Read my post, the General is Muslim himself ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
Printable View
Read my post, the General is Muslim himself ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
That reminds me of Full metal Jacket, 'there is a horny bastard within all of us trying to get out'. Or it was all a coverup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson
So let me get this straight , they have decided to get rid of the current constitution , banned existing political parties from meeting and banned the formation of any new parties , made any gathering of more than 4 people an offence and they are censoring the media .
So does that mean this coup has not really got a much to do with upholding the constitution and protecting democracy ?
Italy and Israel use purportional reresentation, and they don't directly elect their presidents either. That means seat distribution in those parliments is based on the percentage of the popular vote. So it means that fringe parties and coalitions rule the day. Where as the US UK and Canada use the first past the post method. IE MP's and represenatives are elected from a specific area to sit in the commons/HoR, who wins that area is based on he/she who amasses the most votes in that area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
As long as the people like it, it's democratic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
It was obviously the will of the people, they just didn't dare doing it themselves.
But, it wasn't the 'will of the people', it was the will of a group of high-ranking army officers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Sometimes it is hard to know if people are being ironic or straight in their posts. At the risk of being blind to your irony, I will just say democracy is not about giving the people what they like - any smart dictator should be able to do that - it's about processes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
More generally, I can only repeat what I said earlier: it is by no means obvious most Thais are against the deposed PM. The middle class in the cities maybe, but apparently he has support in the countryside. The only way to test that is an election, which the opposition boycotted and the military it now seems have acted to forestall.
I'd rather have a corrupt democratic government than a clean military one. Somehow not paying tax on a purchase seems a lesser crime than putting tanks on the street and violently seizing power.
Update:
There you go, just how useful kings are to safeguard constitutions and democracy.
Pathetic old man.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It was meant to be hard to figure out the irony.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
On the other hand it was not completely ironic in that I think such a rapid change may bring up some new ideas given the people like it.
Usually the military is seen as a means of oppression, aggression and a tool of the government. In my oppinion those soldiers all have a conscience and if they act by the will of the people they can not be seen as oppressors but rather as a tool of democracy(think of the Wehrmacht making a coup against Hitler which had saved millions of lives).
Against this stand some of the weird things like media propaganda and not allowing meetings of more than 5 people.
I may be way too optimistic but I personally have problems seeing every soldiers as a robot who obeys every order and oppresses his own people(with his own family being among them). Maybe it was better I never joined the military because I would most likely not follow orders against my conscience.
And so far, some of the people seem to enjoy it and the soldiers are not threatening with weapons but rather talk to people in a nice way, as long as they really make a new election, I do not see much of a problem there.
It's called martial law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Why should he condemn the military? To satisfy the west's usual pleas of "freedom and democracy". I think he can judge better what is best rather than anyone here.Quote:
There you go, just how useful kings are to safeguard constitutions and democracy.
Pathetic old man.
No, martial law does typically entail restrictions on meetings etc. But it does not entail scraping the current constitution with an eye to creating a new one, nor does it involve banning the formation of new political parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
This is a military coup aimed not merely at deposing the democratic government but also destroying all constitutional checks on the authority of the new junta.
But isn't the point that the Thai people, not their king nor their army commander, should judge? And that's why overthrowing a democratic government by force is a bad thing.Quote:
Why should he condemn the military? To satisfy the west's usual pleas of "freedom and democracy". I think he can judge better what is best rather than anyone here.
Sorry, but soldiers are the last group of people I would trust to act for the good of the people according to their conscience. They are drilled to obey orders and to wage war, not to be politicians or draft constitutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
And the clause if they act by the will of the people says everything. The will of the people is decided by elections that follow lawful procedures. Not by a general sticking his thumb in the air and trying to judge the current mood.
You mean like Adolf Hitlers government?Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
Hitler's government fulfilled the criteria of democracy, namely that the people themselves should be governed by a leader of their own choice. It was inaugurated through due process of the political system in Germany. The Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) was also lawfully passed despite that bit of tomfoolery regarding the Reichstag fire.
Is it not also true that if Hitler's measures had the approval of the vast majority of the people, then Hitler's opponents were in fact enemies of democracy?
Sometimes the actions of the military or institutions can be more democratic (in the broad sense) than popular will. France for example has replaced their constitution several times and yet remained a democracy.
Oh come on, Sharrukin, you can do better than that! As I said democracy is not about doing what someone believes (rightly or wrongly) is the will of the people, it is about processes. Hitler removing democratic processes when he came to power - just as the Thai Junta seems to have done - is clearly anathema to that. We are not allowed to make Hitler analogies in internet debates as it automatically forfeits the argument, but if we set that aside then I think the Thai King is playing a very nice Hindenberg to his army chief's Hitler.
The French analogy is a better one that did occur to me. But forgive me because I don't know all the details. Of course, I am not opposed to changing constitutions per se (I would not mind Britain acquiring one, for example). But I am alarmed at doing it at the barrel of a gun.
Maybe everything in Thailand will turn out ok. Dictators are sometimes benign. A few even willingly surrender power. But so far the processes of regime change underway in Thailand are alarming to any real democrat.
My point is that in emerging democracies elected leaders are often very undemocratic. The electorate is not culturally attuned to democratic ways of thinking, so often institutional groups such as the army, a king, etc lead the way towards democracy more surely than demagogues. Huey Long, and Cromwell are a case in point.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
The same sort of things happened in our own history. The Magna Carta signed at Runnymede came about to confirm baronial rights. The Glorious Revolution of 1689 was a military overthrow of the existing legally constituted government. The legality of the entire Cromwellian episode is questionable on both sides.
The King (undemocratic if you please) is the essential ingredient in Thailand that leads me to believe that things are taking a turn for the better. There is a danger, but the respect shown for the monarchial tradition suggests that these are not rogue colonels with guns as we see in too many middle eastern or african states.
Democracy can be seen as nothing more than the will of the mob. Democracy can be seen as processes, in which case Hitler is very relevant and not a lesson we should forget. We do not know what, or why things are happening but to say that it is undemocratic simply because the army has taken action is to ignore our own history, the history of emerging democracies, and yes Hitler.
I'd concede your point if the military coup was to reinstate democratic principles or to call an election - ie if the PM was doing Hitler-type things to undermine democracy. But it does not see as if the PM was doing such things. From what I've heard so far, he may have fiddled his taxes and tried to get his own man in place as army commander (surely an understandable move, in the light of subsequent events?). Nor does it seem as if the military are in a hurry to reintroduce democracy. Perhaps because, as I suspect, the PM might actually win a free and fair election. Not that they'll ever let him contest it now, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
I have a hard time believing overturning a democratically elected government through guns is leading the way towards democracy. That's too close to doublespeak.
Thai food is good.