Bangkok Post: 23/09/08
Hamburger and `New Politics': the end of liberal democracy
Talk of the reformation of our political system is all the rage at the moment. After all, can any of us seriously, hand on heart, say that we are happy with the result of democracy and what it has achieved for Thailand?
It is easy to conclude that a system that gave us Samak as Prime Minister, Chalerm as Interior Minister and Chai Chidchob as House Speaker must be fatally flawed. The democratic system is meant to provide us with, at worst, political leaders of average competence. What we got, however, was the most toxic combination of leaders that we could possibly imagine. Is the logical conclusion, therefore, that the system itself is flawed?
One argument I could immediately make to refute this line of thought is that at least the system was good enough to allow them a very limited term of only seven months. In other, non-democratic systems, populations are forced to live with toxic leaders for years, if not for a whole generation; think Stalin and think of Kim Jong-Il. In the end, recent change for us came through a combination of the rule of law, exercised through an independent judicial process, combined with the need to acknowledge public opinion. Perhaps thus we can conclude that even if our flawed democracy means we can get the worst possible leaders, it also at least allows for their prompt removal.
Arguably, though, no change would have occurred had politicians not been scared of the potential reaction of the military to the re-selection of Samak as prime minister. Fear of a coup remained in the air and this has forced the politicians to behave in a way that is more sensitive to public opinion. The talk among politicians last week was very much ``unless we get our own house in order someone might come and take it away from us''.
So much for democracy providing a safety valve. So, while a full-blown coup is something everyone wants to avoid, it would appear that an unspoken threat of a coup was necessary for the right decision to have been made by politicians. Thus what we are left with is a flawed selection system and a far from ideal check and balance system. No wonder there is talk of the need for reform.
During the past two weeks, our political crisis competed for attention with the crisis unfolding in the US financial markets an event Thais have come to call the ``Hamburger Crisis'', as payback for having the Asian crisis of 1997 labelled ``Tom Yum Goong'' by the West. Indeed, the irony of the demise of Lehman Brothers is not lost on Thais who remember Lehman's role as a beneficiary of our crisis a decade ago. Once the dust settles though, the disappearance of the likes of Lehman, Bear Stern, AIG and even Freddie and Fannie will be less of an issue, than the questioning of the cult of the free-marketeer. The contention that governments should not meddle with free markets will not again be taken seriously for at least a generation. The reality is that market players are motivated by both greed and fear and will do everything to promote their interests within the frame of what they think they can get away with. The debt bubble that has led to the financial crisis is the latest example that without strict laws and regulations market players cannot be trusted to behave. Worse governments cannot even allow them to pay the full consequences without needing to be involved.
The same is true for politicians left to rules and regulations that cannot be enforced, politicians will do anything and everything to promote their interests. The more we rely on the free market (liberal democracy) the more we can bet that the system will be abused.
Intervention is required, just as it is required in financial markets, and that is why there is so much talk of the need for political reform. The reality is that the damage caused by ``free market'', whether in financial markets or the market for votes, is too great on society as a whole to be ignored.
That is not to say that we should restrict political free markets altogether, and this is why trying to find the right balance is so hard.
Abhisit Vejjajiva led a team of Democrat MPs to visit and attempt to bring some relief to the flood-stricken population of Lop Buri and Saraburi on Saturday. We were guided by our local representatives, both coincidentally female and both who had won their seats the hard way. In politics the hard way means having no money to use, and therefore receiving little help from local leaders. They both had to endure more than one electoral loss before finally prevailing, and both are now clearly adored by their electorates.
I mention this because seeing them at work reminds me of electoral politics the political free market at its best. They are ever sensitive to the needs of their constituencies, and their public responds to them with votes without the need for financial compensation. I couldn't help but think that at least a part of the problem, if not the main one, was that there were just not enough politicians of this kind for the electorate to choose from. Similarly, there are not enough responsible financial institutions that can be trusted not to abuse the freedom given them. The question is, why are such good politicians so hard to come by?
While we ponder this question, we are left with the reality of an imperfect system, and frankly, one that has clearly been a hindrance to the development of our society and the economic welfare of our people. I am not one to believe that fairness always means the view of the majority I have seen the majority at work in Parliament over the past four years to know how flawed they can be. I am thus apt to believe that while the majority view should be given first priority, a good system requires other mechanisms to provide the check and balance necessary. This is why I was always a supporter of the part-elected, part-selected Upper House there is no reason why we should have the Upper and Lower Houses filled with people of the same DNA. The question today, however, is whether we should go further should the Lower House also be partly selected and, if not, should its powers be curbed?
I can tell you as an elected MP that it is humbling to have to acknowledge that the questions have validity. In my opinion, if we are to seek to amend the Constitution, these are the issues we should be focusing on, not ones related to questions relevant to the survival of existing political parties or politicians.
Similarly, amendments to financial regulations should concentrate on the avoidance of future calamity, not the bailing out of those that committed past sins. In both the political and financial arenas, it is important not to take short-cuts to problems by being too heavy-handed in the restriction of the freedom of individuals to make decisions on what they think is best.
In politics, we also need to learn the lesson of the value of a politically active population. We cannot leave politics simply to politicians and the activism of the people deserves a leadership that is not only true to their cause but is also seen to be true. This is why nobody should be above the law and why the law itself needs to be sensitive to local needs and culture.
If we can build from this a genuinely committed and active general public, supported by an active and unbiased media, then I do believe we can withstand much of the shortcomings of our flawed political system.
Be in no doubt, an apathetic population suits the needs of the worst kind of politicians. The question we need to answer is: what else do we need to do to curb the politicians' instinct to abuse a liberal system? Opinions are welcome; this is, after all, a democracy!
Korn Chatikavanij