Thailand Coup and democracy

Thailand military kicked out Takhsin in a coup that surprised the world last week. It occured after months of stand off between Thai middle class who wants Takhsin to go and the rural (and urban poor) that wants him to say.

"British prime minister Churchill once said, Democracy is absurd, but all other systems are worse. "

I observed something interesting from the event. Depending on how you look at it, this can be very democractic (or undemocractic indeed).

Democracy is defined as political system where the minority subjugates to majority's will. This definition disregard factors such as quality of fairness of the will. A society that say, enslaves a ethnic minority group and where most of the majority group agrees that is is ok to enslave the ethnic minority is a democractic society, despite a barbaric one. Robert Mugabe would probably have won a popular vote in a free and fair election, but then the democratic system had created something that is worse than state like the tiny island off the coast of Florida led my Mr C.

All democratric political systems around the world also has a concept of universal suffrage and also rules to exclude certain people (like those who are insane) from voting. The bottom line of these restrictions is to ensure that those who votes are rational and knows what they are doing.

So, now it comes the question, do those vote for Thai Rak Thai knows what they were doing and hence, are they 'qualified' voter in a democratic system. On closer look, the 'poorer' voters were in fact very rational indeed - they tried to support somebody who they think would benefit them, even if such benefits is derived from means that would otherwise be deemed objectional in civilised societies. For someone who is not certain about where the next meal will come from, taking $100 in exchange for a vote would be a perfectly rational behaviour.

Human are indeed rational beings (bar being constrained by their intellectuai ability to make a long term and holistic consideration of the situation).

So, if 55% of the population are willing to take a bribe (either from private resources or from promised tax redistribution) and to elect a government who offers that, is the government not a democracratically elected government? By the the above definition, they must be, because that is what the majority wants.

So, there we go. Ultimately, democratic or otherwise, as long as a political action that is taken can ensure long term wellbeing of the majority of the population, then the action is justified. Unfortunately, this is something that cannot be determined at the time the action is taken, but can only be jolted down in the history book.

Another example was that Chinese mass would never have imagined that CCP that they propelled to power, the one which they thought was their saviour, would cause tremendous suffering to the many during the 60s and 70s.

Let's hope for the best for the Thais although it does not look negative at the moment.