What do you do if neither the Constitution nor the ballot box can resolve a dispute? Citizens in Thailand have decided to turn to the king and ask him for help. And such sentiments are not limited to Thailand:
Observers say monarchs in Asia’s emerging democracies have provided a check against political extremes, though their presence may also slow the building of other constitutional checks and balances. But that downside may be unavoidable in the short term, while institutions slowly take root.
The argument is hardly new, and the question I can’t figure out is how does one grow “democratic” and “market” institutions in “undemocratic” and “uncompetitive” environments. I would certainly like to be enlightened.
“We can’t run to the king every time. The present king will not be there forever. We have to start learning how to solve our problems for ourselves,” says Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok.
In one thing Thitinan Pongsudhirak is right – to have a democracy people must figure out ways to make it work. One of the problems in this case, it seems, is a weak constitution and poor enforcement. Instead of asking the king to strike the decision, would it be possible to address the inherent problems within the constitution and improve its enforcement? Mr. Pongsudhirak certainly has something to say about that:
…a royal intervention would risk returning Thailand to square one, seeking to rewrite its constitution to remedy the shortfalls of its democratic culture.
What Thai democracy needs in order to mature is not a political safety net, but a vigilant citizenry to ensure disciplined enforcement of the constitution’s provisions and institutions, so that they can no longer be hijacked by the likes of Thaksin.
The king, according to reports, has been reluctant to get involved. That means – the ball is in citizens’ court.
Published Date: March 28, 2006