Thailand's aspirations
Thailand's experience with democracy has been a source of admiration for many fellow Asians. In the last 20 years, as governments came and went through democratic processes, Thailand's economy has continued to flourish, pushing it to the fore among Asia's latest newly industrialized countries. The Thai experience destroys the myth which some countries in Asia still adhere to until this day, that political stability -- often translated into a strong and stable government -- is a prerequisite for economic growth. Thailand has shown the rest of Asia that political development and economic development can, and must, work hand in hand.
No doubt, Thailand's success is attributed in part to the presence of a revered monarchy which is equally committed to a democratic Thailand. The strong bureaucracy and military have also been cited as factors that contributed towards Thailand's economic and political resilience. Ultimately, the success is a tribute to Thai people's commitment to democracy.
However, Sunday's general election, the fourth in the last eight years, revealed some cracks that could undermine the Thai political system and ultimately democracy itself.
Some of the excesses that are often associated with full- fledged democracies reared their ugly heads in the election and campaign period. PollWatch, an independent election watchdog, has described the polls as Thailand's "dirtiest" in the last 20 years. There were reports of violence, with seven people killed in the run-up to the polls and dozens more injured, mostly poll canvassers being shot at. The campaign was marred by allegations of rampant vote buying, with PollWatch estimating that politicians spent roughly 30 billion baht (US$1.2 billion).
It was not comforting to learn the New Aspiration Party (NAP), which narrowly beat the Democrat Party in the election, was listed by PollWatch as the worst violator of campaign rules. NAP chairman Chavalit Yongchaiyudh may assume the prime ministership, and he may secure the support of medium parties to put together a coalition government. But we can be sure that the opposition and even his coalition partners, if not the electorates, will haunt him on this issue. Clean government was precisely the issue that forced departing prime minister Banharn Silpa-archa to call for the general elections last month. No doubt, we have not heard the last word on the issue.
The election result was not conclusive, requiring another coalition government which, by its nature, makes another election in the not-too-distant future a very likely prospect.
Is the Thai political system at the point of breaking up? Or is this a temporary setback as Thais continue to experiment with democracy? Only time will tell, but Thailand certainly needs to address some of the problems that have surfaced during the election, if democracy is to continue flourishing the way it has these last two decades.
It would have been too easy to dismiss the violence and vote- buying in the election as simply excesses and the prices to pay for democracy in a developing country. The fact that the election has been described as the "dirtiest" indicates that the situation is getting worse, and this would eventually give a bad name to democracy, if it doesn't kill it first.
The constant changes in government that we have seen in Thailand may be construed at first as a healthy sign for a democracy, but if this continues with greater frequency and with each election getting dirtier than the last one, democracy is put in jeopardy.