• 
• 

Published on July 28, 2007

The word "Thai" may mean "free", a meaning close to the concept of democracy, yet the Thais' understanding of democratic principles is doubtful at best.

Thailand had its first taste of democracy 75 years ago on June 25, 1932. Few Thais, except a handful among the elite, understood what they received that day. There was a running joke that, after the 1932 revolution, most Thais thought that "democracy" was the name of a son of Phraya Phahol, the military leader of the revolution.

Thais no longer think so, but they also do not know much more about democracy. In 1934, two years after the revolution, Pridi Banomyong, its civilian leader, established Thammasat University to educate future generations about democracy. After 73 years and more than 200,000 graduates, there is still much work that needs to be done.

When the United States constitution, the first written constitution in the world, was sent to the 13 states for ratification in late 1787, numerous newspaper articles and public letters fiercely attacked its merits. To win back the support of American citizens, three founding fathers issued a series of 85 articles explaining the meaning of the constitution and its basic philosophy.

The series become known as the Federalist Papers and its opponents' arguments the Anti-Federalist Papers. Many academics consider the Federalist Papers among the most important US documents, surpassed only by the Declaration of Independence and the constitution itself.

In contrast, during the 75 years of Thai democratic history, there have been constant complaints that Thais do not have enough knowledge about how a democratic society works. There has been little effort to explain it to ordinary citizens so that they can understand why the new system is championed by the educated class. There is an entrenched belief among the elite and the middle class that educating the poor about the merits of democracy is useless.

Nothing should be hidden for ever from its rightful owner, and 75 years of hiding democracy from the people is far too long. The upcoming referendum on the newly drafted constitution represents the best opportunity to allow the common people to learn about the democratic system. They should be allowed to understand why they ought to support the democratic system rather than other systems of government. They should be able to participate in and experience a direct debate on the pros and cons of this constitution. In short, common Thais deserve to have their "Thai Federalist Papers" and "Thai Anti-Federalist Papers".

The main objective here is not to urge citizens to vote for or against this constitution. Rather its aim is to encourage debate, conducted in plain language, to allow commoners to vote with a fuller understanding, guided by awareness not ignorance.

It would be naive to expect that such a national dialogue would result immediately in a democratic political culture in Thailand. Indeed, despite 75 years of dormancy, a true democratic spirit cannot arise overnight or perhaps even within a year. Thais have tried many times to instil democracy in a hurry and have failed miserably.

There should be time to prepare the Thai public with a proper democratic foundation. It may take a generation to complete this project. If, however, a strong democratic foundation should prove to stand for succeeding generations and centuries, it would be worth every waiting hour.

A basic democratic system at the local-government level is crucial to a national democratic system. The impact of local government on citizens, after all, is more immediate than that of the national government. There are powerful groups, however, who are reluctant to allow locally elected representatives to have more control over basic government functions like education, healthcare, budgeting, and infrastructure. For example, when centralised career bureaucrats cede budget authority, they fear their loss of control. Similarly, national politicians cater to a wider group of special-interest groups who may not be sympathetic to local conditions, and the middle class in Bangkok has always notoriously disdained rural representatives. The business community, all too often more concerned with the fear of extra local taxes and additional regulations, often shun their social responsibilities and the welfare of the local communities that provide the resources for their very wealth.

Rather than strengthening the country, the elite reason, the poor would just abuse their new-found liberty. They would just ask for remission of debts and land distribution. Their main focus would be plundering the rich. Instead of the glorious progress of the nation, the masses would ruin the country. Instead of the ideal of peaceful coexistence between the haves and have-nots, the elite fears mob rule would bring anarchy to the country.

It must be said, however, that the worries of the ruling class are not baseless. There are constant demands, from poor farmers in particular, for remission of debts and indiscriminate land redistribution. Wholesale debt remission would not only ruin the financial sector but also destroy the financial principles and stability which are cornerstones of the commercial system. Indiscriminate land redistribution, by mob or by government, would violate the basic democratic principle of protection of private property.

These fears prevent the ruling class from sincerely allowing the poor to participate in national government. They see the participation of the disadvantaged as the opening of Pandora's Box: they imagine all hell would break loose. Liberated democratic chaos would shake the very foundation of the Thai nation, and the ruling class would forever lose its ability to contain the freedom it had unleashed.

The ruling elite has always thought that the alluring democratic cookie jar should be hidden from the poor. They are distrustful of their underlings' decency. It is more convenient to hide precious things from juveniles than to painstakingly explain the pros and cons.

The half-hearted attempt to promote democracy, especially at the village level, creates an ugly cycle. The rural poor select their representatives based mainly on vote-canvassing and vote-buying. Expensive election campaigns require the winning government to seek funds through business collusion and corruption. Finally, the middle class in Bangkok, tired of these corrupt governments and its failures at national elections, brings down the elected governments through mass protests. Each new round of election brings back another corrupt government. It seems that getting rid of one bad government brings forth newer and uglier ones as with the heads of the Hydra.

It may be time to admit that only through the smallest citizen units can democracy prosper and be sustained. Only by engaging one villager at a time can Thailand avoid restarting the vicious "democratic" cycles of the past. Let us stop prescribing a quick fix and start doing the right thing. It will be a long and difficult road to democracy. The elite's fear of being challenged by the newly educated poor should be replaced by a fear of one corrupt government after another. If we create a well-informed culture of democratic ideals, institutions and processes among all Thai people, we may leave a legacy for future generations who can point to us for their prosperity, harmony and security.

We must seize the opportunity to put "freedom" back into what being "Thai" means.