............

 

Back to the subject. I think dictatorship is viable alternative to democracy. Centuries ago, Whites tried to force Christianity on other people, fortunately these times are over. Now they try, and usually fail, to bring democracy to others.

Really, which dictatorships do consider a better viable alternative to a democracy? Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Jong, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi? Living a gay lifestyle would be more enjoyable under under what dictator? We are not talking about the the European age of imperialism and colonization, democracy is not a religion.

Still, I think Christian has got a point. Thais should find their own way of introducing a form of democracy that suits them, if that's what they want to have. Western interference, in general, only makes things worse (if it has any measurable effect at all, that is). The Western model of democracy arguably doesn't even work well in most Western countries. Simply transplanting it to a country like Thailand and expecting it to work just fine is at the very least a tad naive. There aren't that many long-term success stories with such an attempt worldwide, but many examples where it went wrong horribly.

 

It's pretty ridiculous to put Thai military rule on a level with dictatorships of the likes of Hitler, Stalin or the North Korean Kim family. The vast majority of Thai people - gay or otherwise - can and do just continue to live their lives they had lived before the military takeover.

Really, which dictatorships do consider a better viable alternative to a democracy? Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Kim Jong, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi? Living a gay lifestyle would be more enjoyable under under what dictator? We are not talking about the the European age of imperialism and colonization, democracy is not a religion.

Although I agree that most dictatorships are undesirable it would seem that Iraq and Libya were better off with Hussein and Qaddafi.

Bringing democracy to Arab countries utterly failed: Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and I would very much prefer the previous state (stability under a dictatorship, compared to chaos under local warlords).

if this new government is trying to make thailand all good & no corruption & be law abiding, then as prostitution is illegal in this country, all gogo bars should close over night right? hahahahah TIT double standards already didnt last long!

I only hope none here preferred stability in Cambodia  under dictatorship of Pol Pot.

 

Points about need for Thais to  find their way and transplanting Western ways to other countries are valid but dictatorship whether paternalistic or brutal is just that, dictatorship.

 

Shuee , don't you know that go-go bars are for visual pleasure and drinking companion only, what prostitution you are talking about? -

I think nobody in their right mind would defend Pol Pot's rule. Hun Sen, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. In his case, you could indeed argue that him bringing stability to Cambodia is an important aspect to his autocratic rule that cannot be ignored.

 

Having a truly democratic central government in Cambodia could very well mean that local fiefdoms would thrive, once again, which means that there would be no rule of law either, because the central government would be too weak to enforce the law throughout the country. If that useless French guy ever got elected, I'd actually start praying for a military coup in Cambodia.