Thread: The West's Betrayal of Democracy

Originally Posted by Begbie

Unelected upper house composed of crony businessmen and even by UK standards, a disgusting herd of ex-politicians.

Ah, yes. Very true. No room for an unelected body IMO

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

^
Egyptians chose their government fair and square - the Muslim Brotherhood - but that clearly wasn't ok with the Egyptian establishment or the USA, which had been maintaining its largest foreign Mission (Embassy) in Cairo prior to Iraq, and has always had close ties to Mubarak and the military ever since (managed to get rid of some of the generals in the pre-9/11 trial run of the Air Egypt crash - but that's another story). End note is simple: Democracy cannot happen in Egypt if it means the majority get to choose. That's CLEAR.

Tosh!

Obama, and therefore the US gov, betrayed Mubarak by insisting on inviting the MB, a banned organisation, as front row guests in his 'first speech in a Muslim capital'. Mubarak probably knew then that Obama had a dagger with his name on it. Then Obama followed through by supporting the MB during the protests and before the election, as they proceeded to shred the Egyptian constitution, during the ensuing turmoil, and even after Morsi and it were ousted. And he still does.

Obama backed the wrong horse, lost face big time, and that makes him more dangerous than ever.


But end note is as you say, simple: Democracy cannot happen in Egypt if it means the majority get to choose. That's CLEAR.

Or Libya, or Tunisia, or Syria, Yemen, Sudan, or any Muslim majority country in the region, because they will always end up plonking for Allah.

And as most adults know even if they refuse to admit it, Allah cannot survive by allowing people to think for themselves and speak their mind.

You've lost me. Why can't the majority select a conservative religious party?

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

You've lost me. Why can't the majority select a conservative religious party?

Because the majority have been brainwashed daily to accept the imam's directives, which are usually inflammatory and politically biased, directed to an exclusive congregation of sectarians, not towards the majority.

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

You've lost me. Why can't the majority select a conservative religious party?

Problem is they do, invariably.

Originally Posted by leemo

Problem is they do, invariably.

Yep, isn't democracy wonderful. Unintended consequences often happen in the pursuit to install democracy. Election of Hamas being one.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

In the longer run, reforms are obviously needed (which country is that not true of?) but I don't think there's a shortage of ideas. Academic groups have been active in promoting reform of free speech laws, labour organizations have been agitating for recognition of various ILO agreements, student groups are agitating for changes in education, I read some stuff about land reform recently. there seems to be a lot more attention paid to wealth inequalities than in the past...there's a lot going on, though the extent to which has an impact has been pretty limited, at best - it's the implementation which is missing, not the ideas.

Although I'm not as clear as I might have been in my post, I mean a lack of ideas/creativity on the part of the powerbrokers, the leadership (visible and behind the scenes) of what for brevity's sake I'll call the reds (Thaksinistas) and yellows (old guard). The Thaksinista version of a creative approach seems to be "More patronage- look what we'll give you!" while the old guard sees views that approach as giving the hired help even more reasons to be cheeky. Better to slap 'em down and show 'em whose boss- "More fear, more authority!"

Take away the fear and self-censorship caused by LM and libel laws and I'm sure there would be an absolute flowering of pent-up ideas.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

As for moral authority, the Sangha have been notably silent (at least I haven't heard much, apart from that arse Luang Pu Buddha Isara on the PDRC stage) and other institutions have not said anything very useful.

Something to do with the Sangha's ties to the Network, I would guess.

Originally Posted by Zooheekock

Perhaps, just as the last round of coup and repression politicized huge numbers of people, Suthep's nonsense is encouraging the wider public to think more seriously about the structure of Thai political life. From my reading (which is admittedly very partial, superficial and biased), I have a fair degree of hope for the country.

I suppose it depends on how the myth deconstruction process unravels. In some important ways Thailand will be forced to reimagine itself. In previous years I had been hoping they'd find a way to ease into it, but apparently too many important people feel that propping up the facade is critical to their survival, so I am expecting a hard landing. Otherwise, given that Thailand's problems are human constructs- manufactured rather than organic- finding solutions isn't impossible in theory. Unlike Egypt, Thailand at least has the ingredients and potential for a bright future.

You can call the sides whatever you want, but no time in history has the type of change been accomplished as demanded by the Thaksinistas of a long established system such as we have here, without chaos and bloodshed. People do not willingly relinquish power and privilege. Not that it could work anyway without serious adjustments. Are the Thais up to it? Great as a computer game, when it goes wrong just restart, but not in real life.

Giving people what they want simply because they were told or paid to make lots of noise about it, is abdication of responsibility. That may be the democratic way, because after all a vote is a vote even if the voter is clueless. But while we tout 'democracy' as the best form of government, it's the best we know of, for us, and not for all. Understanding this is the spiked hurdle our glorious leaders proudly trip over time and again, and we have seen this happen and repeated over the past couple of decades.

A hundred years ago the King would bring out the troops and create enough bodies to disperse the mob, but Westerners today no longer have the stomach for blood; some might say unless it's wholesale. So ultimately whatever Thailand opts for has to be within the range of acceptability to the clueless farang wonders constantly drafting the big picture. And the current regime falls squarely into that window.

I agree with parts of both sides, but seems to me that Thais should stay with what they knows best, throw a few rocks every couple of years, then knuckle down to gradually improve what they have for the next generation.

And there are greater things than politics in Thailand, such as two other immense anchors stunting the type of progress under discussion.

A couple of thoughts from Winston Churchill.

Originally Posted by leemo

a vote is a vote even if the voter is clueless

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Might make peace with Iran. Might make peace with Palestine, flow on to the rest of the middle east and world. Right wingers are feeling threatened, but conservatives are not.

Originally Posted by robuzo

In previous years I had been hoping they'd find a way to ease into it, but apparently too many important people feel that propping up the facade is critical to their survival, so I am expecting a hard landing. Otherwise, given that Thailand's problems are human constructs- manufactured rather than organic- finding solutions isn't impossible in theory.

Nice wording here, imo.

^Well, thanks. I'm pretty sure I am not the only one on this board who, political sympathies aside, finds this frustrating because Thailand seems to have so much going for it and so much to lose. Similar to the '97 currency crisis, the people who are steering the ship of state toward the rocks are the ones who figure they're set up well enough to weather another economic crash, and so long as they maintain their position they're happy to wreck the joint. The real problem this time is that one group or another at the top stands to lose big, and are desperate to win whatever the cost.

Originally Posted by ENT

the majority have been brainwashed daily to accept the imam's directives, which are usually inflammatory and politically biased, directed to an exclusive congregation of sectarians, not towards the majority.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

You've lost me. Why can't the majority select a conservative religious party?

Because the majority have been brainwashed daily to accept the imam's directives, which are usually inflammatory and politically biased, directed to an exclusive congregation of sectarians, not towards the majority.

Which sect do you think is the majority in Egypt? It's the Sunnis by a long way. Shias are a small minority, probably fewer in number than the Christians.