10 reasons why new politics just is not possible

The list of how a single word can make you feel positive can just go on and on.

However, having said this, I must carefully make an exception where Thai politics is concerned.

Unlike anything else labelled "new" in life, new politics should be the last thing that makes you rejoice. Okay, call me pessimistic if you want, but I just don't see a light at the end of tunnel, despite the birth of People's Alliance of Democracy's New Politics Party.

As much as I appreciate the idea of new politics that aims to empower people, allow civil rights and encourage good men to rule the country, I still doubt whether I will see the idea, let alone a permanent political platform, materialise in my lifetime.

From my point of view, as a distant political observer, here are the reasons why I believe it is impossible for "new politics" to survive or even be born:

1. Newin Chidchob is only 50.

2. Though his father is 81 years old, Newin's mates are mostly his age.

3. MPs are still wasting their time discussing the bus deal, when a student in primary school can figure it out in a few minutes. When those people bought their cars, did they too get ripped off like the government is with the bus-leasing project?

4. Is it just me, or have you guys also noticed that something that has anything to do with politics and has the word "new" in its title doesn't last too long?

Think about Thai Rak Thai Party's main slogan: "Khid mai, tham mai phua khon Thai thuk khon" or "Think new, act new for all Thais", or the now defunct "New Aspiration Party".

5. Only media outlets that speak their minds are considered good, professional and unbiased, and since what we think or believe is in fact "old" because it has been with us for a long time, it could mean that we aren't capable of embracing anything new.

6. There is no strict definition of a good man, and Thai politics still goes by the popular voting system when judging someone as a good person.

The more people say you are good, the better. That allows you to choose whom or which group should be favoured.

For instance, Thaksin Shinawatra is "good" because he helped the poor people, even though he looked like a demon to the yellow-shirt group.

Chamlong Srimuang is also good because he is a strict Buddhist and only eats one meal a day (after all, anyone who eats one meal cannot be a corrupt politician).

Still, he is an evil man to those who don't or can't value his style of goodness.

The problem is that the meaning of "good" can vary depending on whom you talk to and what the situation is.

7. Chalerm Yoobamrung works on |a better script than any other prime-time soap opera and is clever enough |to make his speeches during those hours, so he can grab everyone's attention.

8. People vote more seriously for candidates of the True Academy Fantasia rather than casting their ballots during the general elections.

Besides, if they are not hooked on the reality show, the first thing they do when they get those extra days off courtesy of the general election is to book a holiday to Hua Hin or Pattaya.

9. People tend to believe a new government will arrive at the end of a bloodbath, the cycle of which starts off with street protests, military intervention, bloodshed and then the inevitable military coup.

10. With all of the above, it will take something like two decades, and by any measure, anything "new" will have become "old" by then.

What bothers me the most is, what will a party offering "new politics" sound like after two decades?