2006-08-28 12:02:01globalist
誰在威脅民主？泰國及菲的例子可做為台灣借鏡
泰國總理Thaksin Shinawatra因為強大的反對勢力，反被迫重新舉行國會選舉，面對群眾運動的反對壓力，Thaksin Shinawatra指控反對者破壞民主制度：選舉、憲法所限制之政府權限等。不過法院對泰國上次舉行的選舉宣布無效（反對黨也杯葛那次選舉），十月份必須重選。反對者近來更指控他自導自演一項暗殺未遂案。問題是：是誰威脅民主？是反對群眾上街頭而且不顧選舉結果呢？還是Thaksin Shinawatra他自己。 反對者認為，他根本沒有遵循民主的原則行事，自己破壞法治，民主不只是選舉，還有很多，例如權力平衡、透明化，也就是說，領導人如何使用權力，你是否是個令人信賴的領導人。他們指責他，利用選舉產生的權力，展開一連串弱化平衡權力限制他權力的行動。他任用自己人在各個委員會，包括憲法法庭，鎮壓反對黨。
但是，是否要如菲律賓般，不斷的以「人民力量」推翻政府，甚至認為必須破壞民主才能拯救民主。如果菲律賓能給泰國借鏡，最大的教訓是警示，民主是很脆弱的，一旦人民的憤怒之火燃起，會延燒經年，而且會一再重燃燒掉另一個政府。像菲律賓，政府一再被人民的力量推翻，政治從未穩定。
泰國會不會成為第二個菲律賓呢？
(台灣呢？會不會也成為菲律賓第二呢？）
News analysis: Thai democracy: Who threatens it?
By Seth Mydans The New York Times
Published: August 27, 2006
Sounding desperate, Thailand’s harried leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, wrote to President George W. Bush last spring with what sounded like an SOS. Thai democracy, he said, is under threat.
”Key democratic institutions, such as elections and the observance of constitutional limitations on government, have been repeatedly undermined,” he wrote in a letter published in the Thai press.
Thaksin had been forced by public pressure to give up his office in April, he explained, but was staying on as what he calls a caretaker prime minister.
Bush sent a friendly but noncommittal, and possibly nonplussed, reply.
Since then, things have only gotten worse for Thaksin as court rulings go against him, allies desert, his party faces a possible ban in court, and an election scheduled for October that he could see as his lifesaver appears about to recede farther into the future.
Critics have now accused him of fabricating the assassination attempt against him that was reported Thursday.
Some say this is the endgame in a campaign against him that has included huge street demonstrations and an opposition boycott - and the subsequent annulment in court - of an election that Thaksin won handily in April.
The underlying question is this: Who is threatening democracy and undermining constitutional limitations on government - the people who have taken to the streets and turned their backs on a election, or Thaksin himself?
His critics say that Thaksin has so eviscerated democratic institutions and processes in his five years in power that they had no other means of opposing him or protecting the Constitution.
In a rationale that echoes the one given in the Philippines for repeated ”people power” uprisings, they argue, in effect, that they must destroy democracy in order to save it.
”It’s not true that Thaksin represents genuine democracy and overthrowing him in the streets is unacceptable,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University. ”I think democracy is nuance; it’s subtle and has to be contextualized. Just because you have someone coming along and winning elections is not tantamount to having democratic rule.”
Thaksin is an election winner, the biggest in Thai history. He still has the overwhelming support of the country’s poor and rural voters and would almost certainly be re-elected in a new ballot.
But that would not solve the country’s problems, or end the current impasse, his critics say.
”Thaksin says he plays by the rules, but he’s the one who broke the rules most of the time,” said Kavi Chongkittavorn, a political commentator at the daily newspaper The Nation. ”I think democracy means a lot of things. It doesn’t just mean elections; it also means checks and balances, it means transparency, it means how you use your powers, it means you are accountable as a leader.”
There is some excitement here about replicating Philippine ”people power,” but if the Philippine experience has anything to offer Thailand, it is a warning.
Precedent is powerful, the Filipinos found: Democracy is fragile, and once the fire of popular putsch is lit, it can smolder for years, then flame up anew to burn down another government.
