Anek occasionally makes the right noises, but this stuff about different classes of voter looks like stuff’n nonsense; even if it does perhaps reflect the current reality. But regardless, I would caution the awarding of too much acolade to Anek. If he believes so passionately in his cause, why is he incapable of realizing that the inclusion of a political dinosaur powerbroker – Sanan – in his party will just lead him down the same wanked-out political path that Thailand has been going down for decades. Thailand needs parties that are willing to take the slow, steady and sure route to future power. Has Thaksin taught us nothing? We should realize that the country can just about cope with money politics when there is no clear majority in parliament. But when Thaksin bought the candidates to win, and financed them with the money to create a majority government, then we were in real trouble.
Get rid of Sanan, Anek! Then I might respect you, even if it means that your party takes decades to really become a true force in politics.
For those who would like to read the book, here is the title.
р╣Ар╕нр╕Щр╕Б р╣Ар╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Чр╕▒р╕ир╕Щр╣М. 2549. р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕▓-р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Щр╕┤р╕вр╕б. Bangkok: Matichon. 232 pp.
Anek might complain about the prevalence of the patronage system in Thailand. However, he himself was advantaged by it since the book is based on a manuscript for which he was paid by his Thammasat phuak at KPI. It is not really a scholarly book, more like a long essay with a few pieces of literature added for academic appearance.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak rides an attack on Surayud’s decision re Somkid (BP, 20 Fer., p. 8):
The Surayud govt’s moral setback
The appointment of the chief architect of Thaksinomics as a spokesman for the sufficiency economy philosophy does not bode well for the government
By THITINAN PONGSUDHIRAK
Notwithstanding the whitewash operation now being conducted behind the scenes, the Surayud government’s appointment of Somkid Jatusripitak, the former economic policy chief of the deposed government of Thaksin Shinawatra, as chairman of the committee to explain the philosophy of sufficiency economy, is a perversion of the military coup that took place on Sept 19, 2006.
For the first time since he came to power, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has lost the moral high ground on a key issue that has divided Thailand for the past year.
If Mr Thaksin’s regime was so corrupt and abusive that it warranted the military intervention, the appointment of Mr Somkid significantly robs the government of its moral authority. It also undermines the legitimacy of the Council for National Security.
Many will see Mr Somkid’s political resurrection as a betrayal of the coup and the ongoing efforts to extirpate the rot and damage that Mr Thaksin left behind.
The conspicuous spin from Government House and the CNS is that they need to hit Mr Thaksin where it hurts the most by flipping the mastermind of his policy-making machinery into a government spokesman.
….
The paradigmatic shift from Thaksinomics to sufficiency economy is attributable to everything Mr Somkid stood for under the Thaksin regime. His appointed role as Thailand’s spokesman for sufficiency economy is nauseous to those who have followed Mr Somkid’s track record as a Thaksin loyalist through-and-through to the bitter end. He could have pulled out of the Thaksin regime anytime before Sept 19, but he did not.
Without large sums of money, he will remain a loser. But if he were to ever find the money, he would probably morph into a second Thaksin anyway. You have to be a rich a-hole to succeed in Thai politics.
I am still puzzled why they pretend that they want to return (ok Tosakan has a point: they never had it) to democracy, they should come up with a system like the following:
– normal folks = one vote
– from Central-Thailand = multiply by 2
– from Bangkok = multiply by 4
– college education = multiply by 2
– BA = multiply by 4
– postdoc = multiply by 8
– professor = multiply by 16
– more than 10 million in assets = multiply by 20
– aristocratic title = multiply by 100
So a professor in Bangkok worth more than 10 million has 4*16*20=1.280 votes and if he is also of aristocratic origin he is worth 128.000 rural voters – that should put them back in place.
I am not advocating censorship. I’m against bad writing.
Actually, Anek’s views should be heard and they should be heard far and wide. But he should at least somebody should point out he is a bigot. I give him credit though. He is an honest bigot,
What is disturbing to me is that his theory is dressed up as a democratic solution.
