Stephen, Young, Part

BP's mother taught BP that if you don't anything nice to say about someone then you shouldn't say anything, but well the second half of Young's interview with Suthichai has been published by The Nation now and well BP is a little lost for words - a copy of one his lectures different from previous one is available from here (PDF - 13 pages). The one part that BP wants to comment on is this:

SY: In democracy, he says he believes in elections, so every time you challenge him, he will say let's go to the people and have an election. That will prove everything and that's democracy.

PY: It proves nothing. The communists have elections. Stalin had elections. Hitler had elections. An example of where Thailand could go wrong is provided by Juan Peron in Argentina. And Thaksin is closer to the dictators of Latin America than to anybody in Thai history. We see it now with Chavez. They hold elections. They go to the poor people. They blame the rich. They say, poor people, vote for me, I'll punish the rich. We'll take money from the rich and give it to you. So they mobilise 50 per cent of the poor people to attack 30 per cent. Argentina in the 1930s, before Juan Peron, was a very wealthy country.

BP: Nixon, Carter, Regan, H. W. Bush, Reagan, Clinton, Dubya, and Obama were also elected... Also, what new taxes did Thaksin impose on the rich? None. Instead of increasing the military budget, other aspects of the budget, or in the first year through borrowing he diverted this money into social programs. This was his "punishment" of the rich.

On Peron just quickly, he came to power and one of his policies was nationalizing industries and anti-foreign trade. Well, the Thaksin protestors - the PAD and part of the so-called Baramee elite wing with good morals who Young champions - took the anti-globalization view when they criticised Thaksin.

Young's argument is that one must have "ethical" leaders to have a democracy. In the paper stated above, he outlines some Thai ethical qualities, but BP thinks the system is important as opposed to the person - see Zakaria's illiberal democracy as blogged about briefly here and Wiki article here.

We have had a coup-led government and continued media coverage and we are fully aware of what transpired under Thaksin. Thaksin still retains significant support. The problem that BP has with Young's argument is he ascribes a set of personal traits which a leader should have, but voters obviously don't have the same view. These arbitrary qualities he seeks to impose are not necessarily supported by voters.