Why money politics is such a challenge to all of us
Just five years ago, during his famous address to announce his campaign for the US presidency, Barack Obama stated: "The cynics and the lobbyists and the special interests who have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play ... they think they own this government. But we're here today to take it back."
But it is now anticipated that incumbent Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney, now in their final week of the 2012 presidential campaign, will each manage to spend a new world record of US$1 billion as they battle for the top job in politics. Seemingly then, after four years of Barack Obama's presidency, there is very little sign of a decline in the influence of these lobbyists. It is as though, despite the apparent attempts of the president, they are here to stay after all.
It is often said that money is indeed the root of all evil. Then, in an era of money politics, what does this say about current political systems both in the US and also in Thailand?
Hardly a day goes by without another revelation about the questionable financial affairs of a Thai politician or his business associate. So there is clearly a need to bring reform to the ongoing problem of political corruption here at home.
The approach taken by the US has been to formalise the flow of finances between politicians, corporations and business insiders through the lobby system. Its apparent pitfalls still include the opportunity for big business to insinuate itself ahead of the electorate, within the political process. Nevertheless, this system does at least attempt to increase financial transparency by bringing money from under the table into the light of day. In doing so, such a system provides voters with the opportunity to both scrutinise and hold their political representatives more fully accountable.
Of course, the fact that no system is ever perfect cannot be a valid justification in refusing to entertain new approaches to the question of reform. This applies especially when the evidence for success can be found in other political systems overseas.
Thailand's democracy is somewhat modelled on the British system, where money politics is apparently less of an issue. Even in the case of the historic UK parliamentary scandal of 2009, corruption can still be measured in the thousands of pounds. This is hardly the case in either the US or Thailand, where the figures far exceed that, and where we are talking about millions rather than merely thousands.
One of the reasons for these differences, and especially between the US and the UK, is to do with the nature of the political career itself. In the UK, one rarely enters politics in order to make a buck, and highly qualified individuals often take a pay cut to enter parliament.
The same cannot be said of either Thailand or the US, however, where the suspicion always remains that individuals are tempted into politics because of a desire for power and the opportunity for wealth that it brings.
Regardless of the political system, however, vested interests will always attempt to find ways to subvert the existing checks and balances. Just as worryingly, such interests are also actively involved in both stalling and subverting any serious future attempts at challenging the ongoing problem of political corruption.
So then, what are we to do? As we become increasingly frustrated at political stagnation, corruption and failed policies that are all reinforced by the entrenched patronage system, positive progress appears less likely. And yes, it would indeed seem to be a daunting and unrealistic task if we are to expect overnight success in much-needed reforms.
Clearly, in the case of Thailand, it is the patronage system itself that must be thoroughly challenged if we are to resist the tendency to fall yet again straight into the vote-buying scenario come election time.
The Election Commission of Thailand has ultimately failed in its task of ending vote-buying at both the national and local levels. And the evidence that this significant problem persists can be found in the many cases that continue be publicised across Thailand.
Just this October, in Si Sa Ket, it was revealed that one local candidate running for head of a tambon administrative organisation spent over Bt1 million in the campaign. And even this wasn't enough to secure electoral victory. Most of this spending was for vote-buying, at Bt500-800 per vote, and it went undeclared. But such a scenario is, of course, an old story.
If Thailand is to successfully forge its own system, then a new degree of flexibility in embracing a range of approaches will improve the odds. To a great extent, the real opportunity for political scrutiny begins when there is a raised awareness amongst the population of the possible solutions. In this regard, developing a more formalised lobby system is one thing, and increased respect for due process is another. In addition, term limits may help to dissuade the opportunists who seek a "return on investment" in building a political career over the long term.
Critically, it is the mindset of the public that ultimately must shift. For as long as it remains normalised in one's mind that the problems are unfixable, and that no change is possible, then this apathy only helps to reinforce systemic problems.
We all know that "money talks". But in the recent words of the US politician Barney Frank, who was one of the more prominent reformers in the wake of the global financial crisis: "When you equate money with speech … the equality principle gets eroded."
Whatever system Thailand ultimately decides upon, it must guarantee that the voices of its people are louder than the noise generated by money as it changes hands.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.
