Rethinking democracy in Thailand
In run-up to elections, protesters, both anti and pro-govt, have been involved in clashes that have grown more violent
We are all pawns in the grand chess game that the political system is — easily dispensable and of little more worth than our sacrificial value. We make all sorts of pledges and appeals to promote peace, yet we plunder at the behest of those we believe to be our well-wishers. Democracy no longer stands for its true meaning, which is ‘for the people, by the people, of the people’. It has now become a power struggle of the mighty, the ones with money and the power, and consequently, a lack of conscience.
Take the recent protests in Bangkok, for instance. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who has the support of the rural populace, wishes to hold elections on February 2 this year to secure her premiership for the next tenure. Her rival, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister who enjoys the backing of the urban population and the middle class, wants to see national reforms before elections.
In the run-up to the elections, protesters, both anti and pro-government, have been involved in clashes that have steadily grown more violent. The general feelings of mistrust among the two groups have led to a string of tit-for-tat killings that has resulted in countless deaths since the start of the protests in November 2013. With the condition worsening with each passing day, the Thai election commission fears the polls will have to be postponed.
The government, however, is adamant on holding the elections as scheduled, as it fears a delay could lead the country into a permanent state of crisis.
The situation very much reminds one of Karachi. The city saw more than its fair share of bloodshed in the run-up to the general elections in May 2013. Several political parties were forced to withdraw their contestants for fear of violence. The others could not campaign freely. The elections somehow did take place. Their transparency, however, remains an object of controversy to date.
In this scenario, one is left to wonder whether democracy is still the best option for some countries. It may be, but we must seriously consider whether the people who we want to govern us are worth dying for.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 29th, 2014.
Take the recent protests in Bangkok, for instance. Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who has the support of the rural populace, wishes to hold elections on February 2 this year to secure her premiership for the next tenure. Her rival, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former deputy prime minister who enjoys the backing of the urban population and the middle class, wants to see national reforms before elections.
In the run-up to the elections, protesters, both anti and pro-government, have been involved in clashes that have steadily grown more violent. The general feelings of mistrust among the two groups have led to a string of tit-for-tat killings that has resulted in countless deaths since the start of the protests in November 2013. With the condition worsening with each passing day, the Thai election commission fears the polls will have to be postponed.
The government, however, is adamant on holding the elections as scheduled, as it fears a delay could lead the country into a permanent state of crisis.
The situation very much reminds one of Karachi. The city saw more than its fair share of bloodshed in the run-up to the general elections in May 2013. Several political parties were forced to withdraw their contestants for fear of violence. The others could not campaign freely. The elections somehow did take place. Their transparency, however, remains an object of controversy to date.
In this scenario, one is left to wonder whether democracy is still the best option for some countries. It may be, but we must seriously consider whether the people who we want to govern us are worth dying for.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 29th, 2014.