泰國軍事政府開啟新憲制訂，竟然禁止政治人物參加。他們說這是泰國style的政治。因為政治人物在泰國已經名譽掃地，沒人信任。
News Analysis: Democracy, Thai style - Ban the politicians
By Thomas Fuller International Herald Tribune
Published: October 6, 2006
Sometime in the next few weeks, 100 delegates from around Thailand will gather here to draft a new constitution, a fresh start for the country after the military coup last month.
But first the ground rules: Politicians need not apply.
Politics is a dirty word in many countries, but mistrust runs so deep here that those who have been members of political parties or have held political office during the past two years are banned from doing what would in other countries be seen as their primary job: writing the supreme law of the land. "This is democracy Thai style, not European style," said Pramuan Ruchanaseree, the co-founder of the Pracharat political party and thus disqualified from taking part. "No one trusts politicians."
The tanks and soldiers that the generals sent onto the streets of Bangkok nearly three weeks ago are now back at their bases. What remains in the aftermath of the coup is skepticism toward politics and democracy in general and a feeling that academics, ordinary citizens and military officers are the ones best placed to lead the country and chart its future in the coming months.
In the days ahead, Surayud Chulanont, the retired general appointed by the military as prime minister, will announce his cabinet. Not surprisingly, most of the names mentioned so far are civil servants, career military officers and corporate executives - but not politicians.
Persistent vote-buying has tainted electoral politics here and the allegations of corruption in the administration of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister removed in the coup, reinforced the notion that Thai politics is a mercenary system where those who serve also serve themselves to lucrative cuts of government contracts.
"Thais have not as yet absorbed the core values of democracy," said Gothom Arya, a former election commissioner, who is now director of research at Mahidol University. "They see a lot of shortcomings. The core values are difficult to understand. It has not been part of our way of life."
According to the road map set out by the coup makers, Surayud’s government will rule for about a year, until the new constitution is written and elections can be held, a familiar cycle in a country where coup leaders have shredded the Constitution seven times.
In the meantime, Thailand is still technically under martial law and there is a ban on any political activity, a measure ostensibly designed to keep Thaksin and his allies out of the picture - but which covers all political parties, including those that opposed Thaksin.
Thailand’s ambivalence toward a return to democracy is in sharp contrast to the unequivocal moral clarity espoused by its longtime ally, the United States, which described the military takeover as a "U-turn" for the country. More broadly, the Thai coup is the latest setback for the idea that democracy is a universally desired global elixir: Add the military takeover here to the debacle of nation-building in Iraq and deep skepticism toward democracy in places like Russia, where last year only 28 percent of Russians said it was the best system for the country.
What is perhaps surprising in the Thai case is that many academics have long theorized that democracy would grow deeper roots in societies that had experienced sustained periods of economic growth. Thailand has enjoyed several years of relative prosperity: the economy has been growing at a healthy annual pace of 4 or 5 percent, prices for major exports such as rubber and rice are high, and both tourism and the country’s car industry are thriving.
What sets Thailand apart from other developing countries in the region is the role of the monarchy. King Bhumibol Adulyadej is adored by most Thais, and his 60 years on the throne have provided a country with a sense of security and continuity. As a corollary, though, Thais often worry about what will happen when he is gone.
"It’s lucky in Thailand that the king is beloved by the people," said Pramuan, who was interior minister from 2002 to 2004. "The soldiers are below the king. And people trust soldiers more than politicians. This is our social heritage."
So far only a tiny group of students and academics is demanding an immediate return to democratic rule. In recent days its members have staged demonstrations that attracted more journalists than actual protesters.
More typical is the opinion of Napa Pruetarat, an 18-year-old medical student at Chulalongkorn University: The coup was justified, she said, because Thailand is not ripe for full-fledged democracy. "I think the coup was good," she said. "If we want to follow the democratic path, Thailand needs to be more developed."
In opinion polls, interviews and newspaper editorials, Thais say they are optimistic that the new prime minister, Surayud, will be less corrupt than the previous, elected governments. Criticism by leaders from places as diverse as Australia, Malaysia, Japan and the European Union is shrugged off by Thais, who say that the coup has been misunderstood.
The Nation newspaper is host to an online forum titled "Can foreigners ever understand Thai politics?"
This was also the gist of an interview given by Anand Panyarachun, who served as interim prime minister after the previous military coup in 1991. Anand told the Thai-language Mathichon newspaper that the coup was a hiccup and justified it by saying that Thaksin’s government had stripped the democratic system of its meaning.
"Thailand had lost the essence of its democracy," Anand said. "What was left was merely the form: having a Constitution, a Parliament and the administrative, legislative and judiciary branches. But there was nothing democratic in its essence."
More blunt is the assessment of Thira Silpasanong, a 56-year-old restaurant owner in Bangkok.
"It was well known that Thai politicians were seen as dirty, corrupt and selfish," Thira said. "The purpose of the coup was to rid them from the system."
Not everyone in Thailand buys that argument. Prinya Thaewanarumitkul, one of the country’s leading constitutional lawyers, says the practice of coups d’état in Thailand is a bad habit that needs to end. "If we didn’t have this coup the Thai people could have learned more about democracy and politics and about how to develop," he said.
The most serious consequence of the coup, Prinya said, was the suspension of civil liberties. Because Thailand is still under martial law, the military can now legally open mail, censor the media, tap telephones, barricade streets or detain anyone indefinitely without trial.
"They can block any street, declare a curfew, destroy any house without compensation," Prinya said.
A key test of the coup makers’ intentions, he said, will be how long martial law is maintained. The last time - after the 1991 coup - the interim government lifted martial law after two months.
文章定位：
