'Middle-class prefers a controlled democracy'

Thammasat University political scientist Prajak Kongkirati predicted that Thailand would not return to a semi-democratic system after the next election but become a quasi-democratic country with the new draft charter putting a lot of control over elected politicians through the formation of various unelected new bodies.

“Elected politicians will be weak [under the new charter] as they will be overseen by unelected bodies,” said Prajak, who launched his latest book about a democracy in transition at the event. The book was published by Same Sky Books, which organised the panel discussion at Thammasat University’s Faculty of Economics.

The young political scientist said morality and ethics had become a new criteria in justifying the weakening of democracy under the new charter. “The elected government cannot administer the country freely [under the new charter],” he said.

Prajak said he asked his students if they thought the May 2014 coup would be the last putsch in Thai political history and 100 per cent said “no”. This, he said, was driven partly by the fact that most of the educated middle class and upper middle class believe that poor Thais do not have the knowledge or are not suited for self-governing. So, the so-called “educated people” had opted for a system of “just or fair authoritarianism”.

“This kind of thinking is so deeply ingrained,” he concluded, adding that if these people scrutinised an authoritarian system as much as a democratic one they may arrive at a different conclusion.

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul, a law lecturer at Thammasat, voiced a similar view but added that the new unelected bodies under the new charter would override the power of an elected government whenever the latter wanted to exercise more power.

Thailand, said Piyabutr, would only become democratic on paper and even its elections may not meet international standards under the new constitution. He said the Kingdom was trapped in a circle of nascent democracy failing to solidify and alternating with dictatorial takeovers through coups.

Thailand had failed to transition into becoming a full-fledged democracy as many people, particularly the middle and upper middle class, were disillusioned by the fact that their party of choice kept losing elections. These people eventually demanded a military takeover, he said.

Noted historian Nidhi Eoseewong said Thai civil society was not really civil as people often resorted to violence to deal with political conflicts. His view of the prospect of Thailand transitioning into a democracy is also bleak. “After May 22, I came to accept that [the country] is not in a transition to democracy but perhaps one day it will be. We’ll have to ask the National Council for Peace and Order [when that will happen].”

Nidhi said Thailand was close to consolidating its democratic gains in 2014 but the coup shattered that.

“I can’t imagine how we will get out of this,” he concluded.

The last speaker, Thammasat political scientist Chaiwat Satha-Anand, cited the values necessary to foster democracy – tolerance and peaceful coexistence.

Chaiwat said there could be no peaceful coexistence if people looked at those at the other political side as an enemy instead of a competitor, as an enemy was often targeted for elimination instead of fair competition.