Reform must cater to ordinary citizens

Is political reform so difficult to achieve because we attach too much importance to the word “political”, or because we automatically associate the term with politicians, so often the spurs to our divisiveness? What’s occurring here right now in the name of reform could be simply sowing the seeds for another round of turmoil.

We should be reforming society for the benefit of ordinary citizens. Their needs are simple enough. They want a clean environment, cheap food on the table, a good education for the young, reliable healthcare – and an honest political system that addresses these needs. There’s not much more than that at stake.

The ongoing reform process is much too politicised. The questions being discussed have to do with how politicians come to power and how they are best removed from power, whether the Senate and prime minister should be elected, and how much power “independent” agencies wield. We mull over alternative ways to impeach politicians. We wonder how many electoral constituencies Thailand should have and how they are best organised. We have entered a new political era, and yet these questions are old and familiar.

Admittedly, Thailand's political crisis is rooted in the essential questions at hand. But reform that seeks to address them exclusively without heeding what the people really would merely set another time-bomb ticking. These questions are purely political, meaning they will be opposed, or changed, or enforced according to how the political wind blows. To achieve long-term, sustainable reform, measures must serve the basic needs of the man on the street.

We have been doing it all wrong. Abstract matters can be discussed, but ultimately we need a political system that serves the basic needs of the people. Once this is done, correct values will follow. Politicians must first be made accountable to those fundamental needs. They must be made to serve the people first and foremost. Vested interests in the system must be eradicated, or at least minimised.

What happens when vested interests overshadow basic needs? Let’s take education for example. The choice of who becomes education minister is never dictated by who might serve Thai students' basic needs, but instead by how to mollify a politician left disappointed by not getting a Cabinet post viewed as more prestigious. As a result, Thailand's education system lags far behind global standards. The same applies to the ICT and agriculture portfolios, which are surely as important as the finance and interior ministries.

Democracy is supposed to deliver a qualified education minister. In fact, democracy is supposed to deliver a qualified government. But instead we undergo reforms that cater to the needs of politicians rather than those of the people.

When there is affordable, nutritious food on the table, when Thai students can compete with the world’s best, the air is clean, medical services are available to all, crime is contained – and when the bureaucracy is efficient and honest – then we can begin to address issues like electoral zoning and ways to keep the military out of politics. As long as citizens’ fundamental needs go unfulfilled, there will be street protests that politicians can manipulate while their own children study abroad.