How many of the world’s governments are truly “democratic”? How many are genuinely representative of their peoples?

A simple-minded, inadequate test is whether their governments were elected by majority vote, In fact, elections alone are no guarantee of representative democracy. Remember the elected governments of Yukanovych in Ukraine and Morsi in Egypt? Remember how they ruled and then were toppled in popular uprisings against corruption and one-party rule?

Elections in Thailand produced a government under previous regimes that were un-representative of large segments of Thai society. It governed divisively in the interest of only one segment. It used corruption to buy votes and perpetuate itself in power. As Scott Thompson, professor emeritus of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, wrote in the Los Angeles Times recently:

It was Thailand's bad luck, like Germany's in the 1930s and Italy's in the 1920s, to get a demagogue promising heaven and then some. Thaksin had made billions in the cellphone industry and had begun buying off journalists and northern politicians. He overwhelmingly won the 2001 election and then quickly showed his true colors. He put the lid on the parts of the media he didn't already control, reportedly had 3,000 small-time drug dealers killed in his war on drugs and generally showed that he was there to stay.

Recent past regimes brought upon themselves massive demonstrations in the streets of Bangkok – of the sort that occurred in Maidan Square in Kiev and Tahrir Square in Cairo.

As in the Ukraine and Egypt, Thailand tottered on the brink of civil chaos. In May of this year the military stepped in. Soon, the army commander, General Prayuth, became prime minister and announced a national program of reconciliation. Today, the streets of Bangkok are calm. Critics of the new government claim this is only so because of “repression.” In fact, it seems clear that most Thais breathed in relief that they had escaped the scourge of civil war.

Critics, such as Joshua Kurlantzik note:

Thai junta leader–turned prime minister Prayuth Chan-ocha recently let slip that the current Thai regime might not hold elections until 2016 or later….

Still, most Thais are satisfied with the new government’s attempt at reconciliation. According to the result of a poll conducted in September with 1,534 people throughout the country, 43.16% said they were satisfied with it and 38.14% very satisfied, while 12.32% said they were a little satisfied and 6.38% not satisfied at all.

Most Thais want to give the new government a chance to implement a national campaign against corruption as well as the effort toward national reconciliation. They see these as crucial precursors to desperately needed constitutional reform.

Thais have had enough of majoritarian one-party rule. They believe in the new government’s commitment to restore elections in a new constitutional framework.

Right now, some Americans are very critical of the new government in Bangkok. They condemn its leader for stepping in to run the country in place of the former elected government. 

What do Americans know that the Thai people don’t?  Criticism and condemnation should be based on understanding.

The Thai people understand what outsiders fail to understand. Thailand does not want a one-party political system, run in the interests only of its partisans. Thailand needs a new constitution and new, truly representative institutions.  It is this understanding that gives the new government popular support.

Americans, more than any other people, should understand that majoritarian rule is a potential threat to representative government. America has a Constitution that prevents majority tyranny. The Thais deserve such a constitution, too.

Many of Thailand’s American critics understand neither the aspirations of the Thai people nor the Constitution of the United States. 

Scott Chowtham, a Thai American, is President of Endless Web Designs in La Mirada, California.