Legitimacy will mitigate the risk of tyrrany in Thailand

This month in The Nation, Thanong Khanthong, provided more insights by comparing and contrasting the tyranny of the majority and the minority. This time the real tyranny seems to be from the majority, the incumbent pro-Thaksin government and its followers.

This has generated more interest and discussion. Nevertheless, both articles offer no real strategic promise to solve our current political impasse. Hence, I wish to share some of my thoughts on this issue.

The basic social condition is that government exists because people disagree more often than not. Government in essence is supposed to enhance intellectual gain for long-term peace and prosperity, through its people exchanging ideas, concerns and wishes.

Discussion must be focused on the "margins" of variation in political institutions, not on the "totality" of such institutions. Pro-Thaksin versus Anti-Thaksin, democracy versus non-democracy and royalist versus republican are examples of the former that can lead to more violence and division.

The latter is concentrated more on what changes in the existing set of rules defining the political order that all citizens can agree upon. Should one consider an amendment of the current Constitution regarding the ministerial qualification issue from Section 174 or modify Section 237 on the interpretation of abolishing any political parties whose executives commit wrongdoing (red card)?

Can we afford free universal healthcare and education? Or is a co-payment system more sustainable. Both may be subject to different interpretation for different political norms, or may be too impractical to follow for social welfare enhancement. Naturally, there are trade-offs to consider for all decision making.

What is just and fair depends on people, culture and the path of political and economic development. Governments should work for the public good, wherever that is possible and feasible, while the private sector and market drives the economy with "sufficient red tape and crucial oversight". What constitutes coherence and legitimacy then for rule changing? I want, you want, but really what do we want?

The unintended consequence of these questions is that we may be locked in a dilemma. The choice of rules creates a society that is defined by its constitution. The gist might actually be the choice of distribution of power, wealth and other resource allocations.

There are at least three sources of legitimacy and authority to govern the country. First and foremost is the political process and democracy. But the wishes of the majority may not be a full reflection of the whole of Thai society. Is there such a thing as the "majority," which our nation finds just occasionally through voting or some other political process?

Plato long warned that democracy might result in the tyranny of the majority. Aristotle claimed that rule might best be carried out by benevolent elites, while democracy is the least evil form of government.

A second source would be from experts and the bureaucracy. Without their skill, experience and intellect, mob rule and the average wit of the mob would eventually determine the fate of our nation.

The voices of the poor and needy should be heard to ensure equity of distribution, while some intellectual input from the elites must also be considered for efficient institutional reform policies. Without one or the other, peace and prosperity may not be attained in the long run.

Finally, it is the markets that foster economic growth and allow entrepreneurs to show their virtue and spirit. Markets are man-made and are not perfect. Still, imperfect markets may provide a self-adjusting process that is a useful social welfare enhancement mechanism, if operated effectively as well as efficiently.

Diverse preferences, different endowments, specialisation, division of labour and economies of scale are some of the major causes of gain from trade. Markets are typically operated under some authority to prevent individuals or groups from manipulating the market for their own self-interest and benefit. When markets fail from time to time, government intervention is needed to fix them, not to replace them.

In a nutshell, the trinity sources of legitimacy (as summarised in the graphic chart, left) are interactively derived from information, tastes and the culture of society. In other words, the social-political-economic problem is a problem of the utilisation of knowledge that is not given to any mortal in its totality.

Democracy without constitutional liberalism (e.g. the rule of law, protection of property and liberty, and the jurisdiction of collective choice) is the most terrifying kind of tyranny.

This is part one of a two-part series.