The one thing they say about the People’s Alliance for Democracy is that their media campaign is brilliant. 

Oh yeah?

For those of you who have neither the time nor stomach to trawl through the websites, I have selflessly and diligently stolen here a selection of comments on the PAD from foreign sources.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

The so-called People’s Alliance for Democracy proposes an audaciously undemocratic “new politics” whereby most members of parliament would be appointed.  Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, Geneva

The insurgents still style themselves as the “People’s Alliance for Democracy,” but this time some of their leaders are explicit in calling for just the opposite: the restoration of a full monarchy or a military-backed autocracy.  Washington Post

What his [Samak’s] opponents, who come under the misleading banner of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), want is a mandate on demand, by theft.  Straits Times

Even though the PAD’s very name includes the word democracy, many of its supporters are skeptical of electoral politics.  Time

Neither the PAD nor the DAAD advocate any recognisable form of democracy.  Guardian

The rebel groups are trying to roll back the results of last December’s general elections and reinstall rule by an urban elite traditionally backed by the Thai armed forces.  Irish Times

An alliance of street protesters and a reactionary elite.  Financial Times

The latest ideologue [Sondhi] who promises to fix their country’s democracy by -- once again -- breaking it.  Wall Street Journal

What the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) did on August 26 … was a putsch.  La Stampa

Authoritarian rabble … the woefully misnamed People’s Alliance for Democracy  … a gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats.  Economist

The PAD leadership is no collection of spotless democrats.  The Independent (London)

The group’s name appears to be a misnomer as it is neither populist nor does it want representative democracy.  Al-Jazeera

*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *

So.  A reactionary, putschist, autocratic, thieving, authoritarian, gruesome rabble of rebel ideologue insurgents.  As a PR image, this can’t be that far from Al-Qaeda’s. 

And all seem agreed that whatever they are after, it ain’t democracy.

Silly, silly farangs.  (Well, not all farangs; you might note that the Straits Times and Al-Jazeera are in there.)

What these ignorant non-Thai commentators are completely failing to understand is that the D in PAD doesn’t refer to democracy as anyone else might know it.  In fact they regularly denounce that kind of democracy as a ‘Western export’, injected into the purity of Thai society by seditious and misguided academics who have studied abroad, become infected, and surreptitiously spread the toxin into the Thai body politic.

No, what the PAD is after is a special, customized, made-for-Thailand style of democracy. 

So how may this democracy differ from what the rest of the world understands by the term?  There are a number of strands in the thinking about this.

One principle is that everyone has a vote and everyone in power is voted in.  It’s not clear if the PAD buys into the second part of this.  They’ve talked of 70% of representatives (or 50%, they’re prepared to negotiate) being appointed, or in some other way selected, to represent occupations and groups (like women and the disabled).  And if you look at how the PAD operate, it seems that decisions are made at the top (by men), and the followers, well, follow.  Representational democracy doesn’t really figure

Another principle is some form of safeguards to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.  This doesn’t seem hopeful since the PAD has been called a tyranny of the minority.  Low marks there, I’m afraid.

One of these safeguards would be a respect for human rights.  Now the PAD bang on relentlessly about the right to freedom of assembly (regardless of where or how much anyone else in inconvenienced).  But how about NBT’s right to freedom of speech?  And they’ve got the unrepentant architect of the Krue Se massacre waiting in the wings.  No, this doesn’t seem to figure.

The rule of law is normally somewhere in the mix.  Everyone is equal before the law.  Unless you’re a PAD leader facing a warrant, which you can blithely ignore.  I mean, mob rule, which is what they’re pushing, is quite the opposite of the rule of law. 

And how about just being civilized towards each other?  Agreeing to disagree and all that, without slagging off on each other.  I am told that inside the Government House encampment, folk do really well by each other.  It’s what happens when you cross them that’s worrying.  Fulminations and denunciations, often in a language that would make your mother blush.  Disagreeing with someone who doesn’t stand for the Royal Anthem is fine; railing at them when they can’t easily exercise the right of reply is not so nice; printing their home address and phone number on your pet rag is just criminal. 

So we’re talking about a democracy where voting may not be that important, where safeguards for minorities may not exist, where contempt for the rule of law is OK, where some human rights are respected for some, and where if you are considered to be on the wrong side of the ideological divide, you can expect to be vilified, demonized and threatened.

That is certainly a unique kind of democracy.  So unique that I think the PAD deserves a name change to stop all this confusion about what ‘democracy’ means to them.  How about the People’s Alliance for a Special Thai Example of Democracy?  PASTED.  I think that’s much clearer.