Let's start the New Year with a bit of a controversial thought: Let's say ''no'' to national reconciliation! Why? National reconciliation isn't healthy for democracy. Therefore, let's continue with political and social conflicts, but let's do it without the violence and illegality.
Should the Democrats and the Republicans over in the US reconcile? Should the Labour and Tory parties over in the UK reconcile? No and no.
A state with a single ideology is dangerous, as it flirts with absolutism. Democracy is a system that thrives on conflicts. It is based on the right of man, and as every man is different, thus democracy is an ideology that prospers through differences.
And if politics is divided, society is also divided, always, as it should be.
Differences beget conflicts, opposing forces competing in a never-ending battle, because no one side has absolute power over the other, thus no one may win absolutely, hence the state of democracy is one of balance among the forces.
To simplify it: If the Democrats were the single ideology in the US, then they would have a nation of free-loving hippies. They would get beaten up all the time. And who wants that?
If the Republicans were the single ideology in the US, then they would have a nation of gun-toting conservatives. They would bully everybody. And who wants that?
So the balance of democracy provides for a state of sensitive hippies who will reach for their shotguns and go Bruce Willis on anyone who messes with them.
Carrot and stick _ it's the preferred combo platter.
Another simplified scenario: If an entire nation is for abortion rights, then there might just be a fetus holocaust. And who wants that? On the flip side, if an entire nation is anti-abortion, then there'll be a gazillion unwanted children, who will suffer the consequences of being unwanted. And who wants that?
But since there are two opposing forces in conflict in a never-ending battle, the resulting balance is one of responsibility and accountability as a society _ with the other side always checking on you to keep you within the realm of reason and legality. It's not perfect, but there's a balance.
Thailand's political history is one of absolutism. The military has always been in charge.
In the 1990s, with economic prosperity and the rise of the middle class, we started to experiment with democracy.
But the evolution of third-world democracy is what it is. In the beginning, political parties weren't based on ideologies, but factionalism _ which means rich and powerful groups of people vying for control.
As a country, Thailand had no vision and direction on who we were and who we wanted to be, the only understanding was everybody making as much money as possible _ from the politicians to the business community to every day common folk.
So while one may be able to define what a US Democrat was, what a Republican was, what a Labour or Tory follower was in the 1990s and the early parts of the 2000s, one can't really distinguish the differences between the hordes of competing Thai political factions, except to say that one party might be less corrupt than the other.
But rest assured, the military was always in charge, no matter which party took office and in spite of the events of May 1992. Want proof? Who always get their budgets approved and organises coups with impunity?
Today, however, is a different day, a brave new world for Thailand. This country has advanced up the democratic evolutionary ladder by one step. We are beginning to witness two emerging political ideologies, whether we like it or not.
On one side, we have the military-backed elitists who serve to maintain the status quo. The status quo being, the military will always be in charge no matter what, and all the consequences that go with it.
The most significant consequence is of course, the majority remaining ignorant and powerless, while human rights and freedom is a theory talked about but rarely practiced. (How do I know this? I live here, and so do you.)
On the other side, we have the big-business-backed elitists who serve to change the status duo.
The change being, big business will be in charge, and all the consequences that go with it. The most significant consequence is, of course, the majority remaining ignorant and powerless, while human rights and freedom is a theory talked about, but rarely practiced. (How do I know this? We had a taste of it already in the mid 2000s.)
Dear readers, you may exclaim: ''By golly, those aren't promising prospects, are they?''
Well okay, they aren't. I did say one step up, although the democratic evolutionary ladder is a long one. The key development that everyone should take note of here is there's a breakaway group.
Whether they're doing it out of ideology, out of necessity, or simply out of old-fashioned power-grabbing, the fact is there's a group who's trying to control the military, rather than being controlled by the military. Is that a good thing or a bad thing _ you, dear readers, may decide for yourself. Would they govern Thailand better, worse or make no difference at all _ you, dear readers, may decide for yourself.
Regardless of which side you support, or even if you disagree with my description of the two sides, this is a step forward in any country's democratic evolution. A national reconciliation is simply a lack of choice. The choices we have today may be the difference between the tank and the money, choosing between force and greed, but it's one more choice than before. If things aren't pretty now, it's just the growing pains of democracy.
Puberty _ it was rough, but we all went through it, and we all came out the better for it.
The good thing about evolution is it doesn't stop. The next step will come. Here's how the evolutionary ladder goes: The food grower first brings about civilisation because he ensures the most important thing, survival. But the tank soon takes charge because there's always somebody trying to steal your food. Then through a period of peace and growth because the tank kicks butts, the merchant rises to trade and expand the economy. After which, the tank and the merchant eye each other suspiciously, because the back of the food grower is only so big, which means there's only so much room on his back for either the tank or the merchant to stand on.
But since we have democracy, both the tank and the merchant realise the importance of the food grower. He doesn't only grow rice, he also votes. Of course, the merchant realises this first, because he's the more creative one.
So he implements what is called populism to win the hearts and minds of the food grower. Now the tank isn't stupid _ he sees the trick and does the same.
Both sides then vie for the love of the food grower. This is what we have here in Thailand today.
The more vying the tank and the merchant do, the more knowledge and power the food grower (in present day context, the food grower is any working person _ that's you, me and our next door neighbour) gain. With increasing knowledge and power, one day soon, the tank and the merchant will have another force to reckon with _ the people.
What does this mean? More conflicts! But if democracy is the middle ground, the common goal, then things will balance out, no one side can win absolutely. We'll have the tank, because there'll always be somebody trying to steal our stuff.
We'll have the merchant (or money), because it's the pursuit of happiness. (Now if someone tries to tell you money can't buy happiness, take away their pay cheques and see how happy they are.) Most importantly, the people will rise, therefore ''rights'' won't be only the privilege of the tank or the merchant anymore, but for all the people, ie human rights!
National reconciliation? Bah! Evolution will win! Let's do battle! Without the violence and illegality, of course
Email the author at: voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment