~Meaw & More~


Reactive blogger (~and more~)

what with democracies?

When many people were young, they might be elected to be classroom “presidents” and “vice presidents.” It was simple, direct democracy and there was almost no significant interests to inspire corruptions. There were responsibilities such as overseeing if a group assigned to do daily cleaning tasks. At the beginning of each semester in school, we did not know our leaders, particularly in new schools with new classmates.

In those sociology classes, we were usually told that direct democracy is no longer valid with larger population. Later poli sci classes discusses eligible “citizens” in direct democracy. Still, in front of a polling booth, every eligible citizens are equal. One man, to be politically incorrect, or one person, one vote.

It seemed to me that the polling booths is the only place where egalitarianism prevails. But equal opportunity to vote is not enough, for now. Thai citizens must cast god vote; not a vote. Under-standard votes would result in social delegitimizing processes and feedback of quality of citizens. I even hard people saying those people who casted “bad” votes, should not be eligible to vote. Probably the reason to have red card system is to have an authority to screen out bad vote.

It is harder to screen out corrupt politicians once they took the office, no?

Hence the delay.. joking.. seriously.

The quest for ‘good’ political community is disputable and endless. Should it be a place for dialogue rather than saying this is bad and you shall be have a by-election as a reprimand, dialogic space, instead of indirect lectures, should be available for people who had exercised their rights to speak. It is their right to cast a vote to someone, after all, an election is rather a blind selection. Things change, and we would all end up discriminate people who did not cast good votes, without respect to citizens’ right that they can vote for anyone, they see fit.

I think everyone select a representative that can represent their interests. (Note: I did not endorsed some of statements in the links.) It is not one party or the other. The question of legitimacy of people’s voice arrived without questioning conflicting interest between classes, between peripherals and centers, cities and the rural and those who have to put up with hydro electric dams, forced evacuations and pollution that will not happen in some people’s backyards.

Do people who claim that the ‘rural poor’ are so affected by consumerism (money, money, money) simplified them? Do these poor want the universal solution? We never know and we think we know.

let’s get back to the feeling of being school kids. You may not like your friend’s vote. forget it. you would not think that she’s an under-educated, greedy person at that time. so healing the national disunity would not have to end up with everybody being reeducated to believe in the same thing.


Filed under: Political Sciences

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: