Democracy in Thailand and Myanmar - Research Paper Example

Comparative Politics: Democracy in Thailand and Myanmar Political and economic structures are among the most influential factors of democratic development. Politics and governance directly affect democracy due to the responsibility that the government has in safeguarding sovereign values of the citizenry. Political structure provides institutions that the government applies in provision of such safeguarding services. Democracy in political sense is largely assessed by the level of sovereignty that the people have in relation to the political running of their country’s interests. The design of organization of the government illustrates how the government can implement democratic policies. A popular constitution must be present in the democracy in order for the citizenry to have faith in its structures (Dahl, 205). Vertical organization within the government to pave way for sharing of political power from the top most post to the lowest should portray some level of equity in a good political structure enshrined in democracy. The best models of democracies have clear levels of government, to decentralize power as much as possible. The structure of government has offices that operate for the good of the people, with elective provisions for entry into the government. Checks and balances by the public must be available to safeguard it form misuse of power by the few in power. On the other hand, the structure in a model democracy must have some horizontal organization where there must be the main branches of the government. The legislature, judiciary and the executive are the universally common horizontal organization models in use today. These branches should divide government power and act independently to promote sovereignty of the people (Cline, 78). Designated government institutions must have strength to perform their sole responsibilities to ensure that influences from individual parties are overcome for the good of the country. Power must be vested in these institutions and the government must be empowered to undertake its mandate in entirety. Preponderance of power must exist within the government’s institutions while maintaining the sovereignty of the people. This means that the government must not be too powerful, neither weak for democracy to prevail. Transparency in operation of government institutions ensures environment is conducive for checks and balances form the public watch. Accountability issues arise when the organization of the government becomes incompetent to handle responsibilities transparently. Supervision and review of government operations is guided by independence in model democracies. According to Dahl (13), economic structure study findings point at the fact that the best examples of democracies are in free capitalist economies. Whether attainment of operational democracy comes before free capitalist economic structure or vice versa is not clear. Certain practical features of a democracy are also evident in the free market system of economy. Ownership of property and businesses are left for the market forces to operate. Although some critics say that capitalism favors unfair distribution of resources to the affluent few, democracy is enshrined in the basic tenets of freedom, typical in free markets. Thailand Versus Myanmar Hypothesis I: The state of democracy in Thailand is better than in Myanmar, with regard to differences in political structures. Political structure in Thailand is relatively closer to the model of democratic organization highlighted above than it is the case in Burma. Political structure has functional electoral system in Thailand, which has a popular constitutional backing enacted in 1997 and 2007. The country has constitutional monarchy, with parliamentary representation to a bicameral legislature. Elections have occurred in 2001, 2005 and in 2007, despite there being a coup d’etat in 2006. Decentralization of power is done by division of power into 76 provinces, districts and sub-districts. Human rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the government and to a large extent, Thailand is better in safeguarding sovereignty of the people than in Burma. Thailand has a long history with a monarchy system of governance, with information detailing on three monarch systems dating back to the thirteenth century (1257) with strong political establishments. Conversion of the monarch into a constitutional monarch brought checks, balances and limitation of power. The country’s structure is similar and is supported by model democratic monarchies such as the United Kingdom offering lessons to be adopted (Bernstein, 2010). Political tolerance is characteristic of developing democracies and Thailand activism is evidence of elements of democracy in the country. Although Thailand has had authoritarian governments before, it is clear the monarchy has remained intact with political showdown affecting other political levels of governance. Burma is governed by a military junta with excessive power currently rated as the worst governance in the world. Human rights abuse due to uncontrolled power is rampant in Burma than in any other country. Military power has divided the country into seven states and seven regions only, despite Burma being bigger than Thailand which more divisions. Lack of accountability and transparency leaves Burma among the most corrupt countries in the world. Military influence and presence cannot facilitate democratically friendly environment in Myanmar, since international election observation is not even guaranteed. Humanitarian situation in the country for instance points at how political class has failed to consider human rights, a fundamental practice of democracy. International communities led by world’s leading democracies have continued to raise accusations against Myanmar, resulting in strained foreign relations. Economic sanctions have for a long time now slowed the general performance of the economy, due to political unresponsiveness to political responsibility (Walton, 895). Protests against totalitarianism mainly led by intellectual elite and students have heavily been subdued by the military