Can Deliberative Democracy Be an Alternative for the Twenty-First Century? A Case Study of Thailand

Abstract

If the 1990s marked the ‘deliberative turn’ in democratic theory (Dryzek 2000), it would appear, then, that the first decade of the twenty-first century has witnessed a turn toward deliberative practices in the real world. Introducing elements of deliberative democracy is widely considered to be one of the best ways to reinvigorate representative democratic institutions that have long suffered from a crisis of legitimacy, even in the advanced democracies. Consequently, various innovations of deliberative democracy have been introduced and applied worldwide, including in some developing democracies and authoritarian regimes. One developing country that has long practiced deliberative innovations extensively is Thailand. Its experiences with deliberative democracy, however, have not been as smooth or rosy as in other developing countries that have showcased deliberative democracy via mechanisms such as participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre and numerous other cities in Brazil, or panchayat reforms in West Bengal and Kerala, India. Since its first experiment with deliberative techniques in 2000, Thailand has experienced two military coups and protracted political and social conflicts. What went wrong with deliberative democracy in Thailand? Why has deliberative democracy in Thailand neither contributed to revitalizing representative democracy nor prevented the reversal of democracy? This chapter addresses these questions with an underlying objective of drawing out some critical reflections from the case of Thailand for the study of deliberative democracy.