Thailand Military Coup(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Thailand Military Coup
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/23/world/asia/thailand-military-coup.html
14 comments
I live here now, and while I have not really been outside yet (work work) this seems to be the case now also. Most everyone I'm talking to seems to be pretty laid back about it.
I am currently living in Bangkok, was brushing off the idea of a coup being serious since the country has constantly been on the cusp of one. Ironically enough it happened 3 days into my proposed 30 day stay. I am probably going to cut my stay to 10-15 days, as soon as I sort out my visa for my next destination.
That aside, it's really tame this time too, as you mentioned. I'm not concerned for anything more than large crowds clogging up transit lines and roads when I'm trying to go someplace. The coup is indeed fairly laidback, just like the Thai people.
That aside, it's really tame this time too, as you mentioned. I'm not concerned for anything more than large crowds clogging up transit lines and roads when I'm trying to go someplace. The coup is indeed fairly laidback, just like the Thai people.
I hold no judgment on what's going on here, other than I hope those who live in Thailand stay safe and well.
I will comment on the articles quote, about "one person one vote" being a bad state of affairs, as "uneducated rural voters" having too much power. This is something that I hear quite often in various places, and I've never quite understood it. Sure, I get the tyranny of the majority, but as far as I can see any other way of tackling voting is rife with even larger issues.
But I'm not 100% on that, so I wanted to open the floor to other opinions from those far smarter than me here on HN! Is it possible to restrict voting and end up with a fairer system?
I will comment on the articles quote, about "one person one vote" being a bad state of affairs, as "uneducated rural voters" having too much power. This is something that I hear quite often in various places, and I've never quite understood it. Sure, I get the tyranny of the majority, but as far as I can see any other way of tackling voting is rife with even larger issues.
But I'm not 100% on that, so I wanted to open the floor to other opinions from those far smarter than me here on HN! Is it possible to restrict voting and end up with a fairer system?
The biggest problem with simplistic democracies is the lack of strong constitutional protections for individual liberty, as well as for democratic institutions themselves. It's too easy in many democracies for mob rule to advantage a slim majority, and it's even easier for a democracy to vote itself into oblivion, ending democratic institutions.
Edit: One mistake a lot of people make when they look at politics in the west, especially in the US, is to bemoan "gridlock". Gridlock is actually desired. It should be very difficult to get anything done with a 51% majority. That's not democracy, that's just mob rule. The system of checks and balances helps ensure that slim majorities don't result in massive changes.
Edit: One mistake a lot of people make when they look at politics in the west, especially in the US, is to bemoan "gridlock". Gridlock is actually desired. It should be very difficult to get anything done with a 51% majority. That's not democracy, that's just mob rule. The system of checks and balances helps ensure that slim majorities don't result in massive changes.
Democracy is rule of the people, by the people, for the people. It entails the subordination of political minorities to political majorities by definition, as majorities represent more of the people.
Saying that the people are all well and good until they make the wrong choice, and thus their freedom to choose must have hard limits, is a perfectly reasonable and defensible position (I do not agree). But it isn't democracy. It would be better to call it liberal constitutionalism or something.
Alas, since WW2 (and earlier in some places), it has been verboten to be against democracy, with the result that the word has been emptied of all meaning. A monarchy like the UK, a monarchical presidency like Fifth Republic France, a Stalinist dictatorship like the German Democratic Republic, all officially define(d) themselves as democracies. It's doublethink.
Everything is a restriction on 'individual liberty'. Because most governments - of whatever form - have passed relevant laws, I do not get to drive a car at 150mph down country lanes. That is a restriction on my liberty. I'm not crying over it. (Not least because I can't drive.) When people say such things, they normally mean property rights, of course; but in no functioning society are those inviolable either. I would rather they were violated by 51% of the population than the 0.0001% who happen to be judges - that is, state bureaucrats in fancy dress.
Saying that the people are all well and good until they make the wrong choice, and thus their freedom to choose must have hard limits, is a perfectly reasonable and defensible position (I do not agree). But it isn't democracy. It would be better to call it liberal constitutionalism or something.
Alas, since WW2 (and earlier in some places), it has been verboten to be against democracy, with the result that the word has been emptied of all meaning. A monarchy like the UK, a monarchical presidency like Fifth Republic France, a Stalinist dictatorship like the German Democratic Republic, all officially define(d) themselves as democracies. It's doublethink.
Everything is a restriction on 'individual liberty'. Because most governments - of whatever form - have passed relevant laws, I do not get to drive a car at 150mph down country lanes. That is a restriction on my liberty. I'm not crying over it. (Not least because I can't drive.) When people say such things, they normally mean property rights, of course; but in no functioning society are those inviolable either. I would rather they were violated by 51% of the population than the 0.0001% who happen to be judges - that is, state bureaucrats in fancy dress.
"liberal constitionalism" is a great phrase. We've used "democracy" as a short word to describe the institutions of the west, such as it's checks and balances, independent judiciary, rights and freedoms, et cetera. Sure, democracy is an important part of that, but is it the most important part?
When the great democracies of the west were first being established; democracy was a dirty word, one to be feared and balanced with strong protections. That's why the US is technically a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. Now people think that "democracy" and "capitalism" are magic pixie dust that can turn a country around. But both are small parts of what made western countries (and others such as Japan) so successful.
When the great democracies of the west were first being established; democracy was a dirty word, one to be feared and balanced with strong protections. That's why the US is technically a constitutional republic rather than a true democracy. Now people think that "democracy" and "capitalism" are magic pixie dust that can turn a country around. But both are small parts of what made western countries (and others such as Japan) so successful.
Enforcing peoples votes being their own would be a good start.
There are reports of "village leaders" collecting everyone's ID card and going to vote for them all. In exchange they have a big village BBQ.
Just like the recent "stricter" tests for thai drivers licences, the laws themselves mean nothing if they are not enforced.
There are reports of "village leaders" collecting everyone's ID card and going to vote for them all. In exchange they have a big village BBQ.
Just like the recent "stricter" tests for thai drivers licences, the laws themselves mean nothing if they are not enforced.
Think POTUS election. You can cut down the country in arbitrary unit which will have an equal voting power.
The article makes it seem like military coups happen every six years or so: "at least the 12th...since 1932".
Here in the UK elections are every five years - we've only had 18 since 1932, and no military coups.
Is it possible that there's a cultural division - "military coup" perhaps sounds more dramatic and decisive to us than it does to a culture that has seen so many of them.
Here in the UK elections are every five years - we've only had 18 since 1932, and no military coups.
Is it possible that there's a cultural division - "military coup" perhaps sounds more dramatic and decisive to us than it does to a culture that has seen so many of them.
Egypt: Massive public unrest against a democratically elected leader. The military steps in and takes control of the country to stop the unrest.
The West: Military coup? I don't think so.
Thailand: Massive public unrest against a democratically elected leader. The military steps in and takes control of the country to stop the unrest.
The West: Military coup! This will have consequences!
I wonder what the difference is...
The West: Military coup? I don't think so.
Thailand: Massive public unrest against a democratically elected leader. The military steps in and takes control of the country to stop the unrest.
The West: Military coup! This will have consequences!
I wonder what the difference is...
If you want some "real time" update, this selection of twitter feeds is not bad:
https://twitter.com/jonrussell/lists/thai-protests-2013
I remember calling the US embassy the night it began, and they told me to stay inside and hung up the phone.
While I could never live there again, I really miss the people and culture. Never was a coup so laid back. I hope this ends peacefully and quickly, but I doubt it will change much about the political situation.