Poll just the beginning in bringing in new politics
- Published: 12/07/2011 at 12:00 AM
- Newspaper section: News
'I congratulate Pheu Thai for its chance to lead the next government and wish Yingluck Shinawatra every success as the first female prime minister of Thailand," said Abhisit Vejjajiva, after conceding the election result in which the Pheu Thai Party, Thaksin's proxy party, won by a landslide. Out of this defeat, Mr Abhisit and the Democrat Party can demonstrate statesmanship and dignity in defeat, through the formation of an effective and constructive opposition, which will advance the democratic process.
In pursuing such a path, more will be done to promote representative government and the institutions of democracy than by any other means. This period will pose a great challenge in relation to the progress of Thai democracy as a whole, and this will be a test of all the actors within the political arena; not just for Pheu Thai or for Ms Yingluck. Ongoing political differences, tensions, and factions are a part of the democratic process, and the accommodation of this is something which becomes more accepted as democracy evolves and matures. Accordingly, there can be no democratic society without the differences being given the space in which to be voiced within the debate.
That election results do not please everyone is inevitable, and is intrinsic to the dynamics of democratic systems, out of which there is political, social, and economic progress. Elections are the mechanism for representatives of the people to govern, and election results are not a licence for those elected into power to use that power indiscriminately.
Rather, it is the qualified consent that has been granted within the law for the life of parliament to represent the interests of all the people, whilst delivering on election promises and manifesto commitments; and a government shall be judged on that. If there is a case to be made of abuse of power, it is for the legislature and judiciary to intervene and to balance the power of the executive; with a responsible media and active civil society highlighting problems, in order to more fully hold the government to account.
On June 26, Mr Abhisit campaigned in Ubon Ratchathani urging his supporters that "it's time to get rid of the poison of Thaksin". However, this argument only worked amongst his core constituency, whilst managing to alienate many others. In the interests of the important debate of the substantive issues, which affect the lives of ordinary citizens; to put every effort against Pheu Thai because of its apparent connection to Thaksin is ultimately a distraction that is counterproductive. For example, at the polling station in the district of Khong Chiam, Ubon Ratchathani, Jamnong Jamsri, a 47 year-old rubber plantation farmer, who voted for Pheu Thai, said that he wanted his voice and his vote to be recognised.
In 2008 we observed the dissolution of Thaksin's proxy party, the People Power Party. Then prime ministers Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat, regarded as Thaksin's surrogates, were both removed from office. These actions were taken in the hope of weakening Thaksin's political influence, although this approach seems to have backfired. With Thaksin appearing victimised, he gained more sympathetic support from his political base in the rural parts of the country.
History shows that Thaksin has been an influential political figure since taking office in 2001, and this also suggests that his influence will be a part of the Thai political system for the foreseeable future. Rivals ought perhaps to learn to live with him, rather than making attempt after attempt to exclude him from this system.
In a broad context, current political problems in Thailand cannot be primarily attributed to the influence of Thaksin, as significant political problems predate his time within the existing Thai political system. One of the most entrenched political problems in Thailand is the dysfunctional legal branch and the enforcement of the law, a weakness that compromises many aspects of the political structure. Although the electoral system in many democratic societies cannot ensure elected representatives of integrity, there is not any particular institution or groups outside of the legislature, executive and judiciary, such as the military, that can ultimately promote the progress of the Thai democracy.
Outside authorities can not simply override the electoral process, regardless of particularly "unfavourable" results, or short term problems, as this undermines the long term credibility of the system as a whole. When such a precedent has been set, then this only encourages further undermining of the system. Thailand cannot afford to continue to entertain the possibility of non-democratic interventions occurring, due to ongoing systemic political problems as has happened in the past. After a number of coups against various governments, this approach has not at all demonstrated that it can solve the problem of corruption in Thailand.We should be continually questioning and inquiring into the integrity of the political system and its functioning; and not be questioning and challenging the integrity, motivations, "qualifications" of voters, as and when this approach most suits the short term strategic benefit of those who are dissatisfied by electoral results. This is because it is the system itself which becomes undermined.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.