I’m tired of the Thais distorting the term democracy as if it were a cheap marketing slogan.
Democracy is a Greek word with a specific meaning. It literally means “power of the common people.”
The common people in Thailand have never had power nor will they probably have it in the future.
Bystander- You read the articles? So you are basically saying that their should be a political litmus test for those whom the elite deems as immoral, undisciplined and too stupid to make rational political decisions, which is exactly what Anek was saying.
And who would chose the enlightened elite that gets to weed the stupid masses out?
You know, that same disciplined moral elite that has a notorious track record for making selfless intelligent decisions and would never sell out for their own bag of goodies provided by the state.
And there is quite a distinction between having “orthodox democratic ideals” as you put it so eloquently and being a bigot who wants to politically discriminate against the poor brown stupid peasantry because he thinks they are the source of all of Thailand’s political problems.
But Bystander you make an outstanding point: Anek just wants to legalize the status quo, which is to institutionalize all the current power structures and keep them in place indefinitely. Why not just make it simple and go back to sakdina? Might as well, the sufficiency economic theory has at least taken care of the economic part. Why not listen to Anek and resume Sakdina politics as well?
I have actually heard Anek give a lecture once many years ago where he basically outlined how the whole political system works, notably campaign financing.
I’m surprised he produces an Apartheid like solution to a problem whose roots he once claimed were in campaign financing, spoils and graft.
[…] was clearly concerned that those at the rally didn’t know much about the party leader Anek Laothamatas. So he proceeded to give them a brief profile. Here is my research assistant’s summary of […]
well, I read the articles.. I don’t find anything gravely wrong with it. I guess people are offended because they have an aspiration for an orthodox democratic ideals. That’s a worthy ideal, but of all places, Thailand is probably not where your democratic utopia will materialize. People are still very much conscious of their classes and their places in society, for better or worse. I think Anek’s just trying to articulate what he’s thinking about situation on paper. I don’t think he’s really sucking up to the CNS, as this issue has been his theme all along. I’m quite surprised that AW blog on this even though there are quite a few much more consequential things going on right now.
By the way, if you think you can write something better, you should just write one and send to the Nation. I’ve talked to some people there and they professed that there’s a dearth of good English language articles, and not many Thais can write well enough, or bother to write actually. So he said the paper is very open to outside contributors. Just keep it under 900 words.
Anyway, I made the same point as republican, so it doesn’t matter.
If Anek had written this book in the West, he would have been crucified for being an undemocratic bigot.
He is basically saying that the brown, poor upcountry folk are too stupid for democracy and that they are the source of all of Thailand’s problems because they are immoral and undisciplined(his words), and that if only the enlightened elite was running the show everything would be perfect.
Somebody should tell Anek that there has never been democracy in Thailand and the elite that he worships so much is the same elite that lives a life of luxury by stealing from the masses he so despises.
How that column ever made it into print is amazing to me. The Nation’s editors really have no shame at all.
>>Anek argues that “pure democracy”, the rule of the majority, is bound to lead to crude populism. “A better democracy is a balanced compromise between three elements: the representatives of the lower classes who are the majority in the country, the middle class, and the upper class.” In this
democracy, the only time when everybody has equal rights is when they drop their ballot paper in the box. After that “the importance of each person depends on knowledge, ability, experience, and status”.
If you needed any more evidence of what a stagnant backwater Thai political science has become (I mean, after you’ve got over the spectacle of the cheer squad of Chula and Thammasat political scientists falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the CNS) you could do worse than to pick up Anek’s book. What political scientist in any other country could write such things as “the importance of each person depends on knowledge, ability, experience, and status”, that the villagers need to learn morality, and that the country should be governed by an oligarchy of royalty, military, academics and senior journalists (ie. what we have now), and not be crucified in public? No doubt Anek dreads another election and would hope the CNS stays in power for a long, long time, because if he took this platform to the electorate he would get what he deserves. No wonder Sanan got rid of him.