government to date. Ethnic communities have tried to advocate for democratic autonomy from the rest of the country which seems deep entrenched in political instability (Fink, 11). Attempts to have a new constitution and democratic elections have always been futile due to military frustration. Democratic economies have more of free market based operations while countries with authoritarian governments have completely command based operations. Ordinarily, political democracy can be reflected by way of controlling national business, which is measured by the level of direct government involvement and interference in economic operations. Exclusive market based and exclusive command based economic structures may not necessarily be readily evident in a current world economy, but a mixture is likely to be found. The balance of the two economic structures in an economy would be deemed to determine the level of democratic advancement; with market based being the most democratic and command based being the most authoritarian (Baker and Pasuk, 86). Global politics has shaped the world economics structures, with democratic politics paving way for economic structures uniformity, characterized by a more free market preference. Hypothesis II: The state of democracy is better in Thailand than in Myanmar due to economic structures differences. Economic performance of Thailand is free capitalistic and is compatible with majority of world economies securing trade interactions and cooperation. This has enabled Thailand to be one of the major emerging economies not only in Asia but also in the whole world. Democracy has been promoted in Thailand by little interference of the market by the government. In Thailand, the government facilitates investment and offers security to business and trade centers. Freedom in the market structure ensures that that the country attracts foreigners from all over the world to carry out business investments like they could in their own countries. Thailand has established economic ties with democratic and economic powerhouses, mainly due to the relative democratic advantage it enjoys in the region. Economic performance achieved by Thailand in the last few decades has been excellent, with a massive annual growth averaging at over 9%. Much of the growth can be attributed to increased exports, to not only the Southeast Asia region but also to the rest of the world (Bernstein, 2). Agriculture has been the major economic contributor but with industrialization steps made by the country, it is eventually losing ground. Currently, automotive industry is the most important export contributor in the economy. Political performance and non-interference by the government have enabled the country to form economic partnerships with neighboring countries, acting as an anchoring economy in the region (Baker and Pasuk, 86). Thailand has been described as an emerging world economy, which demonstrates maturity at one level of the main pillars of human society (economic pillar) paving way for other pillars; political and social sectors. On the other hand, economic performance by Myanmar has continued to suffer due to lack of democratic policies that facilitate state economy in the current world. Politics plays a central role in the country’s business networking policies that enable creation of trade opportunities. Besides the military rule interference in economic structure advocating for command based operation, the country lacks investment incentives due to military brutality and insensitivity. This is evidenced by the poor annual growth of an average of just 2.9%, showing impacts of lack of democratic elements in the economy. Over reliance of the economy on agriculture that lacks commercial capacity puts the country’s economy in a risky path. Poor technological advancement due to lack of constructive planning by the military rule has reduced agricultural practice to a sub-standard activity. Foreign investment sue to stained international relations has withdrawn free movement of capital into the economy, pointing at interference of investment by military rule (Cline, 574). Trade on other natural resources like minerals is greatly affected by corruption which prevents circulation of national wealth to boost the economy. Inflation has skyrocketed since military rule took over, causing unfair rise in prices for basic consumer commodities. Only a few hundred thousand tourists make their entry into Myanmar, which continues creating a bad image for the country. Military rule has created a huge dent in the economy, apparently due to lack of democratic policies to conduct business, free form interference (Dahl, 25). Evaluation of Relative Strength of Hypotheses Political structure can explain the level of democratic performance by a country better than economic structure. This is because democracy is mainly an element of governance by the people. Political structures and institutions reflections offer a variety of parameters to be used to illustrate the level of governance and democracy. From organization to strength of the government institutions, we can gauge the performance of country in terms of democracy than it would for economic structures. Economic structures have a limitation in that the notion that free capitalistic markets exhibit democratic space entertained by the authorities may be wrong. Heightened capitalism negates equitable distribution of resources which is one of the principle aims of democracy. Works Cited Baker, John Christopher & Pasuk, Phongpaichit, Thailand, economics and politics. Oxford: Oxford Publishers, 2002. Print Bernstein, R. “The Failure of Thailand Democracy.” International Herald Tribune 2010:2 Web. May 26th 2010 Cline, L. E. “Insurgency in Amber: Ethnic Opposition Groups in Myanmar.” Small Wars and Insurgencies, 20.3/4(2009):574. Web. 7th October 2010. Dahl, Robert, On democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Print Fink, Christina, “An overview of Burma’s Ethnic Politics.” Cultural Survival Quarterly 24.3(2000):11. Web. 7th October 2010. Walton, M. J. “Ethnicity, Conflict and History in Burma: The Myths of Panglong.” Asian Survey 48.6(2008):889-910. Web. 7th October 2010. Read More