Thursday, 15 November 2012
Saturday, 3 November 2012
Why money politics is such a challenge to all of us
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.
Sunday, 28 October 2012
In digital age, youth leave mark on politics
FREE SPEECH
In digital age, youth leave mark on politics
When considering the emergence of online social media, what can we make of the political engagement of this generation of Thai students and youth?
Whenever we stop to consider the impact of Thai student activism on a national scale, the memories that are conjured up in particular recall the confrontations on the streets between the military government of the 1970s and the students of that generation who were calling for democracy.
In the digital era, with governments not yet able to completely control the flow of information of the new online social media, Thai students and youth are learning a new model of socio-political activism without resorting to attempts to incite any kind of revolution.
In the refuge of cyberspace, Thai students and youth are increasingly taking the opportunity for self expression offered by online dialogue, and especially through social networks such as Facebook and Twitter.
As it remains the case within Thailand that to openly and publicly challenge the paradigms set by the older generations is usually deemed inappropriate, the less direct nature of online interactions provides the opportunity for the younger generation to be able to express their feelings openly, and in a more socially acceptable context. This emerging dynamic can open up the debate, free up freedom of speech, and diversify what is considered to be an "acceptable" opinion in order that constraints can be lifted, and all voices can be heard.
If an open, positive, and meaningful debate is to be encouraged, then a great deal can be achieved when freedom of expression allows the societal tensions that have built up over time, to be released.
The choice increasingly made by students and the youth within Thailand today to spark debate through their online social networks need not be something that unduly unnerves the political establishment. Can the political leaders of today see the opportunity they have in all of this, to step up and positively engage with this emerging approach to social-political dialogue, and actively participate in its ongoing development, as a means towards free and open expression?
Although it is true to say that politicians often have quite an active online social media presence, we must be realistic enough to ask ourselves how much of this may be self-serving and politically expedient, and how much of this is really a genuine attempt to engage with these new generations, who as of yet may not even have cast a vote in an election.
When we look into the dynamics of many online discussions, it is obvious that many initially begin with somewhat pejorative throwaway comments often aimed at letting off steam and venting frustration. However, what it is interesting to note is that such comments can still act to ignite a debate that becomes more balanced and more fully considered, as others are drawn into the debate to contribute new perspectives.
A case in point is the initial fuss over Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra's style of dress when meeting foreign dignitaries, and the ensuing furore, which was generated online. Highly pejorative and personal though these attacks may have been, nevertheless, this did lead many of those polarised minds to investigate further the protocols of diplomacy and dress code and, more importantly, what we should be expecting from our political leadership in the way in which they represent Thailand to the world.
This aspect in and of itself is strikingly positive, and may have acted to introduce many Thais to consider more deeply than ever, how the political process operates at the highest level. Such outcomes can be seen as positive developments when we aspire towards a greater level of engagement with the democratic process, regardless of however trivial the initial fuss generated may indeed have been.
Depending on circumstance, time and place, people may denounce student activism, when perhaps they have forgotten what it feels like to be young and full of passion for things. Others may privately support the activists, when it acts to remind them of their own youthful energy of earlier days. But are we being too romantic, when it comes to the notion of what it means to be an activist who may have to take personal risks in order to protest moral injustice?
Alternatively, might it just be the case that the emerging online socio-political dialogue, which represents the underrepresented voices of the students and the youth, is helping to alert the more responsive political elements within the existing political establishment to make the necessary changes, before the prospects are raised of societal crises emerging? This, after all, is what students and the youth have represented to the political establishment, historically around the world. Namely, that they act as the indicators of where society may be headed, regardless of the political entrenchment of the "old guard", and the more astute observers of a political system have of course, always been somewhat mindful of this dynamic.
Vijitra Sataporn, a high school student from Si Sa Ket argues: "I always want to attend the village public forum's budget, but I am not allowed, because I am only a kid. I think I am a member of this village, so I should have the right to attend." But in this digital era, Thailand's students and youth now have the opportunity afforded by the emergence of online social media and networking, to take on the role of representing to the country in an engaging and constructive manner, the issues that will be the priorities for the new generations, in helping to shape the country that they will inherit in the coming decades.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University
Thursday, 20 September 2012
Sunday, 9 September 2012
Will decentralisation fuel the fires of graft?
POLITICS
Will decentralisation fuel the fires of graft?
This perception continues to form the debate over Thailand's process of decentralisation by giving more local governments bodies like tambon administration organisations (TAOs) more of a say when most of the people upcountry are not well educated like those in the capital and big cities.