But what is even more surprising is how Chang Noi can think that this is a guy who is actually worth listening to. Listen to what? To his sucking up to the powers that seized control on September 19 for his rightful place in the oligarchy.
If you frown when asked to define the frequently quoted term “sufficiency economy”, you are not alone.
One of the most common calls made to the Royal Institute is to ask exactly what the term means, said secretary-general Chintana Bhandhufalck.
“As a matter of fact, [callers] want to know how the term is defined by His Majesty the King,” she said.
That was one reason prompting the institute to update its Thai dictionary, Chintana said.
The dictionary, with the sufficiency definition as officially approved by His Majesty, will be published as a special edition later this year in time to mark the King’s 80th birthday on December 5.
It will include a number of new words, including several words used by royal projects.
Chintana said the spellings of such words were also among the frequently asked questions.
“That’s why we have to define those words for the public to use them accurately,” she said.
New words to be included in the dictionary, which currently includes about 30,000 entries, must have been in use for at least 10 years.
nganadeeleg: In my home country (Germany), we have a personalized proportional system, in which half of the MPs are elected on party lists (on the state level, not the national one), and the other half is elected in single-member constituencies. A five percent hurdle applies.
I liked the proportional system in Thailand, because, for the first time, it allowed voters to express their national political preferences without being “imprisoned” by their exclusive constituency-level politics. In this way, voters were empowered, and there was a higher degree of electoral participation and representation. Many voters made conscious use of their two votes by splitting them.
So, I think that it would be a great pity if this progressive and participatory element of the 1997 constitution was abolished just to satisfy conservative forces aiming at weakening politics.
Instead of classifying the voters into three classes of rural, middle, and upper, I propose a simpler, two class solution: people born on Saturdays are classed as “upper”, and people born on all other days of the week are classed as “lower”. At least this way it should be easier to identify who’s who! (of course I was born on a Saturday!)
Srithanonchai: I’m not an expert by any means, and it sounds like you know much more than I do about proportional representation systems.
There are plenty of countries that use some form of PRS – The swedish system looks OK to me, but I’ve never been there so perhaps others could comment on how it works in practice.
For what it’s worth I think a 5% hurdle would be reasonable, or even an STV system. Regional or Provincial sounds OK to me.
Overall, I just like a system that enables minority (not necessarily extremist) views to be heard – I might even decide to vote if such a system were in place.
Thanks for your question, I’m glad to clarify this. “Mekong Post” is aimed at a wide audience, from locals to outsiders, including academics – but the limited academic content is presented in a popular style.
It is published by a civil society organisation whose name translates roughly as “Community publication for Lower Lan Na Mekhong” concerned with protecting and promoting environment and culture of that region.
Only the first volume was specifically about Chiang Khong – subsequent volumes deal with other themes, although with a focus on Lower Lan Na Mekhong region. E.g. the second volume was about the Giant Catfish (pla buek).
I didn’t mean to suggest that the whole series is just about Chiang Khong district.
What kind of proportional system would you like to see–country/regional/provincial lists? Should there be a five-per cent hurdle to keep parliament from having 30 or more parties? It seems that the CDC wants to abolish the 100 MPs that were proportionally elected under the 1997 constitution for the reason that it enabled Thaksin to claim direct voter support.
Chang Noi attributes prophetic qualities to Anek. Yet, with his own political actions, Anek was rather short-sighted, and he made a complete fool of himself when, in the campaign preceding the 2005 election, posing as an alternative option to Thaksin Shinawatra as a visionary national political leader.
