A Possible Coup in Thailand

CNN:

BANGKOK, Thailand (CNN) -- Tanks have been seen rolling through the streets of Bangkok, Thailand, on Tuesday amid rumors of an attempted coup, witnesses tell CNN.

Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra -- currently at the U.N. headquarters in New York -- went on a government-owned TV station and declared a state of emergency, The Associated Press reported.

According to officials at the Thai mission at the United Nations, Thaksin has moved up his speech to the General Assembly to Tuesday night and will return to Bangkok after his address.

He had been scheduled to address the assembly on Wednesday.

Thaksin has been under considerable pressure to step down. Elections in Thailand are scheduled for November after the country's constitutional court ruled April's vote was unconstitutional.

Thaksin had called for the elections in April, three years early, after opponents accused the billionaire leader of abusing the country's system of checks and balances and bending government policy to benefit his family's business.

Hmm... if this is true it sounds like the bastard finally pissed off the wrong people.

it'l be interesting to see what happens / has happened / might have happened when more detail emerge

According to the news definate coup...

The Army has declared marshal law. Looks as though they've done a pretty smooth operation here, and I wouldn't be surprised if they win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

The Army has declared marshal law. Looks as though they've done a pretty smooth operation here, and I wouldn't be surprised if they win.

---

Yeah I agree, especially with the Thai PM being at the UN General Assembly, they obviously know what they are doing...

I wonder if TWC going down has something to do with this? :wall:

That’s pretty slick, wait till he’s off to NY and lock the door so he cant get back in.

I hate it when my military pulls coups when I'm visiting New York. Can't a man shop at Barney's in peace?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I hate it when my military pulls coups when I'm visiting New York. Can't a man shop at Barney's in peace?

---

On cnn it appears they are still loyal to the king. Why not knock out two bad things with one coup?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Why not knock out two bad things with one coup?

---

Why would the king be a bad thing?

He is incredibly popular in Thailand.

ditto to what Cleg says, if hes popular why get rid off him? a monarch isnt neccessarilly (prob spelt wrong) a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

On cnn it appears they are still loyal to the king. Why not knock out two bad things with one coup?

---

Because a monarchy is not usually a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Because a monarchy is not usually a bad thing.

---

In this case, we shall see whether a monarchy can actually live up to its alleged usefulness.

Bhumibol is held in very high regard by the entire population. Therefore, he should protect the constitution and denounce the military coup. If anyone can help return Thailand to its proper constitutional democracy, it should be him.

King Juan Carlos of Spain thwarted just such a bunch of generals with incredible courage.

Will we see Bhumibol do the same?

However, the king is much older (he's been on the throne for sixty years) and according to the BBC, it seems as though the coup may have popular support (the prime minister has been very unpopular recently).
Edit: The King may actually do something; he has done so before.
Wiki: Although Bhumibol is a constitutional monarch, he has several times made decisive interventions in Thai politics, including the political crisis of 2005-2006. Bhumibol is widely credited with facilitating Thailand's transition to democracy in the 1990s, although in earlier periods of his reign he supported military regimes.

Just heard on the news that the Thomas Cook holiday company has stated that holidays to thailand do not present any danger at present...this is at the moment true but seems to me to be deeply irresponsible...situations such as this can turn on a penny and get real ugly, real quick.

They should not be advising people to still go at least for a week or 2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Wiki: Although Bhumibol is a constitutional monarch, he has several times made decisive interventions in Thai politics, including the political crisis of 2005-2006. Bhumibol is widely credited with facilitating Thailand's transition to democracy in the 1990s, although in earlier periods of his reign he supported military regimes.

---

King Bhumibol is indeed held in such high regards as to be considered something of a demi-god (not theologically, but in terms of devotion) to the Thai people. Being one myself, I know that well. I don't know how he actually got that reputation from, though; it was either due to an incredibly endearing character or an incredibly effective propaganda machine that runs through generations. Either way, the monarch, though not actually concerned with the day-to-day dealings of government, has much more power than a Westerner reading about him being a Constitutional Monarch would think. There are even legal loopholes that he could exploit if he choose to. Remember the Presidential power to refuse to sign a law passed by the legislature into effect? He has that. And more.

