Democracy Dreaming

As a Thai, the event that currently occupies my mind most is the protests in Bangkok which only recently escalated to violence resulting in deaths and injuries to both the security forces and the protestors. Like most events in eccentric Thailand, things cannot be taken at face value, however with the constraints of an editorial I am forced to reduce the societal conflict in Thailand to conflicts in the very definition of ‘democracy’.The protestors in Red, predominantly poor, rural admirers of the deposed prime minister, are fighting for ballot box democracy. For once, their votes translate into policies – albeit populist – that directly benefit them. In a sense, they are also demanding a democracy that re-distributes resources more equitably. In previous episodes, protestors in yellow were out on the streets and are predominantly urban-based middle-classes protesting against the very same prime minister because of his perceived corruption, unaccountability and increased autocratic practices. I see them fighting for checks and balances democracy, that they saw compromised and dismantled by the previous government.
Viewing this from the comforts of Australia, where both ‘democracies’ are taken for granted due to our centuries old democratic lineage (many basic rights won in generations of violent conflicts and wars it must be noted), these seemed minor issues – but for many aspiring democracies worldwide, these are fundamental issues that affect their citizen’s livelihoods. And while both of these ingredients of democracy are critical – and as I’d like to avoid writing a political editorial, another key ingredient I would like to highlight is ‘participative democracy’.

That both groups of Thai antagonists had to resort to the extremes of prolonged street protests probably reflect the lack of other participative avenues to resolve their differences and/or the willingness of (overall self-serving) politicians to provide for and utilize such avenues. Reflecting on this, I am bound to see ‘participation’ as the most meaningful and relevant at an everyday scale. The notion of one-person-one-vote may sound egalitarian, but in practice it can often be tokenism (and the two extremes of no choice offered by totalitarian regimes or little choice offered in many mature democracies – what is the substantive difference between ‘center-left’ and ‘center-right’?).

Checks and balances is a critical mechanism to ensure that government power is not abused, but – at least in a functioning system – it is effectively the roles of different branches of government and the bureaucracy. Participation, on the other hand, could potentially empower the citizen, build social capacity and cohesion to – at the very least – help shape and determine the direction development that directly affects them takes. At a broader level, it could also involve the citizen in the very function of governance, such as proposing laws and also ensuring transparency. Of course, a ‘right balance’ will need to be established and too much participation/democracy can lead to ungovernable polities (as occasionally experienced in the state of California).



I will argue that participation has much more relevance in developing societies where the proportion of the socio-economically disadvantaged is substantial and the resource distribution is poor. Rich countries lecture developing countries on ‘good governance’ ,which is an undisputable fact. However, as implied above, this is a broader scale systemic issue and will take time, generations even, to achieve. On the contrary, grassroots empowerment can be achieved – and, in fact, has been carried out through local and NGO initiatives worldwide – in a much more shorter time span and yields enormous localized benefits. Of course, this often requires collaborating with and appeasing influential, often shady local figures which, in turn, help legitimizes their rule.

This is a dilemma or ‘trade off’ often faced in aids and development – a dilemma that arguably ripened in Thai democratic evolution where those now sophisticated shady figures usurped, through modern marketing techniques, perceptions of good governance while applying more refined means of corruption and conflict of interests pitted against an older elite that prefer incremental, stable democratic evolution. These managed manipulations of democracy by the elites on both sides occur independent of policies and projects that encourage robust participation such as in the slum/squatter upgrading Baan Mankong project and the Chumchon Porpiang (‘Sufficiency Village’) funding for projects nationwide – arguably the formalized lineage of the long and rich tradition of NGO advocacy in the country. What will result in this ‘democratic’ tussle (with parallels with the many struggles that are occurring worldwide in varying stages of evolution) remains to be seen – but it is hoped that the participative seeds take root and becomes a sustained tradition that also has eventual positive impacts upscale, politically.

This leads me to reflect on our mature democratic tradition – assumed to be based on rigorous rational practices/debates – and enormous relative wealth. Our voters are much better educated and informed on the complexities of the multitudes of global and local issues that affect them. Each election cycle, they are presented with clear choices but, voting as mortgagors and consumers, seem to lack the will and appetite for needed change, reducing democracy into choices between ‘economic managers’. To say that privileged, mature democracies have failed in their moral obligation for broader global social and environmental issues is now probably clichéd. Democracy is, in essence, anthropocentric and enshrines the rights of individuals. As society develops and become wealthier, those rights and ‘entitlements’ expand and become more costly socially and environmentally. Capitalism further blurs and problematizes the line between civic and individual rights/benefits while the nation-state highlights and reinforces national and global conflicts of interests.

We are stuck in this system (that overall favors selfishness over altruism) and perhaps only disruptive events of enormous global magnitude (such as the more severe predictions resulting from climate change) will force us to adapt our ways. Or perhaps innovations in the very practices of democracy may emerge within those societies struggling and fighting to define and/or form consensus on it in the present context of accelerated global environmental degradation (for democracies emerged in Europe and America in very different historical contexts). As my fellow countrymen are at loggerheads over ‘democracy’, I refuse to yield to the many commentators who state that only an ‘enlightened’ totalitarian regime can save us from the consequences of our developmental excesses. It could be just me as a hopeless optimist.

Sidh Sintusingha
Architects for Peace, May 2010