Originally, Anek had tried to achieve a more academic-looking composition of members of a party that was supposed to present itself as a “third option party” (phak thanglueak thi sam). Through the inclusion of Sanan Kachornprasart and Vatana Asavahem (using his Ratsadorn party as Mahachon’s legal building-bloc), Mahachon turned out to be a mix of both new-style and old-style politicians. This did not hurt its election prospects as much as its lack of money. In an article in Matichon (3 October 2005:11), Anek related that the party had sufficient money for the months of August and September 2004. Afterwards, the funds increasingly dwindled. According to Anek, “Finally, those candidates who we had contacted or who we had campaigned for did not join us, because we did not have sufficient support funds (for their election campaigns). Eventually, they joined Chart Thai, Thai Rak Thai, and the Democrats. This way, Mahachon lost a great number of good people.” While Mahachon had intended to field candidates in all 400 constituencies, the party managed to recruit only 301 candidates.
Anek’s (or rather Sanan’s) Mahachon party won two seats. How little appeal Anek and the party’s platform had for the voters is shown by the fact that Mahachon’s constituency candidates received 2,223,399 votes, while its party list managed only 1,346,632 votes. Soon after the election, Sanan pressured Anek to leave the position of party leader.
Previously, Anek wanted to demonstrate to rural voters that their voting behavior was irrational as far as the national-level consequences were concerned. Another suggestion of his was to use rural development policies to turn all rural dwellers into members of the middle class. Thus they would share the political views held by the Bangkok middle class, and vote accordingly. As Chang Noi tells it, Anek seems to have lost confidence in these two approaches, or realized that they would take a very long time. Therefore, it is better to exclude rural voters as much as possible from having influence on the national-level political game.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Anek – smarter than Thaksin!
Anek occasionally makes the right noises, but this stuff about different classes of voter looks like stuff’n nonsense; even if it does perhaps reflect the current reality. But regardless, I would caution the awarding of too much acolade to Anek. If he believes so passionately in his cause, why is he incapable of realizing that the inclusion of a political dinosaur powerbroker – Sanan – in his party will just lead him down the same wanked-out political path that Thailand has been going down for decades. Thailand needs parties that are willing to take the slow, steady and sure route to future power. Has Thaksin taught us nothing? We should realize that the country can just about cope with money politics when there is no clear majority in parliament. But when Thaksin bought the candidates to win, and financed them with the money to create a majority government, then we were in real trouble.
Get rid of Sanan, Anek! Then I might respect you, even if it means that your party takes decades to really become a true force in politics.
Sore loser
For those who would like to read the book, here is the title.
р╣Ар╕нр╕Щр╕Б р╣Ар╕лр╕ер╣Ир╕▓р╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕Чр╕▒р╕ир╕Щр╣М. 2549. р╕Чр╕▒р╕Бр╕йр╕┤р╕Ур╕▓-р╕Ыр╕гр╕░р╕Кр╕▓р╕Щр╕┤р╕вр╕б. Bangkok: Matichon. 232 pp.
Anek might complain about the prevalence of the patronage system in Thailand. However, he himself was advantaged by it since the book is based on a manuscript for which he was paid by his Thammasat phuak at KPI. It is not really a scholarly book, more like a long essay with a few pieces of literature added for academic appearance.
Nothing to do with politics
Thitinan Pongsudhirak rides an attack on Surayud’s decision re Somkid (BP, 20 Fer., p. 8):
The Surayud govt’s moral setback
The appointment of the chief architect of Thaksinomics as a spokesman for the sufficiency economy philosophy does not bode well for the government
By THITINAN PONGSUDHIRAK
Notwithstanding the whitewash operation now being conducted behind the scenes, the Surayud government’s appointment of Somkid Jatusripitak, the former economic policy chief of the deposed government of Thaksin Shinawatra, as chairman of the committee to explain the philosophy of sufficiency economy, is a perversion of the military coup that took place on Sept 19, 2006.
For the first time since he came to power, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont has lost the moral high ground on a key issue that has divided Thailand for the past year.
If Mr Thaksin’s regime was so corrupt and abusive that it warranted the military intervention, the appointment of Mr Somkid significantly robs the government of its moral authority. It also undermines the legitimacy of the Council for National Security.
