I think this is good. In fact, I think this is great. The big powers on the international scene are condemning it as an act against democracy-- that democratic means would have been the better way to restore order on the Thai political landscape. But democracy fell long ago here and perhaps has never really been as strong as we hoped. In name, a democracy; in truth, a collection of barking dogs.
Now the dogs have been silenced, at least for a while. I think the military has given Thailand a moment to breathe, to reconsider, to make room for new voices. The Constitution has been invalidated; now we have a chance to write a new one and dream of better mechanisms to guide us. Perhaps this is a necessary stage in a growing democracy.
These events defy the Western ideal of democracy. It seems that the Western leaders are dismayed -- like Thailand has robbed them of a good example of a developing nation thriving on democracy during a time when the West really needs to believe that democracy is a good idea. What if this IS Asian democracy: a messy, teetering struggle between effective decision-making and really listening to all the voices that need to be heard. Throw in the occasional peaceful military coup to act as referee every 15 years or so, and you've got a strengthening democracy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What's most ironic about the United States' "dismay" at this coup d'etat is that they've meddled in other countries' politics and have engaged on numerous occasions to secretly undermine and overthrow democratically elected leaders to protect their own interests in countries like Iran, Chile and as recently as four years ago in Venezuela, and are still trying to initiate coups in Haiti, Cuba and I'm sure countless other countries where democracy is so far from being the actual reason for intervention. Does Bush have any clue about Thai history, politics or the popular sentiments of its people? I doubt it.
Hi, Marissa.
heheheh...Abhay, I love you.
Here (Canada) the reports have been a little more balanced than that--pointing out that this is a leader who seems to have profitted by selling off a national asset and is unresponsive to the people who don't like what he's doing--and also something to effect that the monarchy is generally in support of the change as well.
It doesn't sound like the sort of coup the Americans like to support--the leader hasn't been executed and there's not a CIA puppet ready to put in power...
While its tough- maybe impossible - to ever really know the truth, the flip side of the Canadian reports are such: the 'national asset' was a telecommunications company that the PM himself founded and developed several years before becoming PM (that's what made him a billionaire). Whether that means it was a national asset, or that it was his right to sell it is probably a matter of opinion, but the fact is, it was his company. Its true that he's been unresponsive, and probably also true that he has damaged Thai democracy. I think in Thailand where politics has always been messy and bureaucratic, he did a great job of actually getting things done for the country - albeit also for himself and his cronies. But we know of another nation in the world where such activity is rife...
yyyuup. my thoughts exactly.
Post a Comment