that the rural voters' political view should be respected by the whole country. 

The world's opinion on Thailand now is tilting toward the rural voters, who now have come to the forefront of democracy in Thailand through their majority votes. Any political opposition against their aspirations or wishes is branded as undemocratic. The rural voters look at democracy as what they can get from the politicians.

The Politicians

The politicians are the main problem or the liabilities of democracy. They buy votes and hope to form government and run the public office. Once in power, they try to recoup their investment from the election. The Thai politicians have yet to reform to better standard to keep in touch with the private sector development.

The old faces still come back to power time and again. Since they control Parliament, they issue law to serve their interest. Since they control the public office, they appoint their own people to serve their interest. Since they control the budget process, they disburse the money to their own constituencies. Since they have control over government concessions, they award the concessions to their cronies or those who pay the kickbacks.

Thai politics as we know it can't go on with these politicians, who have refused to die.

Three Processes Involved With Political Power

There are three processes involved with political power – the process of assuming power, the process of managing power and the process of stepping down from power.

The ruling party -- People Power Party -- has been arguing that since they have been democratically elected by a majority of the Thai people, they must be allowed to run the country till the end of the term as stipulated by the Constitution. Any objection to their rule is looked upon as undemocratic because it represents a minority voice, which does not play by the rule or does not honour the outcome of the majority votes.

This sounds plausible enough. Practically all the Thais acknowledged the outcome of the December election in 2007 that brought the People Power Party to power. Samak led his party to a victory and formed a coalition government with five other coalition partners with 315 MPs in Parliament.

After having formed his government, Samak and his Cabinet completed the process of assuming the political power. That initial stage of the process in assuming the political power was over.

Nobody objected that.


The next stage, in which we are now, involves the Somchai government's managing of the political power. This is a more difficult task. To manage the country through the remaining term, the government must try to build up a consensus and get broad-based support among the people, who either voted for it or voted against it.

In other words, it must try to keep its supporters happy and have the least number of people objecting its rule. In so doing, the Government must really run the country for the benefits of all the people rather than serving the interest of some groups of people.


If the government fails to manage its power by bringing the minority group of people on board, as is now the case, it would find it difficult to continue to rule. The voice of the minority, whose members are also Thais, is legitimate too.


The protesters staged the rally at first to demand Samak's resignation on the grounds that he is acting as nominee for ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra; his government sold off the Temple of Preah Vihear to Cambodia; his government tried to amend the Constitution to protect the interests of the politicians; among others.

Which brings us to the third and final stage, which involves the process of stepping down from power. If government manages the political power to the satisfaction of most Thais, it can survive four years. If not, it has to explore the process of stepping down or avoid being booted out.

Throughout history, politicians, once they are in power, do not want to step down easily. They only leave office when they're really being kicked out.

PM Somchai is now exploring the possibility of stepping down from power either through outright resignation or House dissolution after a Constitution Drafting Committee is formed.

Somchai can't stay on for long because his government has lost LEGITIMACY when the police force started to attack the crowd on October 7.

This is the Thai political context. Thailand is not the US whose president stays for four years no matter what happens. In Thai political context, at least this juncture, prime minister comes and go any time. Look at Japan, they also change PM all the time. How about Italy?

The Judiciary System

A country can survive without democracy but it can't survive without the rule of law.

After the 1997 crisis, the Thai corporates have improved their governance and become more competitive. Businesses have reformed themselves with stronger balance sheet. Corporate governance has improved.

But the Thai political system has not changed at all since 1932. The politicians are still operating in the old mode of money politics. The Cabinet is formed by quota, about 15 MPs getting together to acquire one Cabinet quota.

Thailand does not have any problem with democracy in the superficial form. But it has weakness in the rule of law, which is the intrinsic form of workab le democracy. Hong Kong and Singapore are less democratic than Thailand, but both are deemed to have stronger rule of law than in Thailand.

The burden of democracy lies in the court room. Who's next?

Now the rule of law is being strengthened in Thailand. The Judiciary System has risen to take up the challenge. The judges have become a catalyst of political change by way of the court cases presented to them for deliberation. Their verdicts have changed and will continue to change the course of Thai politics.

The Court nullified the election in 2006. It disbanded the Thai Rak Thai. It has sentenced three election commissioners to jail for failing in their duties. The Appeal Court has upheld the lower court's verdict. The Criminal Court has sentenced Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra to three years in jail for tax evasion. Over the next two weeks, the Supreme Court will read out the verdict on the Rachadapisek land purchase deal in which Thaksin and Pojaman are the defendants.

The Constitution Court has already found Samak guilty of hosting the TV cooking show and stripped off his premiership. There are also other corruption cases against Thaksin waiting for Court deliberation at the moment.

The Constitution Court will also be deliberating the party dissolution case against the People Power Party once the Office of the Attorney General wraps up the case. The People Power Party is at risk of being disbanded like its Thai Rak Thai predecessor because the Election Commission has recommended this move. This process will take some time.

Some, including Samak Sundaravej, are arguing that the judges are crossing the turf of the administration in their verdicts. Moreover the judges, who do not stand in the election, have no right to judge the popularly elected politicians, pro-Thaksin supporters say.

But the judges are doing their duties adequately. Their verdicts are the only hope of strengthening democracy, not undermining democracy.

Conclusion
Most ofl the Thai people, the military, the elite, the Bangkok middle class, the business and financial sectors have a shared interest in the political stability. They all love democracy. But their understanding of the definition of democracy is different from that of the rural Thais, who also cherish democracy in their own views and rights.

All the sources of instability incur from the politicians. The street demonstrations, rightly or wrongly assembled, are simply an anti-thesis to money politics.

Thailand might have a deep-seated political problem at this juncture but it will continue to embrace open society and open economy. The country now depends on tourism and foreign trade to improve the income distribution.  

I don't see Thailand backtrack against the democratic process because Thailand is part of the international community and the global economy. It is a joke to believe that the rural voters love or have better understanding of democracy than the Bangkok middle class.

We just need to sort out our internal political system first. The foreign media and foreign experts must stop distorting Thai politics with their convenient definition of "democracy". The Monarchy has been around in Thailand for 700 years. It is an institution of great reverence. It is the strength of Thailand, not an obstacle to progress.

The politicians are the liabilities of our democratic system. If the politicians are clean and really work for the progress of the country, there won't be any street demonstrations. They can't be brought to jail easily because Thailand's rule of law is slow.

A former bank executive has recently been sent to prison after going through the court process of more than 12 years.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

So far the debate about Thailand is dualistic -- democracy or no democracy. That's too easy.

The US, who is the champion of global capitalism, is now doing everything that goes against capitalism or free market by nationalising banks and financial institutions and bailing out the big businesses. We can't say that the US has abandoned capitalism for socialism. The problem has to do with greeds and mistakes in the financial system that is not regulated appropriately.

Temporary US government intervention is necessary to prevent a total collapse of the financial system. But the US is not being attacked in the narrow capitalism/socialism dichotomy, like what Thailand has gone through the "democratic/undemocratic " condemnation after the 2006 military coup. 

Thailand's coup in 2006 should be seen in this similar US context. It was a temporary intervention to restore democracy. It only turned out with poor and tragic result. But the price Thailand has to pay is very high in ther international eyes and "democratic lovers".

The US is now trapped in a financial black hole. Thailand is also trapped in a political black hole. Let's allow the US to sort its way out and also allow Thailand to find its way out too, democratic or undemocratic if you like.

 **********************************************************