Many will see Mr Somkid’s political resurrection as a betrayal of the coup and the ongoing efforts to extirpate the rot and damage that Mr Thaksin left behind.
The conspicuous spin from Government House and the CNS is that they need to hit Mr Thaksin where it hurts the most by flipping the mastermind of his policy-making machinery into a government spokesman.
….
The paradigmatic shift from Thaksinomics to sufficiency economy is attributable to everything Mr Somkid stood for under the Thaksin regime. His appointed role as Thailand’s spokesman for sufficiency economy is nauseous to those who have followed Mr Somkid’s track record as a Thaksin loyalist through-and-through to the bitter end. He could have pulled out of the Thaksin regime anytime before Sept 19, but he did not.
For the full text see http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/20Feb2007_news21.php
Anek – smarter than Thaksin!
Without large sums of money, he will remain a loser. But if he were to ever find the money, he would probably morph into a second Thaksin anyway. You have to be a rich a-hole to succeed in Thai politics.
Sore loser
I am still puzzled why they pretend that they want to return (ok Tosakan has a point: they never had it) to democracy, they should come up with a system like the following:
– normal folks = one vote
– from Central-Thailand = multiply by 2
– from Bangkok = multiply by 4
– college education = multiply by 2
– BA = multiply by 4
– postdoc = multiply by 8
– professor = multiply by 16
– more than 10 million in assets = multiply by 20
– aristocratic title = multiply by 100
So a professor in Bangkok worth more than 10 million has 4*16*20=1.280 votes and if he is also of aristocratic origin he is worth 128.000 rural voters – that should put them back in place.
Sore loser
Ngee-
I am not advocating censorship. I’m against bad writing.
Actually, Anek’s views should be heard and they should be heard far and wide. But he should at least somebody should point out he is a bigot. I give him credit though. He is an honest bigot,
What is disturbing to me is that his theory is dressed up as a democratic solution.
I’m tired of the Thais distorting the term democracy as if it were a cheap marketing slogan.
Democracy is a Greek word with a specific meaning. It literally means “power of the common people.”
The common people in Thailand have never had power nor will they probably have it in the future.
Bystander- You read the articles? So you are basically saying that their should be a political litmus test for those whom the elite deems as immoral, undisciplined and too stupid to make rational political decisions, which is exactly what Anek was saying.
And who would chose the enlightened elite that gets to weed the stupid masses out?
You know, that same disciplined moral elite that has a notorious track record for making selfless intelligent decisions and would never sell out for their own bag of goodies provided by the state.
And there is quite a distinction between having “orthodox democratic ideals” as you put it so eloquently and being a bigot who wants to politically discriminate against the poor brown stupid peasantry because he thinks they are the source of all of Thailand’s political problems.
But Bystander you make an outstanding point: Anek just wants to legalize the status quo, which is to institutionalize all the current power structures and keep them in place indefinitely. Why not just make it simple and go back to sakdina? Might as well, the sufficiency economic theory has at least taken care of the economic part. Why not listen to Anek and resume Sakdina politics as well?
I have actually heard Anek give a lecture once many years ago where he basically outlined how the whole political system works, notably campaign financing.
I’m surprised he produces an Apartheid like solution to a problem whose roots he once claimed were in campaign financing, spoils and graft.
Sore loser
[…] was clearly concerned that those at the rally didn’t know much about the party leader Anek Laothamatas. So he proceeded to give them a brief profile. Here is my research assistant’s summary of […]
Sore loser
well, I read the articles.. I don’t find anything gravely wrong with it. I guess people are offended because they have an aspiration for an orthodox democratic ideals. That’s a worthy ideal, but of all places, Thailand is probably not where your democratic utopia will materialize. People are still very much conscious of their classes and their places in society, for better or worse. I think Anek’s just trying to articulate what he’s thinking about situation on paper. I don’t think he’s really sucking up to the CNS, as this issue has been his theme all along. I’m quite surprised that AW blog on this even though there are quite a few much more consequential things going on right now.
