My recent article, What is Democracy? first published in StickmanBangkok.com, sparked a heap of responses. Going through them all, it was noticeable that many Americans and Australians condemned my reasons for supporting the coup. Foreigners living here, and people from Europe, supported my ideas. So, I thought it would be instructive to discuss some more background on the coup and explain in more detail why it was a good thing for Thailand.

Many Americans and Australians stated that while they did not like the Thaksin government, he was democratically elected and therefore he should not have been ousted. A noble sentiment, but we are living in the real world here, a world where rampant corruption was the norm throughout the Thaksin regime.

One American wrote that it looked like I was saying that the people of Bangkok decided to oust Thaksin, and that the people in Esarn were just dumb buffalos whose votes and ideas didn’t count.

Well, he was almost right. The fact is Thaksin used his huge wealth to buy the vote. When you buy a vote, or get your brother to influence vote counting, or rig a voting machine to win an election, is the winner really a democratically elected leader? Or is he a usurper? Do bought votes count as democracy? Are sheer numbers the litmus test of democracy? Is this what those critics meant?

Continue reading »

Reading the negative comments by Western leaders and the press on the coup in September I am appalled at their negative reactions to it. They judge this very popular event by their own warped standards without taking into account the Thai peoples’ needs.

After Thaksin was elected the first time I had high hopes for him. He was ‘popular’, whatever that means. He was already rich, so I figured he would not do the same as the old guard politicians and go for the money. He offered much-needed social changes. My only reservation was the rumor that he had bought votes in the northeast. Even then, I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps his party representatives took the initiative themselves without his support?

My high hopes were dashed within days of his election. Instead of bringing in fresh new faces to help him govern, he brought in old-guard politicians like General Chavalit, Sanoh Thienthong, Banharn Silpa-Archa, and Newin Chichob. These guys couldn’t join the obviously successful Thai Rak Thai fast enough. Their murky pasts included accusations of corruption, drug dealing, and vote buying to stay in power. It was immediately obvious that these, and many of the other politicians suddenly latching onto TRT, were not the sort of people who would work for the good of the people.

Despite this, we have seen that democracy in Thailand is well and truly entrenched. The people have made it abundantly clear they did not approve of Thaksin’s corruption or some of the more stupid policies he initiated. This is not to say that everything he did was bad. He did bring in some good social changes, and I have heard from some highly placed sources that they are lobbying for the next government to retain them; with some improvements of course. But closing the gas stations at night to stop people wasting gas, or banning the sale of liquor and cigarettes at certain times of the day were signs of lunacy. Cracking down on entertainment places instead of tackling the root cause of the drug problem was even more lunacy. All it did was make Thailand look bad internationally, and tourists started going to other holiday destinations instead. It was obvious they were implemented to curry favor with the bluenoses and gain popular approval of the xenophobes.

Continue reading »

Amish

On October 2, Charles Carl Roberts entered a one-room schoolhouse in the Amish community of Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania. He lined up eleven young girls from the class and shot them each at point blank range. The gruesome depths of this crime are hard for any community to grasp, but certainly for the Amish — who live such a secluded and peaceful life, removed even from the everyday depictions of violence on TV. When the Amish were suddenly pierced by violence, how did they respond?

The evening of the shooting, Amish neighbors from the Nickel Mines community gathered to process their grief with each other and mental health counselors. As of that evening, three little girls were dead. Eight were hospitalized in critical condition. (One more girl has died since.) According to reports by counselors who attended the grief session, the Amish family members grappled with a number of questions: Do we send our kids to school tomorrow? What if they want to sleep in our beds tonight, is that okay? But one question they asked might surprise us outsiders. What, they wondered, can we do to help the family of the shooter? Plans were already underway for a horse-and-buggy caravan to visit Charles Carl Roberts’ family with offers of food and condolences. The Amish, it seems, don’t automatically translate their grieving into revenge. Rather, they believe in redemption.

Meanwhile, the United States culture from which the Amish are isolated is moving in the other direction — increasingly exacting revenge for crimes and punishing violence with more violence. In 26 states and at the federal level, there are “three strikes” laws in place. Conviction for three felonies in a row now warrants a life sentence, even for the most minor crimes. For instance, Leandro Andrade is serving a life sentence, his final crime involving the theft of nine children’s videos — including “Cinderella” and “Free Willy” — from a Kmart. Similarly, in many states and at the federal level, possession of even small amounts of drugs trigger mandatory minimum sentences of extreme duration. In New York, Elaine Bartlett was just released from prison, serving a 20-year sentence for possessing only four ounces of cocaine. This is in addition to the 60 people who were executed in the United States in 2005, among the more than a thousand killed since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. And the President of the United States is still actively seeking authority to torture and abuse alleged terrorists, whom he consistently dehumanizes as rats to be “smoked from their holes”, even without evidence of their guilt.

Our patterns of punishment and revenge are fundamentally at odds with the deeper values of common humanity that the tragic experience of the Amish are helping to reveal. Each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done in life. Someone who cheats is not only a cheater. Someone who steals something is not only a thief. And someone who commits a murder is not only a murderer. The same is true of Charles Carl Roberts. We don’t yet know the details of the episode in his past for which, in his suicide note, he said he was seeking revenge. It may be a sad and sympathetic tale. It may not. Either way, there’s no excusing his actions. Whatever happened to Roberts in the past, taking the lives of others is never justified. But nothing Roberts has done changes the fact that he was a human being, like all of us. We all make mistakes. Roberts’ were considerably and egregiously larger than most. But the Amish in Nickel Mines seem to have been able to see past Roberts’ actions and recognize his humanity, sympathize with his family for their loss, and move forward with compassion not vengeful hate.

We’ve come to think that “an eye for an eye” is a natural, human reaction to violence. The Amish, who live a truly natural life apart from the influences of our violence-infused culture, are proving otherwise. If, as Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” then the Amish are providing the rest of us with an eye-opening lesson.

Sally Kohn is Director of the Movement Vision Project at the Center for Community Change and author of a forthcoming book on the progressive vision for the future of the United States.