Democracy and lese majeste

Political Prisoners in Thailand

Oppose lese majeste law and human rights abuses in Thailand

Democracy and lese majeste

Putting “democracy” and “lese majeste” in the same sentence invites all kinds of contradictions. However, Titipol Phakdeewanich is a Political Scientist at the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani Universityhas a piece in the Bangkok Post that demands serious attention.

The sensitive issue of Section 112 is now being linked in discourse to the ongoing question of promoting freedom of speech and expression within Thailand.

That’s true, but why should it be “sensitive”? It is sensitive because its use is politicized.

Titipol is correct when he observes that:

Thailand will inevitably have to learn one way or another, to fully accept a founding principle of democracy, which is freedom of speech and expression. No country can claim to have negotiated the road to democracy while continuing to pick and choose as and when such democratic principles suit prevailing domestic interests.

The “promotion of freedom of speech and expression” he says will:

help to shift many Thai citizens out of a lingering passive and obedient mentality, which is a historical legacy; and towards becoming more actively engaged citizens within an evolving, maturing and more dynamic, vibrant democratic system.

Actually, we think this move has taken place already, and that is why the minority of those who gained most from the former “passive and obedient mentality” are so reactionary and aggressive in their protection of lese majeste and the monarchy itself. And, historically, it is clear to us that the majority have not always been “passive and obedient.” They have been repressed and butchered by those who gain from enforced passivity.

Titipol observes:

In arguing that the amendment of Section 112 will inevitably lead to the destruction and removal of the monarchy; anti-amendment groups are acting to further slow the process of democratisation within Thailand.

Of course they are!

Titipol has a long article with some well considered points in an argument about the monarchy needing to change. We think he is being optimistic. That said, his points on debating lese majeste and democratic freedoms make sense.

Even The Nation has a surprisingly sensible editorial on this issue: “Thailand cannot emerge from its political stalemate and develop its democratic institutions unless people have respect for opponents’ opinions…”. The editorial writer is correct in saying that “Thailand is at an interesting period in its politics…”.

On the lese majeste reform “debate” – in fact, debate should have two sides, but the royalists are pretty much a singular and very loud voice over the past week or so – this:

While this kind of partisan competition is to be expected in an open and free society, the situation in Thailand could soon reach an extreme and dangerous level. If it does, … the government and Thai public need to re-examine recent eras in both local and international political history to avoid repeating past mistakes. Thailand is at a critical juncture politically and socially.

The editorial points to extremism:

Last Saturday’s gathering of pink-clad supporters of the lese majeste law at the Royal Plaza saw the burning of effigies of … law lecturers, who have spearhead[ed] a campaign to amend this law. The scene smacks of the horror of October 4, 1976…. Was the Saturday gathering a harbinger of worse to come?

It seems entirely possible. Maybe the lesson of 1976 was that force and violence can keep people obedient and subservient.

In a generally sensible editorial, we are unsure who added this:

However, it is our belief that we must ensure that whatever we debate, we must at all costs protect and preserve our traditional institutions and customs, the source of our national pride and statehood.

Meanwhile, while Nattawut Saikua has to maintain party solidarity, he seems to agree with Titipol and The Nation, stating that while the Puea Thai Party is going to continue to doze on and allow the ultra-royalists to set the agenda, “The Nitirat group has a different point of view and I see it as normal in democracy…”.

PPT is certain that allowing the royalists to define debate while using the lese majeste law for their purposes is a dumb political strategy. Puea Thai will eventually pay dearly for it. Where will democracy be then?

https://thaipoliticalprisoners.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/democracy-and-lese-majeste/

Assistant Professor. Preut Taotawin Lecturer at the Faculty of Liberal Arts, Ubon ratchathani University Grassroots perspectives on freedom of expression and democracy in Thailand ผ.ศ. พฤกษ์ เถาถวิล คณะศิลปศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยอุบลราชธานี มุมมองจากรากหญ้าต่อเสรีภาพในการแสดงออกและประชาธิปไตยไทย

Dr. Thitinan Pongsudhirak Director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University The importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society รศ.ดร. ฐิตินันท์ พงษ์สุทธิรักษ์ อาจารย์คณะรัฐศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย และผู้อำนวยการสถาบันการศึกษาความมั่นคงและนานาชาติ ความสำคัญของเสรีภาพในการแสดงออกต่อสังคมประชาธิปไตย

Dr. Pavin Chachavalpongpun Associate Professor at the Centre for South-east Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Japan Freedom of Expression: Does it exist in Thailand? รศ. ดร. ปวิน ชัชวาลพงศ์พันธ์ ณ ศูนย์เอเชียตะวันออกเฉียงใต้ศึกษา มหาวิทยาลัยเกียวโต เสรีภาพในการแสดงออกไทย: มีอยู่หรือสูญพันธ์ุ

Ms. Chiranuch Premchaiporn Director of Prachathai Freedom of the media in Thailand: challenges and prospects จีรนุช เปรมชัยพร ผู้อำนวยการเว็บไซต์หนังสือพิมพ์ออนไลน์ประชาไท เสรีภาพของสื่อในประเทศไทย

80 ปี ประชาธิปไตยไทย ของคนรุ่นใหม่

แอมเนสตี้ฯสัญจร จ.อุบลราชธานี ตอน 2/3

แอมเนสตี้ฯสัญจร จ.อุบลราชธานี ตอน 1/3

80 Years of Thai Democracy - 80 Years of Questions

Democracy and Freedom of Expression 22 June 2012

• Published: 7/06/2012 at 02:58 AM
• Newspaper section: News

Queen exemplifies how a monarch can be a stabilising force

The British people have just celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of the reign of Queen Elizabeth II. Her coronation took place on June 2, 1953, after she came to the throne on Feb 6, 1952. Since then, Britain has witnessed changes emerging from within the institution itself, as well as society. Although since the beginning of her reign, Britain has given up its claim to being a global hegemonic power, nevertheless the queen retains her role as head of state of the United Kingdom's constitutional monarchy.