By the way, if you think you can write something better, you should just write one and send to the Nation. I’ve talked to some people there and they professed that there’s a dearth of good English language articles, and not many Thais can write well enough, or bother to write actually. So he said the paper is very open to outside contributors. Just keep it under 900 words.
Sore loser
Toskan said: “How that column ever made it into print is amazing to me. The Nation’s editors really have no shame at all.”
Are you advocating more censorship?
Do you think Anek views should not even be heard, and his book should also be banned?
In any case, I did not take Chang Noi’s column as supporting Anek’s views – take a look at his last sentence!
Sore loser
Sorry, the software cut off my message.
Anyway, I made the same point as republican, so it doesn’t matter.
If Anek had written this book in the West, he would have been crucified for being an undemocratic bigot.
He is basically saying that the brown, poor upcountry folk are too stupid for democracy and that they are the source of all of Thailand’s problems because they are immoral and undisciplined(his words), and that if only the enlightened elite was running the show everything would be perfect.
Somebody should tell Anek that there has never been democracy in Thailand and the elite that he worships so much is the same elite that lives a life of luxury by stealing from the masses he so despises.
How that column ever made it into print is amazing to me. The Nation’s editors really have no shame at all.
Sore loser
>>Anek argues that “pure democracy”, the rule of the majority, is bound to lead to crude populism. “A better democracy is a balanced compromise between three elements: the representatives of the lower classes who are the majority in the country, the middle class, and the upper class.” In this
democracy, the only time when everybody has equal rights is when they drop their ballot paper in the box. After that “the importance of each person depends on knowledge, ability, experience, and status”.
Sore loser
If you needed any more evidence of what a stagnant backwater Thai political science has become (I mean, after you’ve got over the spectacle of the cheer squad of Chula and Thammasat political scientists falling over themselves to ingratiate themselves with the CNS) you could do worse than to pick up Anek’s book. What political scientist in any other country could write such things as “the importance of each person depends on knowledge, ability, experience, and status”, that the villagers need to learn morality, and that the country should be governed by an oligarchy of royalty, military, academics and senior journalists (ie. what we have now), and not be crucified in public? No doubt Anek dreads another election and would hope the CNS stays in power for a long, long time, because if he took this platform to the electorate he would get what he deserves. No wonder Sanan got rid of him.
But what is even more surprising is how Chang Noi can think that this is a guy who is actually worth listening to. Listen to what? To his sucking up to the powers that seized control on September 19 for his rightful place in the oligarchy.
Defending the sufficiency line
A question of sufficiency
If you frown when asked to define the frequently quoted term “sufficiency economy”, you are not alone.
One of the most common calls made to the Royal Institute is to ask exactly what the term means, said secretary-general Chintana Bhandhufalck.
“As a matter of fact, [callers] want to know how the term is defined by His Majesty the King,” she said.
That was one reason prompting the institute to update its Thai dictionary, Chintana said.
The dictionary, with the sufficiency definition as officially approved by His Majesty, will be published as a special edition later this year in time to mark the King’s 80th birthday on December 5.
It will include a number of new words, including several words used by royal projects.
Chintana said the spellings of such words were also among the frequently asked questions.
“That’s why we have to define those words for the public to use them accurately,” she said.
New words to be included in the dictionary, which currently includes about 30,000 entries, must have been in use for at least 10 years.
The Nation, 19 February 2007
Sore loser
nganadeeleg: In my home country (Germany), we have a personalized proportional system, in which half of the MPs are elected on party lists (on the state level, not the national one), and the other half is elected in single-member constituencies. A five percent hurdle applies.
I liked the proportional system in Thailand, because, for the first time, it allowed voters to express their national political preferences without being “imprisoned” by their exclusive constituency-level politics. In this way, voters were empowered, and there was a higher degree of electoral participation and representation. Many voters made conscious use of their two votes by splitting them.
So, I think that it would be a great pity if this progressive and participatory element of the 1997 constitution was abolished just to satisfy conservative forces aiming at weakening politics.