Bhumibol essentially stopped a bloody riot between two groups some decades past (liberal -- in a very classical sense -- college students demanding a free Democracy and the military junta at the time; it was the sixties, of course, when progress was the world's rallying cry) which resulted in the military leaders retiring peacefully, or at least officially. He repeated something like that again almost two decades ago.

Any military coup that even think about trying to remove him would suffer a very swift loss of support in Thailand, that is for certain. Though his son is unlikely to prove to be equally as popular.

Now I have to worry about my childhood friends back there. ****. And they were "modernizing" peacefully well enough when I left.

Damn that power-hungry Thaksin. It's Marcos all over again. From what I've heard, the blooming of capitalism (in the midst of a recession, no less) that I left to join America fell quickly enough when that bastard monopolized every little piece of dirt in the land for him and his relatives. An example: when I first bought my cellphone, it was from a company freshly entering the market, willing to exploit something of a general opening of Thai economy to more up-to-date stuff. It was one of a few "starters" in the country (though already big somewhere else), and there already were at least two big competitors in the phone business in what apparently was a relatively fast-growing sector in a potentially rewarding situation for the more globally-minded, and modern-minded, of the population.

Now there's only one left, and that "company" belongs to the "Shin Corporation," the family's business.

And to think that my parents used to voted for him. :shame:

This coup isn't that promising either. Men who are willing to raise arms to take power in Southeast Asian countries are greedy men and men of power, and whom I despise for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Just heard on the news that the Thomas Cook holiday company has stated that holidays to thailand do not present any danger at present...this is at the moment true but seems to me to be deeply irresponsible...situations such as this can turn on a penny and get real ugly, real quick.

They should not be advising people to still go at least for a week or 2.

---

I indeed agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that usually anyone in Thailand won't be willing to attack the "Farang" (as Westerners are known) because the tourist industry is considered a cash cow of the nation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

Because a monarchy is not usually a bad thing.

---

That's a matter of opinion, obviously. I actually dispise monarchies. So to me, they are quite bad. I can't remember the exact name, but this relates to the thread about what people find evil.

my aunt and cousin are visting family, hope there o k

As long as they stay away from large crowds chanting slogans ...

The courts decreed that the elections where unconsitutional (may have something to do with alledged bribes of the electorial commission). So the military should step in and remove the current set of politicians until a consitutional election can be held as soon as possible. The King on the other hand should do everything possible to make it a peaceful and speedy transition to the next elected government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

That's a matter of opinion, obviously. I actually dispise monarchies. So to me, they are quite bad. I can't remember the exact name, but this relates to the thread about what people find evil.

---

What conincidense I despise republics.

Anyhow Shinawatra sounds like a real crook. I say good ridance. Let's just hope that the Generals are not planning on making the return to democracy a 5-20 year plan though.

Imagine this happening in a Western Industrialized Nation: France, U.S., Australia, or Canada, et. al.

This is insane. I thought Thailand was pretty stable. Apparently I thought wrong.

Stable, democratic, and prosperous. For a south east asian state. But this isn't the first time the military has taken over. They took over in '76. And a General was PM (elected and everything) for two terms in 83 and 86. There was even a brief civil war (10 hours) in 85 after an army coup failed. Another coup suceeded in 91. Which led to a junta till 1995. Then democracy was back in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

This is insane. I thought Thailand was pretty stable. Apparently I thought wrong.

