'discuss' seems like an exam's essay question to me.
anyway, i'll go answer that, because i'm interested in this issue since its
beginning.
in lawful terms, coup is against democracy. but, in this case, thai's coup was
well received by its people despite a minor of pro-democracy & pro-thaksin
protest.
it really looks different from what we know in general. as mentioned before,
i'll say it's a democratic action due to acceptance by thai people.
given an example as a clearer picture, you're sitting in a train during a
trainride. suddenly, the train escalates out of the track. will you just keep
sitting there, or you'll jump out of the train?
(the train as political situation, you as thai people, escalation as political
turbulents. keep sitting there is akin to follow the law terms, jumping out as
the solution to the problem)
with the intention to restore peace, i believe it's a good move, though it must
not be followed elsewhere in other countries, as myanmar junta's government may
take this as 'good example' why military govenment should 'exist'. you see, some
democratic countries are actually not fully democratic especially north korea
with its so-called 'democratic people's republic of korea' official name. so,
coup must be done in right order, with people's will on top.
thaksin has been long so arrogant, yet it's so hard to get rid of him
'democratically'. even the thai king is fed up of his attitude.
whatabout the taiwan's president case,that chen sui-bian case? whatabout
philiphine's arroyo? i wonder how will their democracy be...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5361512.stm
The PM of Thailand and the the Cabinet was overthrown today by a coup staged by the military.
Discuss.
"Discuss" is not a magic word that will conjure a meaningful discussion out of thin air.
Put some more effort in creating a thread next time. Hint - actually give your own input on the issue.
'discuss' seems like an exam's essay question to me.
anyway, i'll go answer that, because i'm interested in this issue since its beginning.
in lawful terms, coup is against democracy. but, in this case, thai's coup was well received by its people despite a minor of pro-democracy & pro-thaksin protest.
it really looks different from what we know in general. as mentioned before, i'll say it's a democratic action due to acceptance by thai people.
given an example as a clearer picture, you're sitting in a train during a trainride. suddenly, the train escalates out of the track. will you just keep sitting there, or you'll jump out of the train?
(the train as political situation, you as thai people, escalation as political turbulents. keep sitting there is akin to follow the law terms, jumping out as the solution to the problem)
with the intention to restore peace, i believe it's a good move, though it must not be followed elsewhere in other countries, as myanmar junta's government may take this as 'good example' why military govenment should 'exist'. you see, some democratic countries are actually not fully democratic especially north korea with its so-called 'democratic people's republic of korea' official name. so, coup must be done in right order, with people's will on top.
thaksin has been long so arrogant, yet it's so hard to get rid of him 'democratically'. even the thai king is fed up of his attitude.
whatabout the taiwan's president case,that chen sui-bian case? whatabout philiphine's arroyo? i wonder how will their democracy be...