| Thaksin Was Rejected by the Thai Majority |
| Written by James R Klein | |
| Wednesday, 02 January 2008 | |
|
Thaksin Shinawatra’s proxy party does not have the mandate it claims
After more than a year of political upheaval in Thailand, the pro-Thaksin party is spending this week negotiating with smaller parties to obtain enough seats to form a coalition government. Nevertheless, the facts are that more Thais cast their party-list ballots (a decisive factor in who should form the next government) for the rival Democrat Party, and significantly more cast their constituency ballots against the PPP. These facts question the legitimacy of PPP Leader Samak Sundaravej’s assertion that he has an overwhelming mandate to form the next government. They also provide insight into a post-election poll by Ramkhamhaeng University that showed that 52 percent would prefer Democrat Leader Abhisit Vejjajiva as the next Prime Minister, followed by Samak with only 39 percent. The Election Commission will announce official results tomorrow, but unofficial results have the Democrats receiving 39.64 percent (14,084,265) of party-list votes; a striking reversal of fortunes compared to the 7.6 million it won in the 2001 elections and the 7.2 million in 2005 (compared to Thai Rak Thai’s 11.6 million and 18.9 million, respectively). Granted, the PPP received only slightly less support (39.60 percent); nevertheless, voter rejection was equally true at the constituency level, where PPP candidates received only 36.62 percent of votes cast. The vast majority of the record 74.45 percent turn-out of voters gave an overwhelming 63 percent of their support to representatives parties other than the Thaksin-backed PPP. This trend was true in every region of the country. Even in the alleged PPP strongholds of the north and northeast, it only managed to garner 44 percent and 46 percent, respectively. While it did gain 40 percent of the constituency votes in Bangkok, elsewhere its results were dismal – only one-third in the central plains and, as expected, only 11 percent in the Democrat south. On a provincial basis, the PPP did of course win a majority of the constituency votes in several north and the northeastern provinces, but even in Thaksin’s home province of Chiang Mai, PPP candidates were only able to secure 47 percent of the votes. If the majority of voters rejected the PPP, how was it able to garner nearly half of the 480 seats? Thaksin built his Thai Rak Thai juggernaut through the merger and acquisition of numerous small parties that flourished in Thai politics prior to 2001, particularly in the north and northeast. However, the 1997 constitutional reforms to promote consolidation of just a few large parties was reversed by the 2007 constitution to prevent the reemergence of a parliamentary dictatorship by a party too large to be held accountable by a vigorous but negligible opposition. Many of the leaders of these former parties who felt betrayed by Thaksin fled the PPP and attempted to reinvent themselves for the 2007 elections. But as in the pre-2001 period, they were contending against each other and in many constituencies the anti-PPP votes were split three and often five ways thus allowing a PPP victory. In constituencies outside the former confines of these regional parties, the battle was often between the PPP and Democrats, and in some provinces, Banharn Silpa-archa’s Chat Thai party. In these contests, invariably either the Democrats or Chat Thai won; although in several important races, particularly in Bangkok, Chat Thai served as a spoiler, drawing just enough votes away from the Democrats for a narrow PPP win. Over the coming days, as Samak struggles to pull the minor regional parties back into the PPP fold to create a government, he will have to remember that regional party leaders, betrayed once by Thaksin, may think twice and join with the Democrats. While Thaksin weighs his options for a return to Thailand, as he said from Hong Kong, Samak and the PPP must remember that the significant majority of voters, rejected the PPP and, by extension, its backers ‑ Thaksin and the old Thai Rak Thai. Therefore he does not have a citizen mandate for his campaign pledge to assist Thaksin to escape justice. James R. Klein, Ph.D., is the representative of The Asia Foundation in Thailand
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments
(15)
We wrote a Simplified Mock Trial entitled "It's my country/I can do what I want!" for students to further explore who chooses the way a country is governed? the link is
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by Gohoke , January 09, 2008
The up-country poor being bribed or threatened to vote a certain way is the same as the army soldier being ordered and threatened to vote a certain way. In either case, the results are a false reality of majority rule and a false sense of democracy. Thailand will be in the grip of this political, kleptocratic morass until such time as the rural poor receive a decent education. Don't hold your breath on that one, they're too valuable just the way they are!
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by Politikus , January 08, 2008
Khun James,
Votes: +0
When you come to Bangkok please ask the Thais on the street, and they will tell you: the military pressured for low electorate turn-out and the Thais did a high turn-outs. The military and EC pressured PPP and the Thai voters cast their votes to PPP. So check what you are saying? Are you misleading the rest of the people? The underclass had spoken, loud and clear. :-) report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by pls , January 07, 2008
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Votes: +0
Another wallop!!! Truthful & impartial reporting is a must or credibility is whoossshhhhhhhhhhh, down the blue yonder! BTW I am not pro or anti Thaksin. Just an observer of this news mag, with some strange reporting going ons. report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by alvero , January 04, 2008
Mr.James R Klein -- Did somebody from the military coup pay or threaten you to write this misleading story? I am disappointed that Asia Sentinel has lowered its standard -and have you as a writer! I suggest you, in future, do your homework before writing any story. Shame on you!
