Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of Electoral Democracy
Show Less

Public Governance in Asia and the Limits of Electoral Democracy

Edited by Brian Bridges and Lok Sang Ho

This book documents the search for a workable model of democracy in Asia. It begins with two conceptual chapters that explore the role of electoral democracy as a governance mechanism in the light of other governance mechanisms, then reviews the various forms of Asian democracy, including those that many may consider to be in name rather than in substance, that have been practiced to date, and indicates where these models may have failed or succeeded. Underpinned by extensive case studies, valuable insights into governance and democracy in Asia – arguably one of the most fascinating and dynamic regions in the world – are provided.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details

Chapter 11: Democracy, Governance, and Regime Cycling in Thailand

William Case

Extract

11. Democracy, governance, and regime cycling in Thailand William Case Within South-East Asia, Thailand’s experience with democracy began earlier than any other country save the Philippines, and, even more than in the Philippines, democracy in Thailand can be identified as home-grown. For extended periods, then, civil liberties have been respected and elections have been competitive, precipitating regular turnovers in government. And yet democracy in Thailand has failed to gain equilibrium. Rather it has collapsed episodically into authoritarian rule, perpetuating a distinctive pattern of regime cycling. Why has democracy in Thailand failed to consolidate? This chapter argues that, while at least temporal gains have been made in civil liberties and elections, progress in governance has failed to keep pace. Rather, political and business elites, in finding expression through political parties, have sought state power not to produce public goods, but more narrowly to accumulate patronage. And, in doing this, these elites have thus excluded other elites, especially in the bureaucracy and military, who have sought the same access to state largesse, thereby fomenting deep disunity. Further, excluded elites have responded by mobilizing social forces alienated over policy ineptitude and corrupt practices, hence precipitating direct action and military interventions. This is not to argue that a lack of sound governance is itself enough to destabilize democracy. If anything, corrupt practices continue to be worse in Indonesia (notwithstanding recent improvements) than in Thailand, yet democratic politics, whatever their functionality, have persisted (McLeod 2005). More pivotal, then, are configurations of disunity in which excluded...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.