Democracy Unplugged
After waiting patiently, the Thai people finally returned to the ballot box in March, 2019, hopeful of electing a democratic administration after five years of military rule.
Let us not be too hasty and see this as a return to democracy when it is actually a renewed bolstering of the status quo. In spite of appearances [e.g. the newly-established Senate which is stacked with 250 appointees of the Royal Thai Military] the redrafted Constitution brings the country closer to the unicameral system used in Singapore.
The Thai establishment are fond of calling their preferred system of governance Thai-style democracy. Weasel words cannot hide the fact that democracy is a fiction in this coup-disrupted country. But having lived in Thailand for the past 15 years or so I am pondering whether that is such a bad thing. Is democracy worth the effort when it is not working properly anywhere in the world?
If it was, governments would enact the will of the people; citizens would have no cause to mistrust politicians; the military would not interfere in politics in order to defend an elite; money, wealth and influence would never be used to corrupt or sway the system in favour of a particular family, industry or group; delegates would be elected freely and fairly; and the role of the elected politician would be to discover and enact the will of the people.
My dilemma is as follows:
A key characteristic of democracy is that citizens are able to determine the future direction of their country. The modern system of representation is a clumsy way of trying to make sure that occurs. But even that feature is increasingly unworkable in the modern era. It has been corrupted by money and influence in Thailand - as in almost every other country proclaiming adherence to democratic principles.
If democracy is to work as intended it is highly probable the only path forward is a culturally-informed redesign of the system - using blockchain-enabled smartphone technology to educate the community about alternative policy options, discover the most desired policy outcomes, and assure every citizen of a secure, fair, and free vote on each issue that matters to them.
Even then, of course, there is no guarantee that the society will make the wisest or most prudent of decisions, given the complexity of the world today. Such a system would most likely still require some explicit form of non-partisan expertise, ideally appointed for a single fixed term, to frame imaginative policy options that could then be put to diverse community juries for their reaction and judgement. This system would obviate the need for political game-playing – making parties obsolete over time.
On the other hand....
The past five years in Thailand has been one of relative calm and enforced stability. This has encouraged a stronger currency, a more productive domestic economy, increased foreign direct investment, and spending on essential infrastructure - all of which is beneficial to the country in the long term. Most likely outcomes such as these would not have materialised under the previous, democratically elected government, which tended to use populist strategies to achieve and retain their hold on power.
Of course not everything has been so rosy. In the grand scheme of things politics is as corrupt as it ever was while, at the other end of the scale, many people still belittle any attempt by those in power to gloss over the inadequacies of the current system, or to brainwash them into false realities.
Nevertheless it is possible to argue that Thailand is better off without democracy. After all there is nothing sacred, or necessarily permanent, about any human innovation. What we have invented can be decommissioned – especially if it is no longer fit for purpose. Any process can be improved or shaped more appropriately for the culture within which it operates – particularly politics.
The main enemy of democracy today was originally believed to be its most vital attribute. This is the theory that representative democracy provides an opportunity for the cream of society to govern. Today, the rise of the political class, with many incompetent members heavily invested in the sinecure parliament can so often provide, is part of a legacy whose potency has been eroded to a point where the practice no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended.
Sculpted by party politics, driven by entrenched ideologies, we have ended up with a hybrid; a farce that inadvertently shatters any sense of community; promotes adversarial conduct; protects hereditary and financial privilege; and enshrines ideological tenets in ways that invariably benefit certain sectors over others. We are also starting to see how this system is contributing to an erosion of trust in the most venerable of our institutions, as well as playing an unfortunate role in fostering what is fast becoming a global moral bankruptcy.
Good intentions aside, the recent election was neither free nor fair. Many irregularities were reported. Vote-buying was particularly prevalent in many areas of the country, the Electoral Commission took no measures to prevent or suppress election fraud, nor did it take prompt action to discourage such violations of the electoral laws, and subsequent provocative comments by the chief of the army further weakened any kind of shift to democratic idealism.
But if democracy really is dead in the water here, what would a better, more appropriate, culturally-aligned model, look like? It does not need to look like democracy - or even a pale imitation. But it would need to preserve the cultural institutions the Thai people venerate. And it would need to deal with the unnecessary inequities and injustices to be found across Thai society, and to tackle politically-based corruption effectively.
Sadly this question is not one a foreigner is able to answer. Thais themselves are still prohibited from openly discussing several of the many diverse factors one might normally include in such a conversation. But, given that constraint, I am inclined to think the ideal architecture could well resemble an upgraded version of the current model. I imagine only two changes would be needed to transform the current framework into a far more resilient and inclusive model:
Digital Voting: Given the high levels of smartphone ownership in Thailand it would be relatively easy to apply a secure, anonymous, convenient and affordable, electronic voting platform using blockchain technology. The use of an incorruptible digital ballot box that can be used to conduct sensitive votes quickly, cheaply and securely, could instantly eliminate many potential points of inefficiency and misconduct. The same technology could be used to push information to the community about the various policy options and allow those in the legislature to quickly discover the true wishes of citizens.
Advanced Intelligence: The governance of any state these days comprises a web of dynamically complex and frequently ambiguous issues. As other nations are finding out to their cost, the combined knowledge and experience of 650 or more elected members to a National Assembly is never going to have sufficient requisite variety to know what decision is best – especially when the future is at stake. A network of experts from across the spectrum of human activity, including specialists from overseas, and comprising scientists, philosophers, designers and artists, for example, would be a boon to any legislature in helping to carve out strategic options that might not otherwise be on their radar.
Such relatively marginal changes would not be too disruptive. They would instantly bring Thailand into the forefront of political reform in a cost-effective and benign manner. More importantly they could very well meet with the acceptance of a majority of Thai citizens, particularly the younger generation, many of whom feel ignored or manipulated, while helping to restore trust in the continuity of government.