![make multiple sheets pcad 2006 make multiple sheets pcad 2006](https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/424531/fendo-10-00197-HTML/image_m/fendo-10-00197-t003.jpg)
This historical contextualisation of Thailand's debates over representation is critical in understanding the nature of the past decade of intense political conflict, from 2005 to 2014. In this paper, the history and development of these competing claims will be examined. In other words, even if the methods and outcomes may be quite different from those seen in Britain of the 1970s, the contested claims about the nature of electoral politics and about appropriate forms of representation are familiar in early twenty-first-century Thailand. They would have recognised the sentiment expressed in the article, ‘Let the voters arbitrate’, by the ERS's ‘EL’ (1975: 37) after all, as the PCAD rallied to bring down the Yingluck government and prevented an election, her supporters repeatedly demanded that their votes and their right to vote be respected. They would also have noticed that at times the ERS questioned electoral mandates, for the PCAD consistently rejected the substantial election victory voters delivered for Yingluck in 2011 (Electoral Reform Society 1971: 3).Īt the same time, Yingluck's Pheu Thai Party government and its supporters in the ‘United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship’ (UDD) would certainly have agreed with a 1970 ERS article that lamented the ‘tendency to substitute various forms of demonstration for the ballot box … ’ (Electoral Reform Society 1970: 1). They would have noticed resonance with their own rhetoric when the ERS pointed to injustices associated with electoral minorities, and the PCAD would have been heartened to read that the British electoral system was sometimes described as ‘undemocratic’, a term the PCAD regularly used in criticising Yingluck's government (Electoral Reform Society 1970: 1).
![make multiple sheets pcad 2006 make multiple sheets pcad 2006](http://docplayer.net/docs-images/70/62361289/images/211-0.jpg)
PCAD activists rejected Thailand's electoral system and opposed voting because these were considered obstacles for political reform. The PCAD argued that what they wanted was thorough-going political reform, and so its leaders might have agreed with the ERS view that ‘the present electoral system has little to recommend it … ’. Indeed, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) might have been claimed as something of a model by Thailand's most recent protesters, the ‘People's Committee for Absolute Democracy with the King as Head of State’ (PCAD). If the leaders of Thailand's competing political groups had ever thought to peruse the pages of this journal, they would have found much that resonated with their struggles and debates of the past decade. Both groups have mobilised large numbers of supporters. Involving a range of actors, the most significant of the street protests have been, on the one hand, associated with the red-shirted supporters of Thaksin and, on the other hand, by their opponents, known as yellow shirts and more broadly identified-and self-identified-as royalists. As will be shown in this paper, at the core of these demonstrations has been competing ideas about democracy, elections and representation. In considering these two most recent military interventions, it is striking that both were associated with a decade of large and sometimes aggressive street protests.
![make multiple sheets pcad 2006 make multiple sheets pcad 2006](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0021925820354338-gr5.jpg)
The 11th putsch in September 2006 ousted Yingluck's brother, Thaksin Shinawatra.
![make multiple sheets pcad 2006 make multiple sheets pcad 2006](https://demo.fdocuments.in/img/378x509/reader018/reader/2020012305/5b18bc727f8b9a23258c01a3/r-2.jpg)
By most calculations, this was Thailand's 12th successful coup. On, Thailand's military staged yet another coup, unseating the government elected in 2011, led by Yingluck Shinawatra. Those who promote elections and popular sovereignty argue that these are a basis for democratisation. The military and monarchy have maintained a royalist alliance that opposes elections, popular sovereignty and civilian politicians, proposing Thai-style democracy as an alternative. Underlying the street protests, military interventions and considerable bloodshed has been a struggle over the nature of electoral politics, popular sovereignty and representation. Thailand's politics in the early twenty-first century has seen considerable contestation.