There is a common perception in Thailand that democracy is a delicate flower.  It wilts easily, and not just because the military keep yanking it up by the roots. 

Thai society, so the theory goes, has not yet fertilized the soil with the essential nutrients that would allow democratic principles and institutions to grow sturdy and strong.  Things like the rule of law, respect for the rights of all (even minorities), non-discrimination, etc etc. 

This political manuring, we are assured, takes time.  At this point there is often a misty-eyed comparative glance at the ‘mature’ democracies of western Europe.  How long, we are asked, has it taken Westminster to achieve its current profoundly democratic status? 

Cue for references to the Magna Carta (which is such an undemocratic document that any Thai general that bothered to read it would want it as the next constitution), and the Bill of Rights (which didn’t have so many rights if you happened to be Catholic).  (And quietly ignore things like the People’s Charter because although it was obviously democratic, it was never allowed to happen.)

And while England has the benefit of centuries to develop its democratic traditions, Thailand has been at it only since 1932.  What can one expect?

So let’s look at this democratic tradition of western Europe. 

This past week, the Irish voted down the Lisbon Treaty.  Since acceptance requires a yes vote in all member states of the EU, that would seem to be that.  And yet the reaction of virtually all the European political elite wasn’t quite like that.  They all followed the same format.

Start with some statement about ‘respecting the wishes of the Irish people’.  Then blather blather blather until they think you’ve forgotten that first bit.  Then comes a whacking great BUT.  Followed by ‘must find a way’; ‘search for alternatives’; ‘move forward with ratification process’, and so on. 

So what is this Lisbon Treaty that is causing the fuss? 

4 years ago, supposedly because of the growth of the European Union, it was thought that Europe needed a constitution.  So a committee, headed by that pseudo-noble and not-quite-democrat Giscard d’Estaing, drafted a document.  A very complex document.

So complex that it was thought wise in most countries not to put it before the people who would be ruled by it, so it was ratified by 15 parliaments.  It went to a popular vote in Spain (which has not been democratic for very long) and mighty Luxembourg, who said yes; and in France and the Netherlands, who do have long-standing democratic traditions, and who famously said no.  The remaining 7 member countries, 5 of whom had planned a referendum, quietly forgot about the whole thing.

But the idea would not die.  It re-emerged as the Lisbon Treaty.  They said it wasn’t the constitution reborn, and it’s hard to say exactly, because this version looks even more complex.  They got rid of some folderols like the idea of a flag and the Beethoven anthem, so it would superficially look different.  But those who have the time and patience to study these things say it is 90% the same.

And the complexity may not be accidental.  Giscard d’Estaing let the cat out of the bag by admitting ‘public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals we dare not present to them directly’.  Now that’s nice and democratic, isn’t it?

This time, popular votes were to be kept out of it.  But the Irish constitution demands a referendum.  So only one country in Europe was permitted to vote directly.  And they said no. 

So the process has been to avoid as far as possible any direct democratic process and when you have to have one, find some way of ignoring the results you don’t like. 

Thailand doesn’t look so bad now, does it?. 

Now it is claimed, with some obvious truth, that many Irish citizens who voted no, did so without a thorough grasp of the principal issues.  But the ones who voted yes included the Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen, who admitted he’d not read the damn thing.  Far too much to expect of a mere Prime Minister (or Tea-sock as the Irish call him).

But even if many people said no out of ignorance, confusion or sheer bloody-mindedness, does that mean there are no good reasons for rejecting a document that would require, with no ifs or buts, changes in the laws of every member state?

It demands, for example, that every country progressively increase its military capacity.  To what end?  Well, suddenly NATO comes in.  NATO is a different organization with a different membership and importantly it includes the US, whose word tends to count.  So it looks like you are signing on to an ever-increasing military budget that the Americans will decide how to spend for you.  The same Americans who are running a war in Iraq that the vast majority of people in Europe do not support.

In economics, the Treaty seems to have preoccupations that are not shared by the average European.  It repeatedly makes reference to free markets and competition and barely mentions full employment or social welfare.  In social policy, the Treaty requires unanimous approval before any provision can be passed, like access to healthcare, or free education or pensions or safety in the workplace and so on.  With 27 countries, unanimous agreement will not be easy and the arrangement seems to be a recipe for a race to the bottom. 

So it would seem to be a good idea to read the fine print on these supra-national treaties and insist on the right to vote on them.  Otherwise, your elite might decide everything for you, possibly not in your best interests but certainly at your expense.

Take, for example, the ASEAN Charter.  Not only were the citizens of ASEAN denied any chance to vote on it, they weren’t even allowed to see it until it had been approved. 

Hmm.  Maybe European democracy gets a D.  But ASEAN democracy gets D-.