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by L. , January 04, 2008
This article is utter nonsense. Dr. Klein, engaging in some form of hermeneutic exploration of the "true will" of "the people" in the bare numbers of the election results, is in effect criticizing the inherent consequences of a specific electoral system.
Votes: +0
For a detailed critique please read "Bangkok Pundits" post: http://bangkokpundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/ppp-has-no-mandate.html P.S What else as a "parliamentary dictatorship" (worse: a "tyranny of the majority"!) is the polical system of the UK? P.P.S I strongly recommend: Giovanni Sartori, Comparative Constitutional Engineering. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1994, for some enlightenment regarding the consequences of electoral systems under different conditions (parliamentary or presidential system, party system etc.) report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by Historicus , January 03, 2008
What an odd article. This is the same author who claimed that the coup was "apolitical." By Mr. Klein's logic, the Democrats didn't win either, so no government could be formed in Thailand! The usual practice - and even the horrific Mr. Samak made this point - is that the party with the largest number of seats has the opportunity to form a government. That the remarkably opaque Electoral Commission is perhaps rigging the result surely deserves the attention of a legal eagle like Mr. Klein?
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by Stan , January 03, 2008
The "elites" had absolutely no fear of that as Thaksin government had amptly demonstrated that no one was allowed any say in politics under his rule, and certainly not the poor.
Votes: +0
How many poor were able to buy shares in privatised companies they helped to build with their taxes? How many poor got even a single share of PTT - the largest and most profitable state enterprise? None. Did Thaksin ask them if they'd like to recieve their fair share of that national asset gone private? No. And numbers in this article seem to be correct, as fas as unofficial results go. report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by Bon , January 03, 2008
Mr. Klien i think you are an idiot! Where were you when PPP won the election. And i don't see any part of your article about Thai's new constitution (by dictator) that cause problem to the winner (like happing now).. And again Klien YOU ARE EXTREMELY IDIOT!!! Wonder how you realise minority and majority. Good for you that still get paid from writing s**tttt
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by nekochan , January 03, 2008
It is very odd to see an article like this. It is misleading! PPP won the majority of votes.They did that without 111 banned members. This is one thing interesting here. Several runner ups in north and northeast are ex TRT MPs. Even PPP gets some red cards, the seats will go to Thaksin's allies anyway.
Votes: +0
There is a report of irregularlity in Bangkok ballot outcome which was so contradicted to the previous exit poll. And it was taken care by Bangkok governor, Mr. Apirak, who is a Democrat. Expect to see some scrutinization by Mr. Samak after PPP forms the government. report abuse
vote down
vote up
 written by shirop , January 03, 2008
I have to say that the fact or figures you are using in this article are not updated and totally wrong. So the rest of your analysis is not valuable to read at all. PPP really won the majority. At least please go to Election commission's website and get the latest figures. sigh for your carelessness.
Votes: +0
report abuse
vote down
vote up
The following considerations seem to be missing from Mr. Klein's article:
Votes: +0
"The coup leaders used state power for political ends, manipulated the rule of law to suit their needs and kept martial law in place in certain provincial areas up until Election Day. With the interim government’s popularity sinking, the military-appointed legislature waited until a few days before the election before quickly passing 64 laws as a parting gift to anyone who still held illusions that the junta respected democracy. One of those laws passed at the last minute was the Internal Security Act, which gives the military sweeping powers to detain people, wiretap phones and declare emergency rule." This quote from Daniel Ten Kate's article Thailand’s Generals Get a Slap in the Face - The Asian Sentinel on 24 December. Add the threat of disqualification should a candidate even refer to Taksin in their campaign, by an Election Commission appointed by the military, makes the number of votes the PPP received remarkable. I think a more relevant conclusion was made at the end of Daniel Ten Kate's article: “I think what we’re seeing over these past couple of years is that the Thai elite has become disillusioned with democracy because Thaksin opened up the possibility that the poor can have some say in politics, and they don’t like that,” said Giles from Chulalongkorn University. “To develop democracy, civil society will have to push against the Thai elite. It’s going to take some time to educate the elites about the benefits of democracy.” We wrote a Simplified Mock Trial entitled "It's my country/I can do what I want!" for students to further explore who chooses the way a country is governed? the link is http://www.lfslessonsasia.com/...esson.html report abuse
vote down
vote up
|
Forget
the political posturing of People Power Party spokesmen from Thaksin
Shinawatra’s former Thai Rak Thai Party; ignore the false impressions created
by simplistic analysis of the number of seats won by the PPP in the December 23
General Election – many by an exceedingly narrow margin.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
Winning Hearts and Minds in AfghanistanMichelle Price The grim truth of war remains: hearts and minds are lost in the campaign to get the enemy by the balls
Full Story |
| Other Articles |
Alice Poon
| Book About Land and Power in Hong KongFriday, 02 July 2010 | Alice Poon
The Chinese edition of “Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong” has finally come to life. The title of the book is “地產霸權” and it is co-published... Full Story |
| Previous posts: |
John Elliott: Riding the Elephant
| From vultures in Delhi, to coups in Pakistan, a journalist's un-edited take on current events |
|
Donate to Asia Sentinel