---

I was born right some time after the last coup troubles (around '89, methinks. The Fall of the Berlin Wall heralded my birth ~;) ) and Thailand was a pretty stable, if not too free and quite very corrupted, country. But the meteoric rise of the "Thai Rak Thai" party, (literal: Thai love Thai, a stupid name) changed everything. I remembered the general impression the current prime minister made then as he swept old guards and fresh rising stars (usually the new generation that has an inkling of a more intellectual, less traditionalist view) alike in the political scenes into his well-funded, well-publicized party that promised to break the corrupt old guards' parties (the most powerful being that of the Democrats). The guy proposed a lot of things that appealed greatly to the poor masses: welfare, rural economic revitalization (propagandized as "one product every county" or something), crushing drugs traffic (a major problem in Thailand, being a Western outlet for the productions in less open neighboring countries), and wipe out corruption.

Sure enough, he took the election by storm and the party came to dominate the country. And the early years were indeed something of an economic boom -- but he showed his true color soon enough as nothing really got done by the government, especially for the urban middle class (of which my family, when we were still there, would constitute) while the welfare programs and rural economic revitalization efforts remained useless in practice, if a good propaganda tool for Thaksin's most important voter base: the poverty-stricken rural population that make up the vast majority of the Thai population. Of course, it was the rampant corruption; the strict hold he has upon the media and the supposedly neutral Electoral Commission, as well as many NGOs involved in observing the electoral processes; the pathetic mismanagement of the Southern Islamic insurgency -- which could've been easily managed, the failure and mistakes of the government which led to the escalation mirrors that of Iraq's -- and his monopolizing, as I've already said, every bloody little business in the country to gouge huge profits that pissed off enough of Bangkok for the mass protests to occur regularly. The Bangkok people tend to be much more politically aware than their rural counterparts anyway, having relatively good access to the world, being the jewel of the Southeast and all that.

But I was out of Thailand by then, enjoying newfound freedom in America and trying to adapt to a new home country.

The business here is pretty sad, though. In a way, the coup is a betrayal of the Democratic principles that the protesting groups claim to hold.

...Scratch that. Nobody in power in Southeast Asia ever care about Democracy. They could loudly proclaim loyalty to the King and wrap themselves around His flag to get ten times more support for any bold, illegitimate moves they want to make. Besides, some might not realize this, but at least a big chunk of the opposition is not entirely made up of idealistic innocent freedom-seekers but also of the old guard that lost power in Thaksin's rise, as well as a few of the generals that I despise so much for their authoritarian tendencies. In the end the few and far between, if slowly emerging, new generation intellectual liberals lose. The actually cool artists lose. And the people lose. And democratic progress lose also. Nice to see that country gets back into the cave.

Thai Love Thai party? Nationalists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The courts decreed that the elections where unconsitutional (may have something to do with alledged bribes of the electorial commission). So the military should step in and remove the current set of politicians until a consitutional election can be held as soon as possible. The King on the other hand should do everything possible to make it a peaceful and speedy transition to the next elected government.

---

You're kidding, right?

It is never acceptable for the military in a democratic country to overturn a government elected by the people. The last elections were certainly flawed (the opposition refused to turn up) but it is up to the judiciary and the constitutional guardian (in this case, the King, who certainly has the power available to him) or at the most extreme, the people to remove an unconstitutional government. Never, ever, ever the army.

Remember Thaksin is actually quite popular in the countryside, if not amongst the chattering classes of Bangkok.

I'm amazed that anyone can support a military coup, especially one in this part of the world and in a country where the military have always found it difficult to let go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

That's a matter of opinion, obviously. I actually dispise monarchies. So to me, they are quite bad. I can't remember the exact name, but this relates to the thread about what people find evil.

---

Monarchies are evil? Thats a bit of a generalisation isnt it? Lived in many monarchist states?

Have not the Americas been plauged with Presidents that dont seem to ever leave office?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

Thai Love Thai party? Nationalists?

---

Thai parties do tend to name themselves in funny names; only a few of the names make any ideological sense. Let's just say it sounds a little catchier in Thai than in English.

