Printable View
I don't want to derail the thread, but I've always wondered about FDR. How did he do that? Was it a war thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
(As for your last sentence, absolutely right. The USA is one of those few countries where the peaceful transfer of power has pretty much never been in doubt - even in divisive circumstances such as 2000 - a wonderful achievement).
IIRC the particular amendment was added after the Roosevelt administration(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Yes, I'm aware of that but the solid tradition beforehand was for two terms only. I'm intrigued as to what provoked the change for FDR - which clearly concerned people enough to then formalise the previous tradition by constitutional amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
Wow, I think this may be the first example I have seen of a revolution returning power back to the monarchy.
Unless I haven't been paying enough attention to the story.
On another note, I love the way British papers (the Metro in particular) go on about how many British tourists there are whenever these disasters strike. In many cases that's alright but here it's just: "Oh noes! 2,000 British tourists surrounded by a bloodless coup!"
Except of course, if they get shot, which seems not to be a rare occurence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
No deadly serious. A corrupt democracy isn't really democracy in my book so a coup against a corrupt version is the appropriate virus removal. Kind of works for the likes of Fiji, Turkey and South East Asia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Nor do I think popularity makes it any better or worse. The judicary had already ruled that the elections where unconsitutional... the militaries role in a lot of nations is to protect the consitution. A similar scenario played out in Pakistan where a leader tried to bypass the consitution only to find that the military was more then willing to protect itself and the consitution.
Now with time Thailand might develop a vibrant middle class and an educated electorate that votes on issues, a coup wouldn't be the best way to remove a politician. But it is currently in a transitional stage and if anything best know as a sex tourism spot for middle aged men raping underage girls... not really what I would expect as the defacto standard of democracy.
Well, I guess we disagree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
In the worst case, it should devolve to the people to remove a corrupt government such as in the Philippines or Czech Republic. Never the army, which can only be a servant of the people and their representatives. Pakistan is hardly a shining example of a military coup protecting democracy. :dizzy2:
In Thailand's case, the constitutional guardian is the king, who has not acted to protect the constitution. The judiciary ruled the elections unconstitutional and the king therefore should have dismissed the government and PM Thaksin, appointing an interim PM. Perfectly feasible considering Bhumipol's revered status. He should now denounce the army and invite a civilian to be interim PM. If there is any point at all to a constitutional monarch, this is exactly it.
In any case, Thaksin's position was becoming unviable, and there were many demonstrations, by the people, against him. Ironically, the impact was lessened by the 'ceasefire' called while the king's jubilee was celebrated. Yet much of the country still supported him - just because they are rural and unsophisticated, does that make their vote and interests count less? The army most certainly hasn't protected the constitution as it has torn it up - hardly an act of support, is it?
I hold no brief for Thaksin, who is certainly corrupt. But he is in the same league as Berlusconi of Italy and a hundred other crooks in government - and I don't see the tanks rolling into Rome, do you? Would you support that? Many would argue that the administration of the USA is corrupt to the eyeballs, including many posters on the right here. Let's get the tanks out and park them on Pennsylvania Avenue, shall we? After all, your definition means they can't be a democracy because of said corruption.
The people are not dependent on a middle class, and your characterisation of what was developing into a positive example of economic growth is rather demeaning to Thais. Of course their democracy was fragile, it is only 14 years old - and now is shattered again. How on earth are they going to develop peaceful and non-corrupt transfer of power if the army is a constant threat on the sidelines? How is any PM going to make radical reforms if the generals fire up the tanks any time they think their interests are threatened? Most military types are deep-rooted conservatives - what if the people want more public spending, or to remove the monarchy, or God forbid, remove an unpopular chief of staff?
:no:
Excellent post BG.
Some .orgers seem to be getting excited by a 'return to monarchy', but I doubt the guy knew anything about the coup. He's just a pawn for the military who want to assuage people's fears and provides a cheap way of appealing to unthinking, patriotic sentiment. Hey, if you're against the coup, then you're against the king, then you are a traitor. It's a cynical manipulation of both the king and the people, unsophisticated yet probably effective in the short term.
I think the muteness of the King may be an indication that he wants to keep his popularity with the people and have the military act on his behalf and arms length. I'm not worried yet about the coup, it is what develops out of it.
Pakistan is a situation where the military protected the people from a corrupt politician who wanted to enshrine his power and take the country away from a democratic route to a more theocratic/fundamentalist one. IMDHO Pakistan is a good example of a coup acting as a deterent... a politcial reset button, until things stabilise.
The people aren't dependent on a middle class. But consider what a vibrant democracy requires... informed citizens who can analyse what a politican states and sort out the dry economics from the emotional rheotric. A middle class helps create a wider belt of informed citizens... it also makes a larger percentage of apathetic voters who are against coups.Quote:
The people are not dependent on a middle class, and your characterisation of what was developing into a positive example of economic growth is rather demeaning to Thais. Of course their democracy was fragile, it is only 14 years old - and now is shattered again. How on earth are they going to develop peaceful and non-corrupt transfer of power if the army is a constant threat on the sidelines? How is any PM going to make radical reforms if the generals fire up the tanks any time they think their interests are threatened? Most military types are deep-rooted conservatives - what if the people want more public spending, or to remove the monarchy, or God forbid, remove an unpopular chief of staff?
