Social democracy offers a third force

In this 2015 file photo, authorities round up activists protesting the 2014 coup. Thailand's politics is dominated by two parties which don't satisfy everyone. (Photo by Patipat Janthong)

With the regime's political reconciliation game plan faltering, Thailand faces the prospect of a seemingly unending cycle of crisis, coup and constitution. Neither military rule nor the next constitution, which both embed non-accountability, offer hope for long-term socio-political stability.

Disunity will hit Thailand hard: PricewaterHouseCoopers sees the country's GDP being overtaken by those of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia by 2050.

The Project for a Social Democracy (PSD) which groups academics, labour unionists and human rights activists, recently, released a statement of purpose that offers a legitimate way forward.

The key problems with Thai politics are a lack of political philosophies underlying policy platforms, leading to populism; a lack of internal democracy in party elections, exemplified by the feudal nature of political parties; and an inability for major parties to cooperate in unity to reach a consensus on measures that benefit the state.

The emergence of a Thai social democrat party (SDP), where these principles are embedded through transparency, where civil society is invited to observe the development of the party's policies and its elections, would revitalise Thai politics.

Social democracy is both a socio-economic philosophy and the name for approximately 70 political parties in over 60 countries, especially in Europe. Social democracy is supported by a number of think-tanks, such as the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which in Thailand works with unionists from both sides of the colour spectrum. Social democracy emphasises internal political democracy, ie, that its political leaders should come from competitive elections, as well as consensual democracy in national politics, if necessary via political coalitions.

It also stresses human solidarity. Thus social democracy promotes internationalism and international human rights, including cultural and social rights, as frameworks for prosperity. Internationally, Thailand would contribute more to UN missions, providing a role for Thailand's military and demonstrating leadership ability. This would assist Thailand in its ongoing application for a UN Security Council Seat.

A Thai SDP would insist on greater role for Thailand's National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The new NHRC would be founded on human rights experience and expanded in size and capacity to reflect all the country's key stakeholders, from workers to employers, as well as civil society, so that it can both offer advice and monitor implementation of human rights.

Social democracy's main difference from socialism is that it relies on the market system. That is, the state works with capitalism, not for its abolition and replacement by a fully planned economy. Social democracy assigns a major role to the main taxpayers as well as what should be the main social actors, a broad middle class, and emphasises a social contract which produce quality goods and services.

Thus, with a Thai SDP as a third force, the wealthy pay higher inheritance, land and property, and personal income taxes. In exchange, the lower middle class has access to enhanced social services, whether education or the health system, and is proud of using them. Finally, the upper middle class and wealthy benefit from socio-political stability and a growing economy.

The Thai middle class is relatively small and underdeveloped. An SDP would emphasise minimum wages and workers' rights as part of a new deal with the workforce in order to lift it out of poverty, still at nearly 9% nationally, and to transform the upper lower class into the lower middle class. The aim would be to increase aggregate domestic demand, especially for higher quality goods and services, such as slavery-free canned fish products, quality engineered products, and environmentally friendly agriculture by ensuring people have enough money to pay for them.

An SDP would also emphasise incremental unionisation, particularly in difficult, dirty, and dangerous conditions, such as the Thai fishing industry. It would therefore work closely with the International Labor Organisation to increase standards and aim to re-brand its products to the international market as quality, labour and environmentally friendly products.

An SDP would emphasise human solidarity and emphasise working with others to negotiate global trade agreements in order to ensure minimum social and environmental industrial standards internationally. The basic logic is to ensure healthier, happier, better paid workers, who are then more productive, for example because turnover is lower and motivation is higher.

A Thai social democrat party would not necessarily endorse an overly planned economy or state-owned enterprises in themselves. For example, the NCPO's 20-year plan does not make sense in a market economy as it locks Thailand into a future where planning is too inflexible to meet emerging market conditions. And, there are strong arguments for deregulating the energy market if Egat's management is not capable of rapidly decentralising the energy grid, for social democracy has strong links to environmentalism and promotes renewables.

Social democrat parties may not be radical enough to appeal to some voters, but they enhance negotiated, consensus-driven politics and can break deadlocks, for example through proposing Royal Commissions, such as on energy or police reform. The agenda is to set up a foundation for a social democracy, link into international social democrat political networks and improve the education system, labour standards and health, by supporting a SDP than can achieve 10% of the vote. It should be lauded.

As Atipong Pathanasethpong, the PSD Working Group's spokesperson puts it, "Thailand's politics is in need of help, as are the political systems of many countries presently plagued by populism and unaccountable government. Instead of accepting a descent into barbarism, Thailand, by reaching out to global social democrats, will get the better future it deserves."

In Thailand, one party leans towards South-American-style populism, and another is so conservative that it experiences difficulty appealing to the middle ground. The politically viable remainder have no clear policies.

A Thai SDP as honest broker is the only patriotic option for evolving politics to a more mature stage.