You see, Thai politics don't have ideological splits or two-party polars. It's just who's proposing what in what issue and who's supporting who in the Parliament of crooks and mafia-leaders. Many of the Thai Love Thai ringleaders -- and ministers -- themselves are actually the old guard politicians who joined Thaksin to serve his new party. And all politicians proclaim their loyalty to the nation and especially the King to one point or another. Never forget the King.

There might be something close to a two-party system arising, though, one side being the large Thai Love Thai party and the other being the opposition , gathering around the Democrat Party (Prachatipat, in Thai) which was once the most powerful party prior to Thai Love Thai's rise. I wouldn't bet on it though, not as long as the eggheads in the military are there. Prior to the insurgency in the South, and perhaps even now, the Democrats' support base are in the South (based on the regional loyalty to some key party leaders, actually; namely, a former Prime Minister from the Democrats) and in urban Bangkok itself. The rest of the country usually vote for Thaksin.

According to the news it's been a coup without bloodshed and there will be elections in a year. The bad news (perhaps ?) is that the constitution will be re-written.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

According to the news it's been a coup without bloodshed and there will be elections in a year. The bad news (perhaps ?) is that the constitution will be re-written.

---

Let's hope it stays peaceful and the general is true to his word. Mind you, Musharraf of Pakistan said much the same thing ten or more years ago, as have many other military dictators. Hard to let go in favour of those untrustworthy democrats, you know. Just one more year and it will all be fine... :furious3:

Re-written constitutions by the military rarely prove to be a step forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

Monarchies are evil? Thats a bit of a generalisation isnt it? Lived in many monarchist states?

Have not the Americas been plauged with Presidents that dont seem to ever leave office?

---

Actually, no. From the inception of the Presidency, most of the holders of that office held to the tradition established by George Washington that two terms was enough. The only one not to do so, Franklin Roosevelt, ending up engendering a Constitutional ammendment that made the two term limit a fixed limitation. Whatever flaws we may have, the peaceful transfer of power is one of our strengths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, no. From the inception of the Presidency, most of the holders of that office held to the tradition established by George Washington that two terms was enough. The only one not to do so, Franklin Roosevelt, ending up engendering a Constitutional ammendment that made the two term limit a fixed limitation. Whatever flaws we may have, the peaceful transfer of power is one of our strengths.

---

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?

(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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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?

---

IIRC the particular amendment was added after the Roosevelt administration(s).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

IIRC the particular amendment was added after the Roosevelt administration(s).

---

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.

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!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, no. From the inception of the Presidency, most of the holders of that office held to the tradition established by George Washington that two terms was enough. The only one not to do so, Franklin Roosevelt, ending up engendering a Constitutional ammendment that made the two term limit a fixed limitation. Whatever flaws we may have, the peaceful transfer of power is one of our strengths.

---

Except of course, if they get shot, which seems not to be a rare occurence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

You're kidding, right?

It is never acceptable for the military in a democratic country to overturn a government elected by the people. The last elections were certainly flawed (the opposition refused to turn up) but it is up to the judiciary and the constitutional guardian (in this case, the King, who certainly has the power available to him) or at the most extreme, the people to remove an unconstitutional government. Never, ever, ever the army.

Remember Thaksin is actually quite popular in the countryside, if not amongst the chattering classes of Bangkok.

I'm amazed that anyone can support a military coup, especially one in this part of the world and in a country where the military have always found it difficult to let go.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

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.

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.

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?

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Thai parties do tend to name themselves in funny names; only a few of the names make any ideological sense. Let's just say it sounds a little catchier in Thai than in English.

You see, Thai politics don't have ideological splits or two-party polars. It's just who's proposing what in what issue and who's supporting who in the Parliament of crooks and mafia-leaders. Many of the Thai Love Thai ringleaders -- and ministers -- themselves are actually the old guard politicians who joined Thaksin to serve his new party. And all politicians proclaim their loyalty to the nation and especially the King to one point or another. Never forget the King.