That's borderline patronizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiochusIII
Anyway, I was only inquiring because of I've seen a lot of pro-Thai sentiment in Thai film that fundamentally have little to do with being Thai other than inclusion of its famous martial art, and I was wondering how controlled by the current government the film medium is.
I'd like to reinforce this point not only as it applies to Thailand but Iraq and democratic governance as a whole. I cringe whenever I hear Bush talk about "Freedom" and "Democracy" because he should instead be talking about Liberty and Democratic Institutions. The democratic republic we in the US enjoy today was based on the latter with the former more characteristic of Germanic tribes [wording]. You can't have a "democracy" (as we currently use the word) without the proper foundations for it. At best, you'd end up with a populist government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
As far as the military being used to oust a corrupt politician: A civilian should ALWAYS be in control of the military. This of course varies according to situation, reason etc. For example: I like the amount of power the Turkish military has and believe that they act as guardians against extremist governments; perhaps because of their historical contact with the West. However in places like South America, the opposite tends to occur.
The only person who knows for a certainty died at Warm Springs, Georgia in April 1945. The likely entrance of the USA into World War Two was palpable in 1940, and formed part of FDR's rationale. Presidencies typically take 6 months or more of OJT to get up to speed, and war could've erupted at any time. Furthermore, FDR did not trust the Democrats to win without him -- and saw his New Deal legislated away in jig time if he was not running things (a distinct possibility, especially if Dewey or someone like him took over). The many changes he had evoked had not yet hardened into institutionalized norms. Finally, memoirs from several individuals make it clear that FDR reveled in being President. He liked the pomp and LOVED the ability to shape things as he thought they should be. However, even FDR didn't want a 4th term (his doctors hid much from him, but he was no fool and knew he was quite ill), and felt that he had to finish out the war for the good of the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
However, as his failure to bring Truman into the loop on many issues shows, he did not believe that he would die in office. I have always suspected -- albeit with no proof -- that had FDR really believed he would not finish his term he would have asked Truman to step aside for Harriman.
Thanks. I have always been profoundly moved by the simplicity of the inaugurals every 4 years. Political opponents -- some with profound personal dislike for their successor/supplanter -- calmly sit as their power is riven from them and bestowed upon another in a few short sentences. In its own way, pretty moving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Seems as though the erstwhile leader of Thailand forgot the Kruschev rule:
think twice before your schedule your vacation.....
I'm actually slightly worried by this. I can't help but wonder if there is a southern solution in the works.
Except I just heard on the news that the Thai military were suspending the constitution and planning to draft a new one. Sounds like the Vietnam quote - in order to protect the village, we had to destroy it. :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
To steal a Rumsfeld-ism: democracy is messy. Some politicians will be corrupt. The solution lies in the courts and ultimately in voting them out, neither of which option sounds like it was exhausted in Thailand. Yes, if the PM was suspending democracy and killing opponents etc, then I can see force might be appropriate. But in this particular case, it looks like we have a typical dodgy popularist politician rather than a totalitarian or gangster.
And what makes me really uneasy is the suggestion the Thai PM may still command majority support in the country. When the opposition start boycotting elections, I am always sceptical. In a relatively open country like Thailand, it's rather hard to steal an election without the international community and the local people realising it. The opposition should have taken their chances. Election boycotts usually implies the opposition are too stupid to see that winning an election is the only constitutional way to get power. Or too unpopular to have a realistic chance of doing so. But in this case, a more sinister interpetation is possible - they didn't need a constitutional way of getting power.
Let the people make their own mistakes. The military have an awful record in government the world over - soldiers can do well-defined narrow tasks (e.g. build that bridge, win that battle etc) very efficiently, but they just aren't cut out for the complexities and subtleties of governing a country.
Even if, by some good fortune, these particular generals prove to be benign, it's a pretty nasty precedent for the future. A country like Thailand needs to move to the point where a coup d'etat is unthinkable. At present, the country's history suggests they are inevitable.
Edit: I just wrote all the above and then read BGs post & realise he said most of it much better. :bow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Yes, me too. It is quite incredible (and yes, very moving even to this non-citizen) that this happens so smoothly and with such dignity - when one looks at the world over the last century, one realises how very rare and precious the moment is, denied to much of the people of the world.
Oh, and thanks for your insight into FDR's third term. :bow:
Actually there is, I heard the general is going for negotiations and dialogue :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Negotiations and dialogue would be a better solution. :idea2: ~;)
I prefer the British way. Removal van in Downing Street, incumbent has to clear out PDQ. If the outgoing PM is handing over power with dignity, he should be deprived of it to remind him he lost the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Militaries should stay out of politics. Now if there had been a popular revolt and the Generals had ordered all the troops into the barracks with orders to not interfere one way or the other, then I would have applauded them.