Sore loser
Instead of classifying the voters into three classes of rural, middle, and upper, I propose a simpler, two class solution: people born on Saturdays are classed as “upper”, and people born on all other days of the week are classed as “lower”. At least this way it should be easier to identify who’s who! (of course I was born on a Saturday!)
Sore loser
Srithanonchai: I’m not an expert by any means, and it sounds like you know much more than I do about proportional representation systems.
There are plenty of countries that use some form of PRS – The swedish system looks OK to me, but I’ve never been there so perhaps others could comment on how it works in practice.
For what it’s worth I think a 5% hurdle would be reasonable, or even an STV system. Regional or Provincial sounds OK to me.
Overall, I just like a system that enables minority (not necessarily extremist) views to be heard – I might even decide to vote if such a system were in place.
Mekong Post
Thanks for your question, I’m glad to clarify this. “Mekong Post” is aimed at a wide audience, from locals to outsiders, including academics – but the limited academic content is presented in a popular style.
It is published by a civil society organisation whose name translates roughly as “Community publication for Lower Lan Na Mekhong” concerned with protecting and promoting environment and culture of that region.
Only the first volume was specifically about Chiang Khong – subsequent volumes deal with other themes, although with a focus on Lower Lan Na Mekhong region. E.g. the second volume was about the Giant Catfish (pla buek).
I didn’t mean to suggest that the whole series is just about Chiang Khong district.
Sore loser
What kind of proportional system would you like to see–country/regional/provincial lists? Should there be a five-per cent hurdle to keep parliament from having 30 or more parties? It seems that the CDC wants to abolish the 100 MPs that were proportionally elected under the 1997 constitution for the reason that it enabled Thaksin to claim direct voter support.
Sore loser
“Anek argues that “pure democracy”, the rule of the majority, is bound to lead to crude populism”
I agree with Anek on this point, and also his point about the 2 party system – thats why I prefer a proportional representation system.
Sore loser
Chang Noi attributes prophetic qualities to Anek. Yet, with his own political actions, Anek was rather short-sighted, and he made a complete fool of himself when, in the campaign preceding the 2005 election, posing as an alternative option to Thaksin Shinawatra as a visionary national political leader.
Originally, Anek had tried to achieve a more academic-looking composition of members of a party that was supposed to present itself as a “third option party” (phak thanglueak thi sam). Through the inclusion of Sanan Kachornprasart and Vatana Asavahem (using his Ratsadorn party as Mahachon’s legal building-bloc), Mahachon turned out to be a mix of both new-style and old-style politicians. This did not hurt its election prospects as much as its lack of money. In an article in Matichon (3 October 2005:11), Anek related that the party had sufficient money for the months of August and September 2004. Afterwards, the funds increasingly dwindled. According to Anek, “Finally, those candidates who we had contacted or who we had campaigned for did not join us, because we did not have sufficient support funds (for their election campaigns). Eventually, they joined Chart Thai, Thai Rak Thai, and the Democrats. This way, Mahachon lost a great number of good people.” While Mahachon had intended to field candidates in all 400 constituencies, the party managed to recruit only 301 candidates.
Anek’s (or rather Sanan’s) Mahachon party won two seats. How little appeal Anek and the party’s platform had for the voters is shown by the fact that Mahachon’s constituency candidates received 2,223,399 votes, while its party list managed only 1,346,632 votes. Soon after the election, Sanan pressured Anek to leave the position of party leader.
Previously, Anek wanted to demonstrate to rural voters that their voting behavior was irrational as far as the national-level consequences were concerned. Another suggestion of his was to use rural development policies to turn all rural dwellers into members of the middle class. Thus they would share the political views held by the Bangkok middle class, and vote accordingly. As Chang Noi tells it, Anek seems to have lost confidence in these two approaches, or realized that they would take a very long time. Therefore, it is better to exclude rural voters as much as possible from having influence on the national-level political game.