The response to this in both the Philippines and Thailand is that their democracies are young and imperfect and that their self-regulating mechanisms cannot always be relied on, as they are in more mature democracies.
In the Philippines, for example, former President Joseph Estrada was ousted in 2001 by a popular uprising - ”People Power 2” - after a constitutional impeachment process failed because of corruption in the Legislature.
In Thailand, Thaksin’s manipulation of democracy has been as thorough and direct as anything the Philippines has seen in recent years. He came to power in 2001 with the country’s first outright majority in Parliament, the result of a new Constitution, passed in 1997, meant to create more stable governments.
Once in office, his critics say, Thaksin used his electoral mandate as a cover to begin weakening the checks and balances that limited his power.
He packed his allies onto independent commissions on elections and corruption, the constitutional court and the Senate as well as the military leadership; he undermined civic organizations, intimidated the press and monopolized television; and used his overwhelming mandate to crush political opposition.
His critics say Thaksin has used his office to hugely enrich himself, his family and favored associates. The chief spur to the uprising against him was the sale by his relatives of the family’s telecommunications empire to a Singapore firm for $1.9 billion, avoiding most taxes.
As his struggle for political survival intensifies, some military and government officials have warned of the possibility of violent clashes if the street demonstrations resume.
On Thursday, the police announced they found a bomb in the trunk of a car parked near Thaksin’s house. An army lieutenant was arrested in connection with the incident, which the government called an assassination attempt, and a general was dismissed.
Newspapers immediately speculated that the incident had been contrived by Thaksin for political purposes.
One option Thaksin has mentioned in the past is the declaration of a state of emergency that would allow him to assume special powers.
Thaksin’s aggressive use of power and the uprising against him have set the country on an uncertain course stretching the limits of the constitution and, as Thaksin said, threatening democracy.
”My fear is that we will emerge out of this crisis many months from now so bruised and so bloody that we’ll be unrecognizable,” Thitinan, the political scientist, said.
A question that many opponents of Thaksin, as well as those of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who succeeded Estrada, fail to ask is what would come next if their elected leaders were overthrown, sidestepping the democratic process.
In the Philippines, Arroyo is the product of people power. Yet she has disappointed the public, so she in turn has become the target of people who want to push her from office.
但是，是否要如菲律賓般，不斷的以「人民力量」推翻政府，甚至認為必須破壞民主才能拯救民主。如果菲律賓能給泰國借鏡，最大的教訓是警示，民主是很脆弱的，一旦人民的憤怒之火燃起，會延燒經年，而且會一再重燃燒掉另一個政府。像菲律賓，政府一再被人民的力量推翻，政治從未穩定。
泰國會不會成為第二個菲律賓呢？
(台灣呢？會不會也成為菲律賓第二呢？）
News analysis: Thai democracy: Who threatens it?
By Seth Mydans The New York Times
Published: August 27, 2006
Sounding desperate, Thailand’s harried leader, Thaksin Shinawatra, wrote to President George W. Bush last spring with what sounded like an SOS. Thai democracy, he said, is under threat.
”Key democratic institutions, such as elections and the observance of constitutional limitations on government, have been repeatedly undermined,” he wrote in a letter published in the Thai press.
Thaksin had been forced by public pressure to give up his office in April, he explained, but was staying on as what he calls a caretaker prime minister.
Bush sent a friendly but noncommittal, and possibly nonplussed, reply.
Since then, things have only gotten worse for Thaksin as court rulings go against him, allies desert, his party faces a possible ban in court, and an election scheduled for October that he could see as his lifesaver appears about to recede farther into the future.
Critics have now accused him of fabricating the assassination attempt against him that was reported Thursday.
Some say this is the endgame in a campaign against him that has included huge street demonstrations and an opposition boycott - and the subsequent annulment in court - of an election that Thaksin won handily in April.
The underlying question is this: Who is threatening democracy and undermining constitutional limitations on government - the people who have taken to the streets and turned their backs on a election, or Thaksin himself?
His critics say that Thaksin has so eviscerated democratic institutions and processes in his five years in power that they had no other means of opposing him or protecting the Constitution.
In a rationale that echoes the one given in the Philippines for repeated ”people power” uprisings, they argue, in effect, that they must destroy democracy in order to save it.
