Democracy begins with choosing the right leader

If the post-coup government sticks to its road map, we can expect to see a general election sometime next year. As an ostensible representative democracy, Thailand has come to rely on politicians to run its government. The armed forces assumes this ruler’s role from time to time, spurred to seize power because of factors including rampant corruption, political deadlock, street confrontations between rival political groups – or widespread fear that matters are only going to get worse.
Military intervention is in such times supposed to serve as “circuit-breaker” to prevent the country from descending into chaos or civil war. But what can never be forgotten once the tanks roll is that the military has no right to rule longer than is necessary to restore order and repair the machinery of democracy.
Elected politicians are the only ones given a legitimate mandate to run the country. The problem, though, is that they have in recent decades shunned their duty to act in the public interest. For every honest and efficient elected representative working to improve society there are hundreds whose only goal in seeking office is to amass personal gain.
These are the ones who circumvent the law and abuse their power. If called out on illegalities, they tamper with the judicial process, worsening an already dire situation by fomenting conflict with those who challenge them. They have their own paid-off horde of supporters to confront challengers, and from there the conflict expands in the heat of hostility.
Once elected, this brand of politician betrays the voters’ faith to focus instead on its own interests. The only way to lift the country out of our current cycle of election-corruption-conflict-coup is to prevent such crooked politicians from gaining office in the first place.
To give democracy a better foothold, political parties need to better serve the people, and that begins with giving citizens a greater say in what goes on within the parties. In dismaying contrast, our political parties tend to be the “property” of wealthy, well-connected families or groups that run the parties like private enterprises, and as such they can never truly represent the common man in any democratic, institutional form.
Not even low-ranking party members have much say in setting policy or direction. Decisions about platforms and alliances come primarily from a small, elite core – usually the high-profile members who take turns at the party’s helm. In some cases, party patriarchs dominate the decision-making process, even long after they’re officially retired, rendering the nominal party leaders mere puppets. The patriarchs – shielded from legal restrictions and bans from politics – are the ones pulling the strings, just out of sight of the public, often to the detriment of our nation’s democratic progress.
In established democracies, scrutiny is built into the system. Government-watchdog agencies providing essential checks and balances are usually effective in forcing those who abuse the law out of office and, if appropriate, into
jail. Pressure from a dismayed public is often enough to spur administrative action, or even by itself prompt office holders to step down. Such scenarios are rarities in Thailand, where the prisons exist solely for the incarceration of the weak and powerless.
Our politicians and their parties ought to be part of the spirit of reform that has arrived with the coup. They should be making changes with the betterment of society in mind, rather than simply winning the next election. The party that can demonstrate its keenness and abilities in responding to public need will surely win the vote.
The populace awaits elected
representatives who are genuinely
worthy governors, not self-serving,
run-of-the-mill frauds. And the voters themselves must contribute to the crucial changes required. They can do so by being more selective about the candidates seeking office.