Democracy: Thailand’s Crisis Roots is in the “Irrational Fear” of Democracy

Amart Siamese cats fear democracy

  • By Tammy, this blog humanity journalist-edited by Frank, this blog political journalist

Ever since modern politics, based on Democracy, came to Thailand-there had been an opposing force. Namely, that had been from the Amart or the ruling upper-crust of Thailand. But why? Simply stated, the Amart fear democracy.

Entrenched people, who benefited from an old establish system, understandably, fear taking on “Risk” from changes. In Thailand’s case it is a change to a democratic system.

  • Is that fear rational or is it irrational?

Yet the following short research summary on Cultural Cognition, indicates that the fear may be irrational. The research points out how people often do not relate to reality or level of real risk from the change itself, but from their values.

Cultural cognition refers to the tendency of individuals to form beliefs about societal dangers that reflect and reinforce their commitments to particular visions of the ideal society.

  • What is the Ideal Thai Society?

For those who are against democracy, the argument is about how democracy had failed in Thailand. And that Thailand is unique and thus the democratic process, as it exists in other democratic society, does not work in Thailand.

  • Does democracy work in Thailand?

The following summary of a research from Yale, is about the requirement of a functional democratic society-that keeps fear and risks manageable-with is the key Amart argument against democracy.

The challenge that risk regulation poses to democracy is more profound than it appears not only upon first inspection but upon second inspection as well. The material well-being of a democratic society depends on its ability to rationally manage a near limitless variety of often competing risks. The integrity of such a society’s commitment to self-governance depends on its ability to fashion procedures that are genuinely deliberative, open, and democratic. And its obligation to reconcile popular rule with respect for individual dignity and freedom requires it to find a mode of regulation (and a strategy of regulatory discourse) that deflects the ambitions of competing cultural groups to claim the law as theirs and theirs alone.

This blog argues, that because the Amert fear of democracy bringing them risks, democracy never had a chance to developed to the level that Yale indicated-to have risk being manageable.

In democracy place is the current system of upper-crust rule mixed in with democratic principles. Have this unique Thai system worked? Many argues that if had failed-and cause a great deal of risk to the entire country-not just for the Amart.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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