”It’s not true that Thaksin represents genuine democracy and overthrowing him in the streets is unacceptable,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University. ”I think democracy is nuance; it’s subtle and has to be contextualized. Just because you have someone coming along and winning elections is not tantamount to having democratic rule.”
Thaksin is an election winner, the biggest in Thai history. He still has the overwhelming support of the country’s poor and rural voters and would almost certainly be re-elected in a new ballot.
But that would not solve the country’s problems, or end the current impasse, his critics say.
”Thaksin says he plays by the rules, but he’s the one who broke the rules most of the time,” said Kavi Chongkittavorn, a political commentator at the daily newspaper The Nation. ”I think democracy means a lot of things. It doesn’t just mean elections; it also means checks and balances, it means transparency, it means how you use your powers, it means you are accountable as a leader.”
There is some excitement here about replicating Philippine ”people power,” but if the Philippine experience has anything to offer Thailand, it is a warning.
Precedent is powerful, the Filipinos found: Democracy is fragile, and once the fire of popular putsch is lit, it can smolder for years, then flame up anew to burn down another government.
The response to this in both the Philippines and Thailand is that their democracies are young and imperfect and that their self-regulating mechanisms cannot always be relied on, as they are in more mature democracies.
In the Philippines, for example, former President Joseph Estrada was ousted in 2001 by a popular uprising - ”People Power 2” - after a constitutional impeachment process failed because of corruption in the Legislature.
In Thailand, Thaksin’s manipulation of democracy has been as thorough and direct as anything the Philippines has seen in recent years. He came to power in 2001 with the country’s first outright majority in Parliament, the result of a new Constitution, passed in 1997, meant to create more stable governments.
Once in office, his critics say, Thaksin used his electoral mandate as a cover to begin weakening the checks and balances that limited his power.
He packed his allies onto independent commissions on elections and corruption, the constitutional court and the Senate as well as the military leadership; he undermined civic organizations, intimidated the press and monopolized television; and used his overwhelming mandate to crush political opposition.
His critics say Thaksin has used his office to hugely enrich himself, his family and favored associates. The chief spur to the uprising against him was the sale by his relatives of the family’s telecommunications empire to a Singapore firm for $1.9 billion, avoiding most taxes.
As his struggle for political survival intensifies, some military and government officials have warned of the possibility of violent clashes if the street demonstrations resume.
On Thursday, the police announced they found a bomb in the trunk of a car parked near Thaksin’s house. An army lieutenant was arrested in connection with the incident, which the government called an assassination attempt, and a general was dismissed.
Newspapers immediately speculated that the incident had been contrived by Thaksin for political purposes.
One option Thaksin has mentioned in the past is the declaration of a state of emergency that would allow him to assume special powers.
Thaksin’s aggressive use of power and the uprising against him have set the country on an uncertain course stretching the limits of the constitution and, as Thaksin said, threatening democracy.
”My fear is that we will emerge out of this crisis many months from now so bruised and so bloody that we’ll be unrecognizable,” Thitinan, the political scientist, said.
A question that many opponents of Thaksin, as well as those of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, who succeeded Estrada, fail to ask is what would come next if their elected leaders were overthrown, sidestepping the democratic process.
In the Philippines, Arroyo is the product of people power. Yet she has disappointed the public, so she in turn has become the target of people who want to push her from office.
上一篇：柬埔寨重尋正義之路不容易
明明台長立意甚佳的一篇文章，
就有像樓上這種無聊言論，
是反諷也就罷了！
版主回應
謝謝，我相信頭腦清楚的人其實很多的，所以懶得回應。
2006-10-01 12:55:14
台長放心，台灣不會如菲律賓。菲是個小國，無人援手收拾局面，中國是大國，有強大的國家機器支撐，台省亂到一定程度，必然會出現整合。台灣人又不傻：）所以可以放開手腳混亂。
I agree that Taiwan is in a state of smoldering choas. However, it’s unlikely there would be a coup. We chinese are culturally obedient and submissive race, and many angry people are still hesitate to go onto the stree to protest. It’s time to wake people’s public consciousness about individual’s role in the whole society.
BTW, this is a good blog and I will visit often!