Country Report of Asian Barometer Survey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Country report of Asian Barometer Survey: Support for Democracy in Thailand Thawilwadee Bureekul 1 Ratchawadee Sangmahamad 2 Phathaphol Karnchanapimonkul 3 King Prajadhipok’s Institute 4 Introduction Thailand has had more coups than any other country (thirteen successful military coups). Between late 2013 and early 2014, anti-government protests in Bangkok disrupted the general election in February 2014 to demand a regime without any influence from the Shinawatra family. They viewed the previous Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra as a puppet to her brother, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was the most popular Prime Minister in Thai history, but was convicted of corruption charges in 2008. By considering the series of political protests in 2010 in favor of the Shinawatra family, it is clear that both Thai elites and rural workers are willing to use non- democratic means, and even violent methods to overthrow the ruling regime, and that there is no middle ground between them. The incumbent Prime Minister and head of a military junta, General Prayut Chan-o-cha, has been in power for over two years since the 2014 coup. Various experts believe that the current military junta will remain in power for the foreseeable future. Thailand’s status ranked by Freedom House - a highly regarded non-governmental organization which conducts research on democracy and political freedom - declined from “Partly Free” to “Not Free” in 2015. In Spirit of Democracy, Larry Diamond concludes that there is an overwhelming and universal support of democracy based on data from World Values Survey, a comprehensive survey of individual values and attitudes, in 2001; “at least [eighty 1 Director, Research and Development Office, e-mail: [email protected] 2 Researcher, Research and Development Office, e-mail: [email protected] 3 Assistant Researcher, Research and Development Office, e-mail: [email protected] 4 Address: The Government Complex (Building B) 5th floor (southern zone) 120 Moo 3 Chaengwattana Road, Thung Song Hong, Laksi District, Bangkok 10210 Telephone: +66 2 1419610 Fax: +66 2 1438177 1 percent] of people on average say democracy is the best system” (2008: 31). Nonetheless, in the late 2010s, there is a strong authoritarian temptation and democratic breakdown in numerous countries including Turkey, Bangladeshi, and Philippines. In this paper, we examine the support of democracy in Thailand over four different waves of Asian Barometers Survey, a cross-national research program that gauge public opinion. More specifically, we analyze the degree in which these individuals living in democracies would approve other authoritarian alternatives. In addition, we explore the factors affecting the support of and commitment to democracy in different regions. Data collection This study presents survey data based on face-to-face interviews in 2001, 2006, 2010 and 2014 (see Table 1) from the Asian Barometer Survey of Democracy, Governance and Development in Thailand, as conducted by King’s Prajadhipok’s Institute. All interviews are conducted face-to-face, and are at least 18 years old representing a true sample of Thai eligible voters. This research also utilizes probability sampling, which implies that subjects are randomly selected. Table 1. Summary of Asian Barometer Surveys in Thailand Wave Year Period of data Prime Minister Sample size collection 1 2001 Oct. - Nov. 2001 Thaksin Shinawatra 1,546 2 2006 Apr. - Sep. 2006 Thaksin Shinawatra 1,546 3 2010 Aug. - Dec. 2010 Abhisit Vejjajiva 1,512 4 2014 Aug. - Oct. 2014 General Prayuth Chan-Ocha 1,200 Note that during the 4th wave, a coup d’etat occurred on 22nd May 2014 to remove an interim government that was formerly headed by Yingluck Shinawatra. Prior to the coup, anti-government groups held mass rallies against Yingluck Shinawatra’s government in Bangkok objecting a proposed political amnesty bill that would condone key political figures including Thaksin, her brother. Although the protestors demanded 2 a snap election in February 2014, they disrupted the voting process forcing a large number of polling stations to close and subsequently, leading to the result being invalidated. In addition, Yingluck was threatened with legal action prior to the May 2014 coup over a poorly funded and managed rice subsidy scheme. Meanwhile, the 2006 data collection was completed in the same months as the coup d’etat on the 19th of September 2006. Similarly to the events leading up to the 2014 coup, a large number of anti-governmental demonstrations had taken place throughout Bangkok. In addition to these demonstrations, Thaksin was also threatened with judicial proceedings, this time over allegations of corruption prior to the September 2006 coup. These series of events in 2006 and 2014 are important to this research because they have a significant impact on the political conditions and the environment within which the participants found themselves in preceding and during the survey period. Literature Review Theory Democracy is a system “for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote” (Schumpeter, 1950: 269). Political scientists define democracy differently. Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, asserts that democracy occurs if only citizens believe that democracy is “the most appropriate form of government for their society” (Diamond, 1990: 49). This comes as no surprise, because democracy requires the consent of the populace through the electoral process. This literature review will examine the basic definitions and terminologies, and then explore the notion of political culture, horizontal accountability and vertical accountability, as well as the importance of political legitimacy. Various terms such as electoral democracy and liberal democracy are coined to describe the specific type of system and assess quality of democracy. Electoral democracy is established “if people can choose and replace the ruling body in regular, free, and fair elections” (Diamond, 2008: 22). Freedom House defines electoral 3 democracy as one in which there are: (1) A competitive, multiparty system, (2) Universal adult suffrage for all citizens, (3) Regularly contested elections, and (4) Significant public access of major parties to the electorate through mass media and through campaigning. Nonetheless, it should be noted that electoral democracies vary enormously in terms of quality and is only the most basic requirement. Liberal democracy, on the other hand, describes a high-quality democracy in which there are high degrees of participation, and freedom, horizontal and vertical accountability, and a civic political culture. Participation is crucial to democracy, because citizens should participate not only by voting, but also by actively participating in their respective civil society organizations, public policy issues as well as monitoring of official conduct. Through their participation, citizens show how they know that their actions matter to the overall electoral process and democracy. Support of democracy is also only possible if citizens have freedom afforded by primarily political and civil rights. Political rights entail the right to vote, run for political positions, and organize political parties, while civic rights focus on personal liberty, security and privacy. With freedom, citizens will then care about and stands ready to defend rights and liberties of the electoral process. Support of democracy depends on the political culture, which provides underlying rules and assumptions of a high-“quality” democracy. The most succinct and perhaps effective summary of the components of political culture is from Sidney Hook, a political philosopher: “A positive requirement of a working democracy is an intelligent distrust of its leadership, a skepticism stubborn but not blind, of all demands for the enlargement of power, and an emphasis upon the critical method in every phase of social life” (Hook, 1940: 290). The main takeaway is an emphasis on “distrust” and “skepticism”, which are important for the public to avoid developing an overly deferential attitude towards authority. Almond and Verba (1972) similarly highlight the need for balance between deference and skepticism and the appropriate level of competition. 4 The importance of horizontal accountability and vertical accountability cannot be overstated in order to avoid democratic breakdown. Larry Diamond (2002) claims that horizontal accountability is a crucial component for the development of effective democratic government. More specifically, he posits that horizontal accountability can only be established when there is separation of powers among multiple branches and institutions, and when the executive power is constrained by legislature, judiciary and others (ibid.). In particular, horizontal accountability is strongest when there are institutions with overlapping authority and scrutiny over each other (ibid.). Horizontal accountability also minimizes corruption, the biggest obstacle of democracy that diminishes political legitimacy, crushes populace’s faith in the government, and impedes economic growth. Likewise, vertical accountability is the act of holding public officers accountable for their actions. Vertical accountability exists in two types: electoral accountability and societal accountability. Electoral accountability forces officeholders to become accountable for their actions and implies that they can be removed for poor performances, whereas