There might be something close to a two-party system arising, though, one side being the large Thai Love Thai party and the other being the opposition , gathering around the Democrat Party (Prachatipat, in Thai) which was once the most powerful party prior to Thai Love Thai's rise. I wouldn't bet on it though, not as long as the eggheads in the military are there. Prior to the insurgency in the South, and perhaps even now, the Democrats' support base are in the South (based on the regional loyalty to some key party leaders, actually; namely, a former Prime Minister from the Democrats) and in urban Bangkok itself. The rest of the country usually vote for Thaksin.

---

That's borderline patronizing.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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?

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

(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).

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

... the militaries role in a lot of nations is to protect the consitution.

---

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:

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

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.

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I'm actually slightly worried by this. I can't help but wonder if there is a southern solution in the works.

---

Actually there is, I heard the general is going for negotiations and dialogue :2thumbsup:

Negotiations and dialogue would be a better solution. :idea2: ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

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 Pannonian

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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

---

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.

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

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).

---

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.

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

Negotiations and dialogue would be a better solution. :idea2: ~;)

---

Oh hay, further reading shows the general is actually from the south himself ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Crikey, Pannonian, I thought I was the most cynical person I know. :wink:

You've cheered me up - I'm still an idealist!

:bow:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

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

---

Read my post, the General is Muslim himself ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

Read my post, the General is Muslim himself ~;p

---

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.

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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).

---

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 Tribesman

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 ?

---

As long as the people like it, it's democratic.
It was obviously the will of the people, they just didn't dare doing it themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

As long as the people like it, it's democratic.
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

As long as the people like it, it's democratic.
It was obviously the will of the people, they just didn't dare doing it themselves.

---

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.

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: 

Thai king backs coup leadership

The leaders of Thailand's military coup have been given formal royal approval, in a special televised ceremony.

An army officer read out a royal decree of assent, before coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin knelt before a portrait of the king.

The footage confirms the coup leaders' claims two days ago that the king had endorsed their new military regime.

Analysts say that royal endorsement will provide crucial legitimacy for the coup's leaders.

So far there has been no violence as a result of the sudden military take-over, and correspondents say this is largely because the highly revered king has not come out against it.

Meanwhile the new leadership is consolidating its grip on power, banning all political meetings and assuming legislative duties in the absence of a parliament.

It is also blocking broadcasts it deems harmful, and has threatened to shut down media that violate the new restrictions.

Amnesty International has expressed concern, and called on Thailand's new leaders to safeguard human rights.

"No one should be penalised for their peaceful exercise of the rights of freedom of expression, association or assembly," the pressure group told the French news agency AFP.

The military has also continued to crack down on those close to the ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Several pro-Thaksin police officers have been removed from their posts, and at least three ministers of the deposed government are in custody. More detentions are expected in the coming days.

In a statement from London, where he is currently staying, Mr Thaksin appears to have accepted there is no going back to power, telling reporters that he planned a "deserved rest".

But he still faces many hurdles, one of which is a probe into his sometimes controversial business dealings. The coup leaders have already formed a panel to investigate allegations of corruption against Mr Thaksin and his close aides.

Under sharp criticism from the international community for launching the coup, the new ruling council is under pressure to move fast to appoint a civilian interim prime minister.

Gen Sonthi has said he will resign from power in two weeks, and hand over to an interim premier until new elections are held in October 2007.

Among those being considered for the post are Supachai Panitchpakdi, chairman of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, and Pridiyathorn Devakula, the head of the central bank.

The coup followed months of growing tension in Thailand, with protests against Mr Thaksin and a general election which was annulled due to concerns about its legitimacy.

Gen Sonthi has said he was acting in line with the wishes of the Thai people, accusing the old government of corruption and fostering divisions in the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

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.

---

It was meant to be hard to figure out the irony.~;)
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 ?

---

It's called martial law.

Quote:

---

There you go, just how useful kings are to safeguard constitutions and democracy.

Pathetic old man.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

It's called martial law.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.



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.

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

...so often institutional groups such as the army, a king, etc lead the way towards democracy more surely than demagogues.

---

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.

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.