It was once said, "The sun never sets on the British Empire," although the time of this great empire had essentially been brought to an end by World War II. Now at the age of 86, the queen is well established in her popularity. Today, in a role that retains no overt political power, her constitutional role has become symbolic, which gives the queen the opportunity to remain above the political fray. In her time, the monarchy within Britain has therefore, evolved to become primarily a symbol of national unity and of state ceremonial duties, a role which continues to be generally accepted by British society.

The evolution of the British constitution began with the signing of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta, was signed in Britain in 1215, and is considered by many historians to be one of the great constitutional reform documents the world has seen. It is noteworthy however, that after nearly 800 years, the limitations set on the influence of the institution of the monarchy, did not lead to the removal of the institution itself. In fact, the Magna Carta may have assisted the British monarchy in evolving along with social changes. The quality and integrity of the document prevailed over the long term, and provided for a healthier relationship between the institutions of the state and the citizenry.

Although the British monarchy has appeared increasingly dated from the perspective of the younger generations in recent years, the institution has managed to retain enough relevance, in order to justify its position. As Wyn Grant, professor of politics at the University of Warwick argues: "The UK does still benefit from a constitutional monarchy. The younger generation may perceive the queen as a traditional figure, but Prince William and Kate Middleton have renewed the royal family. The institution has to evolve to keep in step with changes in society."

Another contemporary British academic, Vernon Bogdanor, who writes on the current reign of the queen, said, "The monarchy will come to be seen as a part of society and it will come to be judged in a more practical and utilitarian manner. The philanthropic and charitable work undertaken by the royal family serves the country by propping up civil society, that commonwealth of citizenship outside the state, and also pinpoints social needs otherwise ignored by government and offers a voice to minorities and other deprived groups which are little represented politically."

Britain, which first emerged as a model for the integration of a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system, remains an example that other countries have looked to in developing similar systems.

Of course, there are problems in UK politics as no political system is perfect, and the process of democratic reform is continuous. There have been recent instances of conflicts of interest affecting the UK political process, such as the MP expenses scandal in 2009, which was then followed by the phone-hacking scandal in 2011 that has yet to be resolved.

Nevertheless, there are always questions being asked in relation to the conduct of the democratically elected members of either the legislative or executive branches of the governmental structures of countries around the world.

It is perhaps most especially because of this, that in the case of contemporary Britain, it is therefore widely believed that the apolitical figurehead represented by the monarch, can strongly assist in the separation of powers. This provides more room for the process of checks and balances in order to hold government accountable.

Academics continue to ask questions about the ways in which institutional checks and balances can be integrated into democratic models. In doing so, they intend to mitigate against the tendency of conflicts of interest to compromise politicians because this is something we see playing out all around the world. Even in Britain, the political fallout from these conflicts continues, with politicians from all parties being in one way or another implicated in the ongoing public scandal involving the media group News International.

As far back as 1873, the famous British writer Walter Bagehot in The English Constitution", wrote in a way that is still to a large extent, relevant and applicable today: "The co-existence of a queen's seeming prerogative and a Downing Street's real government is just suited to such a country as this, in such an age as ours." The form of government in place within Britain today remains essentially that, which was described by Bagehot nearly 140 years ago.

Thais have much to learn from the experience of the Queen of England during her reign. We can recognise that the dignity of the monarchy can act to both moderate and stabilise the often fractious political polarisation, and the scenarios that unfold when political rivalries spiral out of control. As evidenced by the recent fighting in Thailand's parliament, no side in the political paradigm will ultimately benefit when actions that undermine the dignity of office and its responsibilities are undertaken, and this behaviour by elected representatives is revealed to the voters.

After 60 years on the throne, the Queen of England has demonstrated how an apolitical figurehead can act to stabilise the political system, in spite of domestic political dramas, international upheavals, and media intrigue. We have not seen evidence of overt tensions between the monarchy and the series of prime ministers from different political parties, who have come and gone over the course of her reign, despite the occasional media revelations.

Indeed, as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher stated in her autobiographical retelling of her time in office: "Her Majesty brings to bear a formidable grasp of current issues and breadth of experience. And, although the press could not resist the temptation to suggest disputes between the palace and Downing Street, I always found the queen's attitude towards the work of the government absolutely correct."

And as former premier Tony Blair noted: "She [the queen] knew also that while there was a need for the monarchy to evolve with the people, and that its covenant with them unwritten and unspoken, was based on a relationship that allowed for evolution, it should be steady, carefully calibrated and controlled."

---

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at Ubon Ratchathani University.