A comparison to the great US democracy

In some parts of the world, political debate can swing an electoral tide. Should we Thais envy them or be proud of ourselves? Watching the US presidential debate and monitoring its prelude and still unfolding consequences, a Thai could be forgiven for feeling that it’s something happening on another planet. Political rhetoric used to be a decisive factor in Thailand, too, until the country’s deep political divide began to dictate that speeches or action don’t matter, and it’s the “colour” that determines who’s good or bad.

The following is part of a CNN analysis of the Barack Obama-Mitt Romney showdown: “In the space of 90 minutes, [Romney] has to convince voters for the first time that he has a better plan for the economy, make the case that Obama doesn’t and prove much more likeable than ever before. And all the while, he will have to fend off jabs from Obama, who can draw from a rich trove of Romney mistakes in the past. So, yes, Romney can still win, but it will be darn hard. No wonder he has been practising so much.”

So, theoretically at least, 90 minutes of talk can turn around the United States’ political direction. According to CNN, such a brief period of time could cement Obama’s fingerprints on US history or turn that history upside down by bringing in a new face. We can call that great democracy, or we can take another look at Yingluck Shinawatra’s naive, mistake-prone presence on every podium she has ever stood behind and get a new perspective.

One has to be a great debater to win the US election. Cynically speaking or not, that’s the limit of the US democracy. Not every good policymaker is a good speaker and not every good speaker is a good person. Imagine Yingluck playing American politics. What would happen if she started stuttering or calling the states she visited by all the wrong names? That she has actually become Thailand’s prime minister must say something about Thai democracy, which has always been criticised as being too rigid or not open enough.

One may argue that Thailand is not “that open”, and that Yingluck is here only because we have been in a state of flux. The same logic has been used to explain why many women have been playing big roles in Asia’s political turmoil, and why the phenomenon should not be interpreted as strong evidence of flourishing democracy. Again, let’s see how far Yingluck goes if her government does not touch issues that provoke criticism about abuse of the democratic mandate. If she sticks to matters that really concern national interests, let’s see how Thai-style democracy will treat her.

America is still waiting for its first female president. No matter how we interpret the big political roles of Asian women, male presidential monopoly is another irony for the capital of the world’s democracy. Should Thais be proud that, not only have we had our first female head of government, she is also a “Bridget Jones” character who would be chopped to pieces on her first day on the US political arena?

One argument is that the US politics has evolved to the point where only the “strong” make it to the top while the “less strong” have their places down the political echelon. Well, either it’s because of that, or “male chauvinism” may be a more appropriate explanation. We have seen enough American movies to feel that sexual equality has taken the strongest foothold in the United States, but all everyone is waiting for is for the First Lady to make that one last step forward. She, like Yingluck, should be able to tell the world that since most men have tried but failed to defuse the South China Sea tension, she would like to apply her “woman’s touch” to the problem.

So, we Thais can choose either to be proud or envious of the Americans. Of course, their political debate can sway voters, and that is a political luxury that we don’t have. On the other hand, though, we also have what they don’t, whether that is our political luxury or not.