JUSIPER

 
The rebuttal

Posted by Sini

The unknown Jotman continues to be an incredibly useful source of information on the Thai coup. Today he posts excerpts from "Bad excuse for the coup," part of Thongchai Winichakul (a history professor at the University of Wisconsin)'s campaign against the coup.

His election victories were valid. No significant irregularity that would change the results of his two landslide victories. Academics, including myself, can argue against his populist policies, his horrible handling of the crisis in the Malay Muslim region, and so on. But Thai people elected his party and the “Thaksin regime.”

Democracy anywhere in the world is never a rule of the educated, the smarter, the urban, or the better-informed. It is a rule by popular mandate. No matter if/ how ignorant people are, the elected government has the rights to rule. It is true that democracy does not mean only election. But election is THE ultimate and inviolable source of legitimacy to rule. The higher moral or good ethics is not. The higher education is not. The better access to information is not. Nor are weapons or any unelected aristocrats. Democracy is never without corruption and abuses of power.

...democracy grows as the results of the unwavering struggles within the bound of constitution and rule of law. This is the ONLY SOLUTION to establish a strong democracy.... This excuse is shamelessly an elitist arrogance and prejudice that denies the rights of people who elected Thaksin as worthless and negligible. They are the majority of people but whose voices do not count. This excuse is utterly anti-democratic....

It (the constitution) was violated, ignored, and tampered with; probably similar to what Bush was doing now. But the constitution was still there to provide opportunities to fight the abusive regime. In fact many fights were successful and more were waging, thanks to the constitution....

On Thaksin and the media:

But it was never able to control or manipulated to such extent that differing views were shut down. Critics were frustrated for being shut up but they were never being shut down. Anti-Thaksin publications were among the best selling titles.... Thaksin the Evil was not able to close our eyes, ears and mouths. The struggles against the interferences had been going on and could go on. The coup is not necessary. Who would dare to say that media freedom and freedom of expression with no fear is better under a coup regime?

Winachakul's conclusion:

Does Bush deserve a military coup or some drastic measures to get rid of him as a necessary evil and the only solution to rescue the world?

It's a very striking conclusion, and a very odd one. Bush is highly unpopular outside the United States, highly corrupt, and the cause of an immoral war. It's almost as if he saved his least persuasive argument for last.

Recent times have hardly been a strong argument for democracy in the United States. By 2000, 20 of the last 28 years will have fallen under Reagan or a Bush.

Winichakul is right: under a democracy, those who live in a no-facts zone have the right to have their ballot counted. Their vote is indeed quite as legitimate as the vote of the learned. Each of the 43% of Americans who believes, against all evidence, that Saddam helped plan 9/11 has the same number of votes as Richard Clarke: one.

But what if the integrity of the electoral system itself was brought into question? What if the votes were not counted fairly? What if the voting machines were rigged? What if conditions were created legally, as they were in Ohio, that would make voting impossible for many working people? What if a segment of the population was systematically disenfranchised, often illegally, because of its skin color?

Winichakul is right: a person who believes in democracy must believe in the supremacy of the ballot box. But does that mean he would support a coup if Thaksin had not, in fact, been legitimately elected? And if so, what would the implications be for George W. Bush?

12:07 AM |