dwarf on giant shoulders
Chaiyan Chaiporn
1788, one year before the French Revolution. France took a stand once morest the American colonists in The War of Independence that occurred since 1776 by supporting the American revolution once morest British rule, resulting in King Gustav of Sweden who was regarded as “King of righteousness” (Enlightened Despots) One of Europe He was deeply disappointed by the French stance.
He recorded in his heart that “I cannot admit that It was right to support those who rebelled once morest the legitimate king. The rebellion in America would become a role model for people everywhere. will imitate This will create an era when the overthrow of the fortress of righteous power has become a common trend.”
Of course, in the status of being a monarch Gustav would have to side with the British government. which at that time England’s regime has been transformed into a constitutional monarchy for 88 years (the American colonial struggle for independence in 1776). England enters a constitutional monarchy. clearly in the year 1688), he saw that The colonists in America were rebellious. And as said in the previous section, His opinion above would be correct if considered under the principles of government and justice in the monarchy, the absolute power and the constitutional monarchy.
but if considered under the principles of governance and justice of another regime, that is, the republic Such an opinion would immediately become inaccurate. This is where the concept known as “Transitional justice” that will enable us to understand and create a framework of justice that is suitable for all parties during this time of regime transition.
this transition It might not necessarily be a revolutionary drastic change. But it may also include changes in the coup d’etat. For example, for example in the last time that In the case of the 19 September 2006 coup, it was a good example for the birth of “Transitional justice” because without the 19 September 2006 coup, it may not be possible to prosecute Lt. Col. Thaksin Shinawatra Yes, but if the coup does not achieve a complete victory The question that can arise immediately is Was the verdict on Mr Thaksin’s case “fair”?
Like the events following the change of government in 1932, the decision to seize all assets of King Prajadhipok It cannot happen and cannot be justified. If the change of governance does not achieve the goal, complete victory. And of course, the question that may arise is the same. Is it fair to seize the King’s property? Today, there are still people who are dissatisfied with the confiscation verdict, saying: “He dares to seize assets… King of the land.” and further extended his opinion that “ ….no matter which group comes to have great power in Thailand They must try to eliminate, deprive, deprive them of their former powers. No matter if the old group is a proletarian, a commoner, a soldier, or a civilian, no one escapes, is wiped out, wiped out, uprooted, insulted, humiliated, and insulted human dignity. If they can “get a face”, they will do it. It is a vicious circle that spins in the middle of society. Thailand for hundreds of years Until now…” (See http://www.vattavan.com/detail.php?cont_id=203)
Saying this would indicate that The person who wrote the text also adheres to the values of fairness and justice of a regime. and unable to accept the value of another regime but if you consider it well Part of the speech reflects the truth of the “Justice in the Transition” At the same time, on the other hand The behavior of Lord Gustav, or the majority in the Thai parliament in the past, reflects “Unchangeable Justice” That is, in any era The behavior of surrendering to power does not listen to anyone’s voice. whether it is the attainment of power by one person or by a group of people or by the public is wrong and this is “The principle of unchanging and unchanging justice” Even in a regime that gives absolute power to one person like an absolute monarchy But if the exercise of absolute power that one has arbitrarily would inevitably bring regarding the resistance of the people
But of course, the people of the people during the era who did not know any regime other than the absolute monarchy system. would only think that I want to replace the king and hope that the new one will be better than the old one. But if the people started to know other regimes Dissatisfaction with the ruling monarch may also lead to the call for another regime to replace it. not allowing one person to do anything freely once more. Regardless of the regime, power is in the hands of the people or the public. If there is a problem of dissatisfaction arises The people may rise up once morest and replace the holders of power.
But according to the principles of modern democratic governance, especially in the parliamentary style, Political power is shared by a public, a group of people and a single person at different times, or sometimes at the same time, that is.
one People have political power through elections. nominate a draft law and signed withdraw and came out to protest or demand
two When the people voted A group of people will be empowered by the people. and use that power to enact laws and elect chief executives. This group of people are all the senators and senators in the National Assembly. The only person is the members of the House of Representatives who are elected by a majority of the people in the House of Representatives to be the head of the executive branch or the Prime Minister. and includes the heads of state who have powers or royal powers, both as prescribed by the Constitution and customs, and including social prestige
When the prime minister uses his powers to cause suspicion will begin to be scrutinized by groups of people, including senators and senators, but if the senators and senators are born into the same group as the Prime Minister, only one person and a group of people will be able to exercise their power capriciously One might only hope for a minority in the House of Commons, namely the opposition, but the opposition was always a minority. But the opposition, though in a minority but if the public has the discretion to agree with the minority in the council It can be a force to resist the collective use of power by the same person as a group of people. but if the public agrees with the rebellion of their power I still can’t figure out that Who can resist and bring them back to consciousness and reason? In addition to having to face the disaster by yourself first !
Having the Senate and trying to find a way to get a senator who is not a member of the House of Representatives or a member of the government indicates sanity and rationality. This consciousness and reasoning refers to the consciousness and reason of the people themselves who look to the future. If when he accidentally cheers his MPs to the point of forgetting himself, but at least he has determined the group of people or organizations that will be “brake” for himself, filtering his own reasoning one more time or more. other times to make sure The decision to choose that policy It’s the best thing for us and the public too. Or for us and it does not cause damage to the public.
Therefore, trying to get a senator who is different from a senator and government does not mean simply distrusting other people. but also includes distrust of yourself A person who is rational and unsure or confident You will always be conscious and rational. will find a way to create conditions in order to regulate their actions in the future (As in rational choice theory, “pre-commitment”). Find someone who is more knowledgeable, experienced, and has a better mindset and intelligence to help you examine your thoughts one more time. that we transfer our power to him so that he may have the power to examine us one more word !