Thread: Is Prayuth the best choice amid signs of Army rivalry?

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by ENT

^ Sabang post#145 above


If democracy exists, it would be preferable, but Thailand has no such structure firmly in place because of endemic corruption and nepotism.

Democracy, a government of, by and for the people, elected by virtue of a majority vote by the populace, does not exist in any country.

.....

Government of, for and by the people? A democracy?

Not by a long shot.

The government elected in this way is an oligarchy, and closer to despotism than you describe, my friend.

all very true, democracies are not very good at electing representative governments.

Democracy is very good at providing a non distructive method to get rid of unpopular governments. Thats why its works so well.

But as mr Churchill put it, "Democracy is not perfect, but it is best we have". Agree

Originally Posted by nostromo

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by ENT

^ Sabang post#145 above


If democracy exists, it would be preferable, but Thailand has no such structure firmly in place because of endemic corruption and nepotism.

Democracy, a government of, by and for the people, elected by virtue of a majority vote by the populace, does not exist in any country.

.....

Government of, for and by the people? A democracy?

Not by a long shot.

The government elected in this way is an oligarchy, and closer to despotism than you describe, my friend.

all very true, democracies are not very good at electing representative governments.

Democracy is very good at providing a non distructive method to get rid of unpopular governments. Thats why its works so well.

But as mr Churchill put it, "Democracy is not perfect, but it is best we have". Agree

"....it is the best we have.." yet!

Now is the time for a better way.

Political apathy will only destroy us all, at the whim of every tyranical oligarchy that has pretentiously arrogated to itself the mantle of democracy.

Stand up and you will live! Sit down, and you will die.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by nostromo

Originally Posted by hazz

Originally Posted by ENT

^ Sabang post#145 above


If democracy exists, it would be preferable, but Thailand has no such structure firmly in place because of endemic corruption and nepotism.

Democracy, a government of, by and for the people, elected by virtue of a majority vote by the populace, does not exist in any country.

.....

Government of, for and by the people? A democracy?

Not by a long shot.

The government elected in this way is an oligarchy, and closer to despotism than you describe, my friend.

all very true, democracies are not very good at electing representative governments.

Democracy is very good at providing a non distructive method to get rid of unpopular governments. Thats why its works so well.

But as mr Churchill put it, "Democracy is not perfect, but it is best we have". Agree

"....it is the best we have.." yet!

Now is the time for a better way.

Political apathy will only destroy us all, at the whim of every tyranical oligarchy that has pretentiously arrogated to itself the mantle of democracy.

Stand up and you will live! Sit down, and you will die.

You did not mention the better way. Or was that the shallow "Stand up and you will live! Sit down, and you will die."

^ The better way is to vote for one spokesperson or representative from a ward or district who will become the MP for those resident there.

No political parties are formed.

All elected representatives then form a parliament where the interests of their electorates are brought forward to an agenda for discussion, as in municipal councils.

Portfolios for transport, communications, public works, health, education welfare and so on are allocated to suitable members as secretaries, by vote in that parliament.

A second house of deputies is then also elected, who act on behalf of the heads of each government department.

The MPs then elect from their ranks an executive for one year to co-ordinate the separate departments.

A chairman of the executive committee is then elected by the executive for one year.
He then returns to the executive, from which a new chairman is elected, yearly.

Businesses are either state enterprises or private, both forms are taxed and regulated by the government.
State enterprises are non profit, all funded through taxation.

Citizen's and state initiated referenda for any issue raised to be held regularly,

Results of referenda decided by a set majority, that decision being binding on the government to execute.

Ideally, all decisions made in parliament through debate and by consensus agreement.

Debating members must be allowed speak without interruption.

The executive passes all decisions so arrived at if they do not contravene the constitution as decided by referendum.

The executive may select members and/or their deputies to committees for any matter.

A legislature drawn from the judiciary regulates the executive's decisions.


That is as far as I have thought on the matter so far.

^ Another method is to limit single party dominance by forming many small lobby groups who become eligible for parliament through collecting a minimum number of votes.

Government is then formed as a coalition.

In both forms no private funding is allowed for election propoganda, only state funding

All parties concerned are given equal media coverage.

^ excellent idea for the most corrupt parliament ever - a bit like the last one here in Thailand.

