So far the General seems to be doing a far better job than any of his recent predecessors. He has as much right and claim to become PM as anybody else. It's results that matter.
Once he retires from the army and military rule ends he might just become a landslide winner in a free election because of his job performance.
"All governments are lying cocksuckers"
Bill Hicks.
RIP
I never suggested that it would be soon...whatever soon means. There's a lot of fixing and cleaning up to be done, and being as no civilian group has made any serious attempts to fix anything for a long time, I expect the Generals will hang in there until they are satisfied that conditions are right for an attempt at reinstating "democracy"
Perhaps the hogs will become accustomed to not having their snouts buried in the feeding trough during this period. It takes time for old habits to change you know.... There's a lot of maybes involved, but we will just have to wait and see, won't we?
The present military leaders evolved from their military brethren of glorious past, whom wielded exclusive power from 1939-1959.....and then again from 1962-1977/1979 without yielding to any such whims of democracy. A minor and spotty military overlord throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
All, given the blessing from The Family. And functioned quite nicely domestically, as well as having extremely friendly relations with the usual and assorted foreign powers.
Wait and see.
Indeed.
Originally Posted by thaimeme
^^ Agreed.
Some pundits feel that Thailand has pushed itself back some 60 years, with the recent power seizure.
To represent the rich elites? Maybe in practice, not in theory. I was a political activist, in theory, for a revolution in the U.S. during my early 20s'. I have since come to the conclusion that the founders of the U.S. constitution truly did want 'government for, by and of the people' (that quote, btw, is from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which, apparently were not his words originally. Also, having been an English teacher, I wanted to fully understand the difference between 'by the people' and 'of the people'. Definition of 'of': the relationship between the part and the whole: for example, 'the state of the union'. Definition of 'by': identifying the agent performing the action: 'The United States was attacked by Japan.')
So I therefore concluded the U.S. has had its revolution (and its civil war). As, KEVIN implies (maybe) military dictatorships are definitely not 'by' or 'of' the people. However, whether they can be 'for' the people (which may be argued is all that matters) is a different matter.
1) I live in Chiangmai, which has certainly not been a hotbed of violent protest against the regime.
2) I am not a Thai politico. I've read a number of posts in this tread but mainly at the beginning when I was concerned with the TV censorship and curfew restrictions. However, IMNSFHO, the thread is more about theory than practice (please to be corrected). And written by Western politicos with Western viewpoints.
That said, if I ask my local coffee shop owner and co-worker about the political situation, with no one else around, they are hesitant but not fearful of offering an opinion. What they seem to agree on is that 1) this is typical (and laughable) of Thai politics and 2) maybe things will be better now. So, in my small poll of shop owners, it appears the current situation is a possible improvement on the old.
“The Master said, At fifty, I knew what were the biddings of Heaven. At sixty, I heard them with docile ear. At seventy, I could follow the dictates of my own heart; for what I desired no longer overstepped the boundaries of right.”
Problem solved! Government for, by and of the people. And expressive of another inherent aspect of Thai politics: mai pen rai.Originally Posted by koman
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)