Conventional wisdom has it that one of the besetting failings of Thai democracy has been the failure to develop strong political parties. 

Look at the dominance of the Republicans and Democrats in the US, or Labour and the Conservatives in the UK, they say.  If only Thai voters had the opportunity to identify with a party that had a stable set of policies to the point where they would even register as belonging to one party or the other, as in the US. And if only Thai MPs behaved with the same discipline as the lobby fodder in Westminster. Then, er, well, the consequences are obvious, aren’t they?  Thailand would be rich, powerful, and respectable. 

Repeated exhortations to voters to stop acting like venal, gullible vote-sellers, and rather less frequent calls for politicians to stop acting like venal, cynical vote-buyers, have formed an important part of the theory that democracy is the culmination of a maturing process. 

This is based on the idea that inculcating democracy is like educating a child.  In its early years of political development, a country’s voters may act without proper forethought and be tempted by the same instant gratification that seduces a stroppy toddler.  With greater experience and advancing years, an electorate will begin to act more rationally and with greater concern for the sustainable common good. 

So it’s a matter of educating the voter, especially the under-educated rural voter. Or so say the urban elite, who would never dream of selling their votes.  Not that anyone ever offers to bribe them. 

In all this we have to ignore the evidence that the vast majority of voters in the ‘mature’ democracies cast their ballots on the basis of ignorance, prejudice and whim, and that many analysts describe the two dominant parties in each of the US and UK as competing wings of one narrowly-focussed ‘corporatist’ party in the thrall of funders and lobbyists. 

No matter.  We must shape Thai political life so as to more closely resemble the accepted norms.   

To this end, the 1997 Constitution aimed at putting in place measures that would ensure stronger political parties.  Rules on switching parties were imposed to stop MPs prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.  Proportional voting under a party list system was added to make voters think in terms of party as well as constituency personality. In turn, this would make parties think more about long-term policy platforms than discreetly distributed goodies at election time. 

And we got Thaksin. 

He manufactured a strong party by buying MPs and other parties with enough advance planning to get round the constitutional restrictions.  He then used this strength to co-opt, sideline and neutralize the ‘independent agencies’ that were supposed to provide checks and balances against parties becoming ‘too’ powerful. 

And society was polarized.  Thaksin’s upsetting of the political apple-cart had dropped some juicy apples in some laps.  They saw the 30-baht health scheme, the opportunities for local entrepreneurs, and the trickle-down from a number of shady deals as a Good Thing.  Definitely worth voting for. 

Others, ranging from those whose noses had been shoved out of the trough to those appalled by his autocratic, anti-democratic and occasionally thuggish methods, saw Thaksin as an unstoppable Bad Thing.  And it was no use voting against him because he kept winning; so in the end they turned to a voter boycott.  And still lost. 

Until the military stepped in and tried, in their ham-fisted way, to sort things out to their own liking.  But there was a deep rift in Thai society and to be honest, who would ever look to the military for the skills of mediation and compromise that were needed? 

So here we are.  We wanted an electorate that joined groups, each with a clearly differentiated political ideology, which would compete for political power. 

Well we’ve got it.  Not the parties we wanted, but coloured shirts.  But there is no doubt that the commitment shown by the reds and yellows far outstrips any party loyalty seen before in Thai politics.  Why, people even seem ready to die for their cause.  Well, kill, at least. 

Sadly both sides seem plagued with the same afflictions.  They are united largely by a negative fear of the other lot rather than anything positive.  They depend on blatantly lop-sided propaganda operations designed not to attract new people to join, as much as to convince themselves of their own righteousness.  They are both quick to skip along the steps from legitimate grievance to resentment to anger to violence.  And they both offer unquestioning and uncritical support to their deeply flawed but charismatic leaders. 

And that is perhaps the most frightening thing about this step forward on the road of democratic development.  Neither the PAD nor the UDD care a fig about democratic principles in the way they organize themselves.

About author: Bangkokians with long memories may remember his irreverent column in The Nation in the 1980's. During his period of enforced silence since then, he was variously reported as participating in a 999-day meditation retreat in a hill-top monastery in Mae Hong Son (he gave up after 998 days), as the Special Rapporteur for Satire of the UN High Commission for Human Rights, and as understudy for the male lead in the long-running ‘Pussies -not the Musical' at the Neasden International Palladium (formerly Park Lane Empire).


And if you believe any of those stories, you might believe his columns.