Local Affairs in Southern Thailand: A Strategy to Maximise Peaceful Democratic Participation

 By

Antonio L Rappa

SIM University

 Democratic theory emphasizes grassroots participation in politics as part of the democratic evolution and transition (Neubauer and Tanaka, 2011; Shapiro, 2003; Sartori, 1987; Patemen, 1976; Dahl, 1956). Democratic participation is not always peaceful, and indeed has proven itself to be volatile and violent in the history of modern Thailand. Thai scholars like Chalermtiarana, Bunbongkarn, Boonpraset, Ponsidurak and others have underscored various interstitial issues of violence in Thailand from Phibun and Sarit’s regimes, the role of the military, university student uprisings, mass protests and civil disobedience. Thailand and Singapore share a similar political history despite the differences in size. Both states have experiences periods of authoritarian rule with different policy outcomes and political consequences. Since the end of the Cold War, the governments of both states have emphasized the importance of a democratic ethos and how such a belief leads to a better life for citizens. Yet democracy in Singapore is peaceful by comparison to its larger neighbour. This paper examines how Southern Thai people can maximize their participation in local affairs by applying Singapore’s ethnic management strategy of political cohesion.

Abstract

Democratic theory emphasizes grassroots participation in politics as part of the democratic evolution and transition (Neubauer and Tanaka, 2011; Shapiro, 2003; Sartori, 1987; Patemen, 1976; Dahl, 1956). Democratic participation is not always peaceful, and indeed has proven itself to be volatile and violent in the history of modern Thailand. Thai scholars like Chalermtiarana, Bunbongkarn, Boonpraset, Ponsidurak and others have underscored various interstitial issues of violence in Thailand from Phibun and Sarit’s regimes, the role of the military, university student uprisings, mass protests and civil disobedience. Thailand and Singapore share a similar political history despite the differences in size. Both states have experiences periods of authoritarian rule with different policy outcomes and political consequences. Since the end of the Cold War, the governments of both states have emphasized the importance of a democratic ethos and how such a belief leads to a better life for citizens. Yet democracy in Singapore is peaceful by comparison to its larger neighbour. This paper examines how Southern Thai people can maximize their participation in local affairs by applying Singapore’s ethnic management strategy of political cohesion.