Yesterday, the electoral process aimed at solving the people vs government confidence crisis in Thailand broke down under the protesters’ excesses. The end result was that voters, stuck between a rock and a hard place, ended up facing the police. Protesters blocked the delivery of ballot boxes for instance so that regular folks could not vote. The piece in the link below does a good job of explaining the problem.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/thailand.html
For the aim of the protesters is not elections anymore but to replace the government with their choice of leaders, bypassing democratic due process despite the fact that they are a minority.
This is a new and worrisome development in demonstrations and protests that has been seen worldwide for the last few years. Such was the case in many of the Arab Spring movements and most particularly in Egypt. A despot ( Mubarak ) is vanquished, forced to leave through protests and elections are held. A legally chosen government ( Morsi ) is then found to be lacking and protests bring about its demise through a military coup of the same type that had engendered Mubarak. The present state of things in the Pharaoh’s old land thus being undemocratic?
If we turn to Ukraine, the situation is somewhat different since the protesters do want elections although they refused compromise on any other option. But again, the government of Viktor Yakunovych, no matter what one may think of it or its choices in governance was duly elected. And in other places, similar tensions occurred , often repelled by force ( Turkey or much worse Syria ) and in the lone case of Tunisia solved by dialogue which can be credited to a proper choice by the Ennahda party.
There are two different calls to be made in respect to the aforementioned situations. One relates to proper and established democracies and the other concerns itself with lands where the habit is not yet fully imprinted in the social mores ( although History should teach us that the former can fall back to being the latter easily ). Democracy is a highly imperfect process. It is the rule ( dictatorship, in meme ) of the majority over the minority. But until someone comes up with a better way to let the citizens participate in government, democracy is the best of the worst if you will. The dull fact that elections do not solve all problems but simply allow for a peaceful way of choosing a captain to stir the ship cannot be eluded. The only way to make this bearable is found in the referendum option where on matters that affect everyone, all citizens are asked to choose instead of forced to follow a governmental decision or directive. But we cannot hold referendums for every little action of the Nation and day to day business is left to the elected party and those that work for the State. This was proven when Belgium recently survived nearly 2 years without a government and routine affairs were skillfully handled by State employees in the ministries. In a land where democratic habits are not fully ingrained however, the accumulated frustration will rapidly lead to protests and a deep wanton for change. This can also happen in more traditional democracies when a dilemma that should be presented to the people by referendum is not and regulated by simple lawmaking instead.
To find a long-term solution to the difficult balancing act, I offered a humble solution in the past that yesterday’s events in Bangkok force me to bring back to the table.
http://definitivelapseofreason.com/2012/09/19/white-votes-and-degressive-democracy/
http://definitivelapseofreason.com/2012/12/29/public-democracy-the-re-post/
The principle that I call degressive democracy goes thus : the people’s voting rights are to be made permanent, atemporal or whatever else you might want to term it. As soon as an election has taken place and the results conclusively tabulated, the government takes office yes but the citizen immediately regains his/her power to express its opinion. Polling offices should be available at all times. Modern technology would easily allow for a pass to use electronic voting booths and make the job less costly. As soon as an agreed upon, well defined threshold is reached ( say 40-45% against ), the government in power has to call general elections, i.e. to ask all to vote within a week or any other given period.
The particulars seem to entail difficulties but these are illusions. My proposition relies on the principle of referendum being applied to major decisions first and foremost. The threshold is a perfect example of this. Other cases should or could include changes to the Constitution or as was the case in France recently with same-sex marriage, any subject that affects society as a whole. My proposition also strongly leans towards making voting a full civic duty as well as a right. I understand the cynics under present rules but if you were always allowed to act on the balance of power, their objections would wane and wilt. And the most often heard critic of my proposal came from people that I know that are involved in politics that contend that it would make for a republic of opinion and likely bring about frequent changes in governments to the point of rendering the job impossible. That too is a non sequitur for, yes, it would likely be the case now, as politicians get elected on promises and then end up doing anything else or about. Once the system has changed though, so should in reaction the ways of the elite? You will have to keep your promises at a believable level, in other words, base your electoral platform on what you can deliver less the public judgement calls your lies and asses to the curb! This would bring about a refreshing modification to current practices. Anything that you are not ready to bet your place on : referendum! The fact that people are allowed to vote at all times would also decouple the money factor from politics. No need for obscene amounts of cash to be thrown in advertising as far as the voters that already expressed themselves are concerned right? And when an election is called by threshold, it will be hard to prepare campaigns in less than two weeks, right? So that at best, we could see permanent political spots on TV which would rapidly become as dull and uninteresting as the others?
Yes, the people that vote unfalteringly this way or that will do so as soon as possible every time after an election! So? That will just fill in the numbers towards the threshold and force the government to thread carefully, now won’t it? And the best leaders will have a much more precise tool to judge the citizenry’s satisfaction or lack thereof than present pseudo-scientific babble poll research? Which in reverse will permit for opponents to see how popular their point of view really is. If a given crisis sees 20% of the electors rush to the machine and weigh in their protests, it may bring the government near the threshold and slow its moves but it will also quantify the anti’s point of view and shed harsh spotlights on the real base of their option and at the same time render the violent demonstrations useless and more condemnable! And as far as opinion is concerned, I understand that you might feel as moral demi-gods, dear political leaders, that direct the masses as cowboys steer cattle which is of course a huge part of the dissent we witness in protests such as Thailand’s and Ukraine’s and so on but then again …
when was democracy anything but the governing by the people’s opinion?
You’re only the vector of that will or have you forgotten that?
And if you did, maybe the problem is you? 😎
Good luck Thailand, Tay.
Additional reading on Thailand’s woes :
http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/politics/392878/pm-drops-ballot-in-wrong-vote-box
http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/02/divided-thailand-votes-but-opposition-threatens-poll-disruption/
http://world.time.com/2014/02/02/elections-expose-an-increasingly-bitter-divide-in-thailand/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/world/asia/thailand-elections-protests/
Definitive Lapse of Reason 
Pingback: Put your money where your might is? UN and Ukraine, assessment and suggestion. | Definitive Lapse of Reason