Democrats can pull nation from brink
Published: 24/03/2014 at 12:18 AM
Writer: John Drapper
‘And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you” — Friedrich Nietzsche. On March 21 the Constitution Court showed to the people an abyss — the decision to void the Feb 2 election.
A flag depicting the symbol of the Democrat Party flutters in the wind over a throng of party supporters at a political gathering in Bangkok. Calls for party reform is getting ever louder following its consecutive election defeats. Sarot Meksophawannakul
It is not advisable to criticise a Thai court decision. However, the fact is that it was not unanimous — it was a six-three decision.
The caretaker government’s argument that it organised an election on a single date must have carried some weight with three judges. Also, the fact that anyone wanting to void an election can now do so by closing polling stations is a monster lurking in the dark.
Thailand is now experiencing a widening divide, forcing brother against brother in a way unseen since the 1970s.
Who can stop this? To be sure, Yingluck Shinawatra could. But, this article is about the Democrat Party. And it is about whether the Democrats can take a higher path — or a middle way. The Democrats possess a solid ideology, dating to April 6, 1946 — the day the party was founded. Its principles can be found on www.democrat.or.th.
In reviewing these principles, I am going to argue that if the Democrats can return to their roots, they can show themselves to be better.
The first principle is political transparency. The Democrats cannot make secret deals or have undeclared alliances. Any personal or professional links to independent agencies must be declared.
The second is accountability to the people. Those Democrats with outstanding lawsuits must literally go to the independent agencies and ask them to hasten their cases, as there exists an increasing doubt in the minds of many over whether both sides are being treated fairly.
The third is upholding the laws and defending the “spirit” of the constitution. Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva has publicly acknowledged that a constitution created by a military coup is wrong. Pheu Thai has, also wrongly, used machine politics to try to amend the 2007 constitution. The Democrats, to defend the “spirit” of the constitution, one in which all are equal, with none created or become more equal under the law, must develop their own path back to the 1997 constitution.
The fourth is never supporting any dictatorship. It is fine for the Democrats to peacefully protest against “the tyranny of Thaksin”. However, soldiers on the streets in over 170 fortified checkpoints is, at the least, trying to normalise military involvement. And, it is potentially the beginning of the slippery slope to tanks on the streets. To stand by this principle, the Democrats need to promote a third way — such as taking protest off the streets and into universities.
The fifth is freedom of speech. That principle must include discussion of court decisions. Without it, there can be no progress in terms of public understanding of the law — no way even for students of the law to learn from the judges. Freedom of speech in multiple arenas could be the springboard necessary for the Democrats to rebuild a party platform.
The sixth is the welfare of the people, including majority and minority rights. If the Democrats want to bring themselves closer to all of the people, they need to improve welfare through policies such as eradicating poverty through a property tax. And, it could acknowledge regional ethnic minorities such as the Thai Lao and devote policies to improving ethnic rights. Policies such as support for a new Minerals Act to help the environment and for a minimum level of labour rights would also help give the Democrats a chance to win, not walk from elections.
The seventh is involving the government in the country’s stability. If this means the right to emergency powers, the Democrats should both define and respect them. Those unclear sections of the Constitution such as Section 7 should be defined so that everyone can understand them, not just judges.
The eighth is defending and upholding Thailand’s traditions and customs. If the monarchy, then fine. But, times, traditions and customs change.
Thailand has signed multiple UN treaties guaranteeing the rights of indigenous peoples. It is considering a draft National Language Policy to create a framework for promoting all of Thailand’s languages, including, potentially, regional languages, alongside the national language. The Democrats should support changes like these while respecting the past.
The ninth is defending Thailand as part of a unified front, with cooperation from all levels of society. In the 1970s, Thailand suffered a paradoxical loss as part of its destruction of communism.
That loss was the loss of the organised left — the Socialist Party — a party which provided a voice for the intellectual left and no real threat in the 1975 elections, winning only 15 from 269 seats. The tenth, final principle is sustaining friendly ties with the international community.
The Democrats will always have US support. However, the path described above will bring it support from others, too, for example the EU and international NGOs wanting to reduce poverty, improve minority rights and promote basic freedoms.
Finally, Nietsche wrote, in the sentence before the one that began this article: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster”. If I have not by now outlined the possibility for the Democrats to save Thailand, I have not just failed to write a decent column.
John Draper is project officer, Isan Culture Maintenance and Revitalisation Programme, College of Local Administration, Khon Kaen University.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/401398/democrats-can-pull-nation-from-brink
"