Democracy in Thailand

Thailand, whose rulers until only a few years ago were notorious for trampling on the people's democratic rights, has just held a general election which is comparatively democratic compared to those organized in many other developing countries.

Like other democratic countries, Thailand has shown the world that a general election is legitimate after the loser -- in this case Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai with his Democratic Party -- has conceded defeat and recognized the opposition's victory.

This is noteworthy because in too many developing countries the end of a general election is followed by a series of protests from the opposition groups over vote rigging, and by the authorities' efforts to deny the charges without, however, allowing an independent party investigate the accusations.

According to reports, the Thai election did experience some problems, like electoral law violations and vote-buying attempts by some government party politicians. There have also been arrests of a canvasser and a government party's candidate along with a number of workers. But the heated reactions against the alleged irregularities showed that there is freedom for the press to report what it saw as illegal practices.

The Thai success in holding the election is good food for thought for us in Indonesia -- although we have always preferred to believe that the grass is greener in our own lawn -- because Thailand is a fellow member of ASEAN and a fellow developing country which is also working hard to implant a sound democratic system.

This success has really come as surprise because it was not so long ago that sometimes corrupt and power-hungry military leaders could rule supreme and coups d'etat were almost an annually recurring thing.

Now Thailand seems to have come to the belief that to continue to deny the people of their constitutional rights would backfire, which would be a very expensive price to pay for a country with a long story of economic success. By treating all eligible voters equally, the generals there have shown that they realize this. In Sunday's election servicemen joined other citizens to cast their votes without any fear that by so doing their nation will be torn apart. Yesterday, the powerful Thai army declared that it would respect the people's choice.

Another facet of the Thai election is that all contestants had the freedom to criticize the incumbent government, the trend which might be branded as a trademark of "liberal democracy" here. The Thais seem to know well that without the freedom to censure the government a general election ceases to have meaning. Evaluating the incumbent is what a general election is all about.

Thailand apparently will not stop here. There have been shouts from its academic community for political reforms which include a decentralization of power, a fight against corruption and an increase of administrative efficiency.

The programs will apparently be implemented because Banharn Silpa-archa, the leader of the winning party Chart Thai, has voiced his support for any reforms whether or not he himself would lead the government.

His words have been convincing. "After 20 years in the political arena I feel that we cannot let the country go this [undemocratic] way. Instead of going forward we may be stepping backward in the klong (river)."

We in Indonesia tend to look on "liberal democracy" as a specter and look for an example to the United States, which has achieved its current condition only after two centuries of independence.

It may not be prudent for us to wholly adopt the liberal system of democracy. Still, any of its positive values might well be of benefit to us. General elections cannot be said to be a product of the West, if we care to think more coolly. And if Thailand has waited for only several decades to implement democracy, why we must wait 200 years?.