But in reality, rural people continue to make the case for having their voices properly heard. For instance, a villager in Ubon Ratchathani said: "We want to choose who can represent and protect our interests". Others complained that, "MPs do not normally have time for us," or stated that: "Local elections can at least reassure us that we can get people who understand our problems".
These voices from the so-called uneducated demographic reveal how democracy is understood at the local level. Perhaps their perceptions can help all of us better understand why decentralisation is so important for the future of the emerging Thai democracy.
It is now 18 years since the TAO process of decentralisation was initiated, and it began with the notion that people would have the opportunity to select whoever they believed would best represent their interests at the local level. Almost two decades later, local administration is supposed to flourish to serve what the locals want. But that goal has not been accomplished partly because of the ineffectiveness of local administrations that are plagued with corruption.
This has led to attempts by many governments to delay delegating their authority to local administrations. But that might not be the real reason for any such arguments.
Of course, the problem of corruption is still apparently endemic to Thailand, and many of us from across the country know this from personal experience. This problem continues to focus overwhelmingly on the political centre of Bangkok, where most of the key decisions involving politics, financing and commercial contracts are made. Notably, there is a problem of transparency within many key government agencies from the interior to defence and education ministries.
What makes corruption a serious problem is lax law enforcement in Thailand. Singapore has shown that its handling of graft through the strict enforcement of the law can solve the problem. Therefore, the corruption of some local administration organisations should not be used to derail the promotion of democracy in Thailand.
In this imperfect world, if we are serious about making the necessary changes, it is only realistic to expect that in challenging the status quo, mistakes will inevitably be made.
By pushing ahead with the much needed process of decentralisation, this will unfortunately create new opportunities for graft to take root. Yet, corruption at the local level still makes up only a fraction of the overall problem. Why then is there a link being made between the potential for even greater corruption, and the broad process of decentralisation of power?
There is already plenty of evidence to demonstrate that rural people do not want corruption at their local level to persist. After all, they, more than most, are affected by graft when it means the difference between basic utilities or none at all, and when they continue to lack the services now taken for granted by the majority of Thais.
These questions are critically important for subsistence populations in rural areas, suffering from disproportionate resource allocation due to graft, and the conflicts of interest involving local power-brokers. The issues relating to the impact of corruption are clearly apparent for rural communities. And although they sincerely want to tackle the problem of graft, they are not equipped with the power to do so alone.
Out of his frustration, a villager who calls himself Dam at Ban Tadob in Si Sa Ket complained: "I want more lights along the path to my rice field so that I can work and earn a living. The TAO representatives only used the money to improve the roads leading to their houses. I have complained again and again, but nothing happens."
Another villager in Ubon Ratchathani said: "My TAO only wants to spend the budget on building roads and other infrastructure, because it is easy to be corrupt. We cannot check. Since we are not engineers, we don't know about the quality of the road. Reading the information about the budget on the green board in the village doesn't help that much. We want to know more about the way they allocate the [TAO] budget."
Tanet Charoenmuang, an academic from Chiang Mai University who supports decentralisation, commented: "Government officials cannot keep saying that the people are not yet ready for decentralisation. The government and opponents argue that the locals will suffer from more corruption, since decentralisation will make corruption easier. However, this is just an excuse to resist decentralising power away from Bangkok.
"Of course, once we start to decentralise, there will be problems. But the system will evolve and correct itself. Local people will have an opportunity to learn. We have to make a start, otherwise it will never happen."
Overall, the concept of decentralisation will remain as a vague principle, and will not help to promote our democracy if it is not fully applied in practice. Its application requires that we undertake a necessary learning process and, in order to succeed, Thailand must meet this challenge. Forever delaying until the time is right guarantees that our emerging democracy will stagnate until perhaps such a time when circumstances take over in the midst of yet another national political crisis.
Such an outcome is not ultimately in the interests of the great majority of Thais, who are making the reasonable claim to fair and democratic political representation.
Democracy itself is neither a talking-shop nor a forum for empty pledges.
In this regard, it is incumbent on the political leadership of this country to take the lead in promoting a brighter future for all Thais.
Titipol Phakdeewanich is a Political Scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/310074/will-decentralisation-fuel-the-fires-of-graft
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Saturday, 30 June 2012
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
Friday, 29 June 2012
Wednesday, 27 June 2012
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
Queen exemplifies how a monarch can be a stabilising force
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)