Seems harsh and divisive. Losing elections is not always a matter of incompetence, but sometimes the electorate wanting a change. I'm sure outgoing PMs need no further humiliation than having to face the loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
And what about leaders who actually bow out gracefully? Granted, they're few and far between (last one was Harold Wilson, IIRC) but they deserve dignity, surely?
It is best to encourage leaders to stand down - make them feel appreciated and important - the next day will be hard enough. Then they're less inclined to cling on like desperate, foolish, scared Tony Blairs.
Ooops, did I say that out loud?
Throughout my experience Prime Ministers have never bowed out gracefully. They have always clung on until everyone was sick of them, and then they would cling on a while longer until they were kicked out. IMHO it is better to disrespect and abuse the people who hold power, lest they should grow too fond of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
There we differ significantly. You get the politicians you deserve - if you treat the people who step up to lead with disrespect and abuse, merely because they are in power, they will treat you with disrespect and abuse.
You have to believe a leader has good intentions until he or she proves otherwise. That's why term limits are the only way forward - the politician knows the march of time is inevitable. There's no clinging on in US presidential politics - just a set time granted by the electorate followed by a graceful retirement. (Another custom I admire is that ex-presidents are allowed to keep the honorific of Mr President - shows the great honour bestowed by the title and the people remains, but the power is gone. Helluva mature).
British politics is dirty and vicious, producing capable leaders for a dirty and vicious world (PMQs is much admired apparently by followers of US politics, as is the British penchant for treating their politicians with no respect whatsoever). They enter politics knowing they will get disrespect and abuse. Churchill would have been horrified if anyone suggested introducing decorum to British politics. Even Blair, our most presidential PM yet, actively seeks out hostile audiences who call him all manner of names.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
Reg Keys' Speech Against The Iraq War And Tony Blair
The Daily Show (the prog with Jon Stewart) did a comparison of the treatment Bush and Blair get from their audiences, which unfortunately is no longer available on youtube, but which you can read about if you google for it (try "Spot of Indecision 2005").
Found it
A new government always comes with a veneer of goodwill, not through respect for the office, but from hope that this lot might prove to be better than the last one. They retain that goodwill for as long as they prove capable, and while people may become dissatisfied with some aspects of it, we know that government has its limits and give them some leeway. However, the undercurrent of mistrusting the government and giving them a hard time keeps them intellectually active, if not necessarily honest. The very idea behind Questoin Time is to allow the ministers to be questioned without restraint, and social restraint imposed by respect for the office is as bad as, and more insidious than, procedural restraints.Quote:
You have to believe a leader has good intentions until he or she proves otherwise. That's why term limits are the only way forward - the politician knows the march of time is inevitable. There's no clinging on in US presidential politics - just a set time granted by the electorate followed by a graceful retirement. (Another custom I admire is that ex-presidents are allowed to keep the honorific of Mr President - shows the great honour bestowed by the title and the people remains, but the power is gone. Helluva mature).
Should this disrespect disappear when they leave office? Perhaps, but not immediately. Giving them a final kick up the backside is a good way of reminding the incoming government that their period of grace is limited, and they can expect the same treatment when they fail the electorate likewise. Once they leave politics altogether they can fade into the ether if they so wish.
Crikey, Pannonian, I thought I was the most cynical person I know. :wink:
You've cheered me up - I'm still an idealist!
:bow:
Unless the last guy really screwed up things why not keep on good terms with him, chances are he will still have some pull with friendships he made and could be a useful tool in the future. Many or our former presidents have gotten a lot done after their term. Of course, sometimes it just might be easier to behead him and confiscate his assets. ~D
Well, by definition, a Prime Minister is a sort of "first among equals" and not an executive separately elected to an executive office as we have here. The PM is subject to whatever "recall" process is normal for the representatives (MP's) in her legislature and so on. Speaker of the House is the closest we have to someone in that role.
Modern English government effectively combines the roles of President and Speaker of the House (USA def.) into one person. Provides advantages in that you more or less have to have a mandate to govern (at least at the outset) because your party/coalition has the votes to do so. Can create continuity problems with votes of confidence and what-not (though, in practice, the UK has never had the revolving government issues that used to plague Italy or the 78-party fragile coalitions of the Knesset).
Oh hay, further reading shows the general is actually from the south himself ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Blame the regulars at the history group I used to frequent. I may lack sufficient experience to give a decent perspective on things, but these fellows certainly didn't. Many of them dating back to the 1950s or earlier, they had a fearsomely accurate way of assessing the world (eg they predicted the course of the Iraq war to its current state even before the war began, and another of the regulars was a retired US colonel who actually deferred to them on military matters). Their view on politics was that it is always best to take the most cynical interpretation, and more often than not it's going to be close to the truth. I was already verging that way, but they beat the last dregs of idealism out of me with their relentless and demonstrably accurate cynicism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
thai chics are sooooo hot, so thanks to the general for standing up to a leader who wasnt doing enough to squash the islamic insurgency that would cover these chics up. also. chicken pad thai rocks!!!!1111