Interesting discussion - the Churchill quote however is a joke. Given that:

He was a pro-Royalist Establishment stooge whose (post conflict) image has been built into something he was not - He was NOT a champion of British working people despite everything they went through during the war - and was opposed to any sort of socialised system that would benefit all after the war. That's why the old geezer was kicked out of office (yes - in case you didn't know, he LOST the election).

Originally Posted by Tom Sawyer

Interesting discussion - the Churchill quote however is a joke. Given that:

He was a pro-Royalist Establishment stooge whose (post conflict) image has been built into something he was not - He was NOT a champion of British working people despite everything they went through during the war - and was opposed to any sort of socialised system that would benefit all after the war. That's why the old geezer was kicked out of office (yes - in case you didn't know, he LOST the election).

I very well know he lost an election. But he won a war.

Originally Posted by ENT

^ The better way is to vote for one spokesperson or representative from a ward or district who will become the MP for those resident there.

No political parties are formed.

All elected representatives then form a parliament where the interests of their electorates are brought forward to an agenda for discussion, as in municipal councils.

Portfolios for transport, communications, public works, health, education welfare and so on are allocated to suitable members as secretaries, by vote in that parliament.

A second house of deputies is then also elected, who act on behalf of the heads of each government department.

The MPs then elect from their ranks an executive for one year to co-ordinate the separate departments.

A chairman of the executive committee is then elected by the executive for one year.
He then returns to the executive, from which a new chairman is elected, yearly.

Businesses are either state enterprises or private, both forms are taxed and regulated by the government.
State enterprises are non profit, all funded through taxation.

Citizen's and state initiated referenda for any issue raised to be held regularly,

Results of referenda decided by a set majority, that decision being binding on the government to execute.

Ideally, all decisions made in parliament through debate and by consensus agreement.

Debating members must be allowed speak without interruption.

The executive passes all decisions so arrived at if they do not contravene the constitution as decided by referendum.

The executive may select members and/or their deputies to committees for any matter.

A legislature drawn from the judiciary regulates the executive's decisions.


That is as far as I have thought on the matter so far.

Dream world. Some points you state are good, but it is not going to happen

^Come up with something yourself, then.

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

^ excellent idea for the most corrupt parliament ever - a bit like the last one here in Thailand.

The difference being no private funding for electioneering pemitted.

^^^ Not a dream world, just a possibly feasible model.

Most smooth running city or district councils run similarly, as do some incorporated societies.

At least it has a system of checks and balances that can curtail graft through a rotating chairmanship and a legislative.

Another advantage is that no party politics occur, so no useless point scoring and waste of public funds.

MPs will be forced to work instead of collecting attendance fees and sleeping on the job.

^ sounds a bit like the early Greek system.

^ true, and a little closer to a democratic one

The system could be taylored to popular needs, Thai or European through citizen's initiated referenda.

^^^^^ # 163. Laws are essentially agreements between contracting parties.

So what is agreed upon through public debate, initiated by the populace becomes law.

Not as in the current models of government where only a ruling party makes new laws.

Originally Posted by ENT

^ true, and a little closer to a democratic one

Now let you all have a greek system borrowing from others with no intention to pay back. I would advise you to buy 1 dollar calculator made in China.

Fuck the greeks and italy and then some!

^ I don't think Thais have the sense of social responsibility to make it workable; generally, Asians are extremely selfish and power/status is very important to them - they're just as happy keeping others down as they are getting ahead themselves.

A level playing field where everyone has equal opportunities will be very difficult to achieve here. One can hope though...

^ It was the early Greek system (pre-Roman),not the present day Greece, who are a different mob altogether.

^ yes...

But, can you imagine the Thais picking out a stone from a 'bag' in a fair draw???

Thais have a built in aristocracy that could fit in as a "house of lords" as in UK to form an upper chamber of regulation.

It would have to consult with the legislature though' only if the second model I proposed were to be taken up.

As I don't support the concept of a ruling elite, as in UK's house of lords, this model is more fitting to a republic.

^^ At the point of a gun, yes.

The army as guardians of the status quo could oversee the lot.

^

Do the House of Lords have utter and complete control? Because that is the only way the Thai bluebloods will accept the situation; as is the heart of what we have been seeing since 2006...