Streets and other spaces for democracy
NIDHI EOSEEWONG
Bangkok Post, 11 June 2008
Apart from Makkhawan Rangsan Bridge which has been taken over by the People's Alliance for Democracy these past three weeks, many other streets have been used as venues for protest. Some of them were completely sealed off, others partially opened to allow a bit of traffic through. Public streets have been used as demonstration sites thousands of times from Oct 14, 1973 up to the present. All types of caravans _ demonstrators on foot, pickup trucks or rot e-tan _ were marched through public streets in and outside Bangkok to make a political point, often with very loud loudspeakers.
Conflicts are part and parcel of a democratic society. That is why conflict resolution through a process of political negotiation is crucial for the regime to survive. It is more important than an election, the parliament or media freedom.
For democracy to thrive, conflicts must be allowed to come out in the open freely. For that to happen, a public ''space'' must be made available. It will serve as a forum for the minority to air their ideas. It will be a pressure valve to reduce discontent. It will be a medium for public proposals to be heard and hopefully turned into public policy.
Public streets are one such type of ''space''. They are quite effective, too, when used to generate pressure _ again a given in the process of negotiation.
Still, public streets are not the ''only'' space where negotiations under democratic rules can take place. The point, however, is if a society allows no other public space for negotiation, the street will always be used and closed for protesters to put pressure on policy-makers and to make their point, like the way things have been here in Thailand.
The imperfection of Thai-style democracy is caused not only by money politics, vote buying or public apathy. A large part of it is from a lack of ''space'' for public participation.
It's true that the system has some channels available for the public to use but most of these do not work. Most of these formal channels actually allow very little or no room for negotiation at all.
For democracy to work, I can think of at least seven spaces apart from the street that must be open for people to push forward their ideas, disagreements or discontent and to give them access to the making of public policy.
1. The Media
The situation is that electronic media have been co-opted by the state and business to the point that they no longer serve as an open space for the poor or a tool for them to have leverage. Even the printing press, which arguably enjoys more freedom, doesn't lend itself to serving as a forum for people outside of the state or financial power.
Is there a possibility for these small people _ labourers, small-scale entrepreneurs, farmers _ to make use of this ''space'' and hike up their negotiating power?
2. State Mechanisms
These include such independent bodies as the National Human Rights Commission, the National Economic and Social Advisory Council, Ombudsman or Administrative Court, among others.
Although these independent organisations provide important space for negotiation, and indeed members of the public have utilised it to their success in the past, they cannot be said to be highly efficient. The main reason is inaccessibility, especially when it comes to poor, rural villagers.
Also, these organisations were probably designed to serve more as a counter-and-balance mechanism than a tool for negotiation by the public.
3. Political Parties
At present, Thai political parties are groupings of national or local elite. They have no base among the masses, nor do they have an ability _ or intention, for that matter _ to represent anybody except their financiers. Under the circumstances, it is of no use for villagers to pressure their representatives to take action on their behalf. There is thus no way for these parties to be a stage for policy negotiation by the general public.
A party dissolution, thus, has little effect on the general public. Even though the Constitution Court does not order a dissolution, the party's owner can do so at any time and set up a new one.
4. Professional Organisations
Although the main purpose of these professional organisations, namely the Law Society of Thailand, Medical Council or Press Association of Thailand, is to prevent malpractice or abuse of power, their lines of work are actually interrelated with public policy. They should not limit their work to only protecting the interests of people in the profession. Instead, they should consider public benefit first when it comes to issues that are related to what they are doing.
The contribution has, sadly, been nil. That is why we have to live with the fact that there are doctors willing to cut off a child's testicles or media that consistently take the liberty of violating other people's rights and privacy.
5. Unions
In modern society in which the interests of many groups can be intertwined, the union can be a handy and effective tool for negotiation at the policy level. And it should work for larger issues than the immediate benefits of its own members.
There are times when the public and members' benefits are not the same. When that happens, the union usually stands by its members and turns into an anti-change factor. We have seen this happen with attempts to reform the education system or public enterprises. When that happens, the public is virtually pushed off from this space.
6. Academic Institutes
Schools, universities, museums or grant providers must open themselves up and study problems faced by members of the public more. They should not limit themselves to studying only what would benefit the state or business. A research institute may try to come up with an instrument to measure humidity in paddy that is both cheap and reliable. At the same time, it should invest in how to help farmers reduce the humidity in the paddy they are to sell to millers, too.
7. Local Administration Organisations
Although these local bodies come from direct election, they have hardly functioned as the frontline defenders of local people's rights and interests. Instead of bringing input from the grassroots to central policy-makers, these local organisation representatives mostly spend their time thinking how to make the most for themselves. For example, before they agree to buy certain books to distribute to school children in their areas, these local administrators should have asked people in the community whether they liked the books that the ministry prescribes? Do they want to add others to the list? If they did so, they would open up a real space for public participation in the country's educational policy.
As mentioned earlier, these seven spaces in Thai society are either dysfunctional or not allowed to work fully. It is thus no surprise why our streets have frequently been occupied for purposes other than traffic.
The problem is, without other open spaces which the public can make use of easily and freely, the street can become a forum to advance vested interests of power groups.
Without accountability, street politics can work in closing off other open spaces in a democracy.
Pushing protesters off public streets, either by force or persuasion, is not the gist of democracy. The main issue is how can we push open other democratic spaces so that they work in promoting our democracy.
Professor Nidhi Eoseewong is a historian who started the alternative educational forum, the Midnight University.
สมัครสมาชิก:
ส่งความคิดเห็น (Atom)
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น