• 
• 

Published on September 10, 2007

 It's that time again when politicians will introduce themselves to you on the street, at your home or in your office. Although the election is more than three months away, the campaigning has already begun.

The Democrat Party, which appears to be the most prepared for the polls, has put its advertising campaign on television, offering promises of a better Thailand. Other well-established parties have not yet launched their media campaigns but are seeking publicity elsewhere, while newly formed and aspiring parties are vying to get public attention.

Scenes like these look familiar to political observers who experience years of political developments that are from time to time interrupted (or is it adjusted?) by military coups.

When the culprit is gone, the government leader who is cited for the power seizure is deposed, while the military hands the sphere of power back to politicians after a period of non-elected rule.

There were times when some generals in the post-coup juntas wanted to hold on to power, as in the case of General Suchinda Kraprayoon after the coup of 1991. But the citizens' uprising on Bangkok streets in May 1992, protesting his appointment as non-elected prime minister, proved his decision was a serious miscalculation.

The current junta led by General Sonthi Boonyaratglin is unlikely to take that same course as the consequences would affect not only him and other generals in the Council for National Security, but also the military institution as a whole. After the "Bloody May" incident in 1992, the military's image was at its lowest ebb for years.

The military's image improved gradually as soldiers kept an appropriate distance from politics and if it was not for an abusive regime, they would have stayed in their barracks for many years to come, as they would find no sensible excuse to overthrow an elected administration.

By international standards, it is definitely wrong to bring down a democratically elected government by force. But in Thai politics, the military serves as a balancing force when one side is gaining at the cost of the other.

However, it is undeniable that some generals are no less corrupt than civilian politicians while in power. So, it may be too naive to entrust soldiers with taking care of the country's future every time there is a severe political conflict.

What is wrong with our democracy? What should be done to break the vicious cycle in our system: election, government, corruption/power abuse and military coup?

If politicians were less corrupt or not corrupt at all, if the anti-graft system was more efficient, if the enforcement of laws against corruption was stricter and if voters were more selective about picking their representatives, we should all see a better democratic Thailand.

But is that simply wishful thinking?

The only practical hope may rest with the civic movement, which is getting stronger and more active. In their collective force, people on the street and ordinary voters are capable of influencing changes for the better.

It is time to encourage the civic movement to instil democratic ideas in eligible voters and to build up the ordinary people's bargaining power against bureaucrats and politicians.

Kittipong Thavevong

 The Nation