opposition needs to offer more than just anti-Thaksin rhetoric

from the letters section of The Nation:

If I understand Abhisit Vejjajiva's position correctly, it can be summarised as follows: the Thaksin opposition, though in the minority, is better educated and more moral and politically aware than the majority who support Thaksin and, therefore, their wishes should hold sway.

There are many comments one could make about this argument, but one comment is beyond dispute: that position is anti-democratic.

Whatever his faults, Thaksin understands that the democratic process is about having policies that will win a mandate from the people and, if there is doubt about that mandate, to consult the people once more.

What can be said of Abhisit? He leads a party with no known policies, populist or otherwise. He has suddenly become an enthusiast for constitutional reform, without ever specifying what he would reform or how he would do it. His only message to voters seems to be: "Vote for me, I'm not Thaksin." It's hardly surprising that he is reluctant to face the electorate.

What he and the rest of the opposition seem unable to grasp is that getting rid of Thaksin will not solve Thailand's constitutional problems. Thaksin is not Thailand's first PM of dubious integrity, and it would be a miracle if he were the last. The opposition needs to develop a set of proposals for constitutional change, to explain them in such a way that people can grasp their importance and then challenge Thaksin to explain why they should not be enacted.

Until they can do this, Thaksin will remain the people's choice, and they have no cause for complaint.

1) Debates (unheard of in Thailand)

2) Party platforms (rational and clearly articulated policy goals, not irresponsible accusations and wild-ass promises)

If progress is made toward either of these two hallamrks of a mature democratic process, the coming election may actually be worthwhile, regardless of who wins.