A Rant on Democracy

I consider myself to be a loyal citizen of the United States. I admire the American system of government, and acknowledge the essential role that democracy has played in our nation’s centuries of success. I believe in the ideals of “every (wo)man has a voice” and “exercise your political rights” and blah blah blah.

So yeah – I love me some democracy. But if ever there was a way to make me despise the political ideals that I was raised to revere, Thailand seems to have figured it out.

Yes, I am about to say the four most unthinkable words for any loyal American citizen: I’M SICK OF DEMOCRACY. There. You all heard me. But before you report me to the Department of Homeland Security, listen to the reasoning behind these words of betrayal:

People in Thailand seem to think that the term “democracy” means that everyone is happy with government all the time. If one person is satisfied with the policies promoted by the political leaders currently in power, than the rest of society should derive the same amount of satisfaction from those same policies. The government should be expected to uphold the ideals of every single Thai citizen, no matter if they are a poor farmer in the rural Northeast or a wealthy businessman in the heart of Bangkok.

Now I have to ask: how in the world is this possible? By definition, the rural farmer will deem certain policies more or less important than the wealthy businessman, and vice versa. Just because the two men are living under the same political system does not make their political and social views in the least bit compatible. In reality, these two men are probably living in different worlds altogether. There is no way for a government to make a list of policies that will completely satisfy both of them.

But this is the beauty of democracy. By implementing a democratic system, a government is showing compromise, taking into account the differences between citizens living in different social and economic hemispheres. Indeed, the whole point of democracy is to find a middle ground between people who have little in common besides a shared citizenship and love for their country. By satisfying both men to a certain extent, the government is showing respect to differences that are bound to exist, and most likely always will.

We cannot, therefore, have democracy without compromise. Each side gives a little, and each side is able to take a little in return. Neither side will most likely feel one hundred percent satisfied – we do not exist in a state of Utopia. But each party can rest assured that their voice is being heard and respected as much as is possible, and that it will all hopefully even out in the end.

Where oh where, my dear Thailand, is this idea of compromise? Your people shout for democracy, under the false premise that democracy is a path for a government to please all citizens simultaneously. The opposing parties refuse to give the little bit that so desperately needs to be given if any sort of solution is to be reached. Any bit of ground lost by each side is deemed unacceptable, a “loss of face” that must never occur. But by being so stubborn to hang on to this misconstrued notion of democracy, hasn’t the entire nation began to “lose face” in the eyes of the international community?

Protestors sit out on trash-strewn streets waiting for a government to make promises that it does not have the ability to make. Government-supporters call on the Prime Minister to carry out measures that would prove deadly, and alienate a region of the country that cannot be ignored, no matter how poor. Threats are made, ignored, and made again. Holding on to this idea that democracy should not involve compromise is bringing Thailand dangerously close to a civil war, something that neither side wants to see come to pass.

So I’ll say it again: I’m sick of democracy. I’m sick of the system that has brought about such compromise and peaceful co-existence in the past being defamed by the words of the opposing leaders throughout this crisis. If you want democracy, Thailand, then it’s there for the taking. But you’ll have to compromise. In order to take, you must first be able to give. And if you can’t do that, it’s not democracy you’re after at all.