Is there a third way, besides coups and money politics?

Reading the analyses of columnists in international publications and watching analysts give their opinions on television on the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, a recurring theme emerges.

Anti-government activists of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship celebrate the release on bail of their leaders on Wednesday.

The people in those countries _ Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and several others _ have risen on their own to demand an alternative political system, a truly democratic regime that responds to their needs and guarantees their rights and freedoms.
Their choice used to be limited: an autocratic strongman on one side or an Islamic fundamentalist regime on the other. Both are the two extremes, equally repressive, preaching ideologies, corrupting not only the wealth of the nation but the very soul of the people.In some countries, it is a combination of both, creating a repressive autocratic, religious regime.
But the rising tide of the young generation, mostly under 30, will not take it any more. Detached from memories of old ideologies and political conflicts, they demand to be liberated and the regime reconstructed _ for a third way, free and democratic, to emerge.
The strategy is to conduct peaceful protests based on the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience. The tools of communication are social networks _ Facebook and Twitter, SMS and mobile phones. When those channels are blocked, home-made pamphlets and word of mouth has dominated, bringing more people out onto the streets and gathering them in major city squares.
However, although change seems to be advancing in many countries, the end result remains uncertain. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, many East European countries broke away from the Iron Curtain only to fall under the iron fist of equally oppressive dictators. But the young protesters in the Middle East and North Africa are resilient and their will strong. The fight will continue.
Looking homeward, Thailand is also caught between a rock and a hard place. The choice of regime may not be as extreme, but they equally corrupt the rights, liberties and opportunities of the people. The vicious interchange between regimes of corrupt politicians and corrupt military dictators has dominated Thai politics. Democracy in Thailand is the power of the few, not of the people. Vested interests dominated by large corporations and the Bangkok establishment have divided up the cake, leaving crumbs to the masses through handouts allocated from the national budget, collected from the taxpayers _ a rebate of leftovers.
The taking turns of military men and politicians are simply changes in the facade. Many times it is one of collusion between the two: the politicians play the game up front as the military makes its manoeuvres from behind the scenes. The regime is shored up by a large bureaucracy that permeates all aspects of a citizen's life. The structure of corruption in Thailand is also imbedded in this bureaucracy.
Government officials do not "serve" but "dictate" to the people and often act to "broker" deals with commission fees as reward.
The military or political bosses are happy to help direct and set up deals to receive their share. Public goods become private possessions, which change hands when power shifts to whoever is in government. With state interference in market mechanisms, essentially to "make a buck" than to protect the public interest, we thus have the ongoing problems of the scarcity of cooking palm oil, the scandals which have caused lost opportunities in the delayed 3G scheme, and the military's procurement of mal-functioning or even non-functioning equipment.
In the past, when corruption reached a tipping point, the public became restless and dissatisfied, if the government at the time came from an election, then a coup d'etat became the tool to release the pressure valve. If the government in power was a military one, the power struggle became nastier, with bloodshed on the streets or a coup and counter-coup. In either case, a new constitution would be drafted and elections called, another pressure valve discharged.
The present government falls into the category of politicians colluding with the military. And after two years in power, it has reached the tipping point.
Corruption has been rampant and the government ineffective. That is why there are rumours either of a coming coup d'etat and, equally persuasive, the hint of an election to be called shortly.
Political pundits I've spoken to agree there is a 50-50 chance that things could go either way.It is like choosing between the devil and the deep blue sea. A "well intentioned" coup will attempt to rewrite the rules to break the political impasse, but will have to face the question of legitimacy, at home and abroad. At worst, it will fall into the same trap since the regime will need to serve the same vested interest groups and the establishment, becoming as corrupt and ending in another political deadlock.
A general election offers the better route to power in terms of legitimacy and acceptance. But an election will return the same money-grubbing politicians eyeing for a piece of the pie. They will also have to serve the vested interests that bankrolled them into power. And so the vicious cycle continues.
How, then, to break this cycle and find a third way out? Although remotely possible, I still think political parties can be a vehicle for change.
Their leaders must rethink their priorities and purposes, a tough task no doubt, but examples of what happens when people lose faith in the system abound throughout the world. The vested interests and Bangkok establishment should also re-evaluate their attitude.
A coup d'etat should absolutely be ruled out and no matter how flawed, an election must be called. It is disappointing that this government, which has preached political reform from its early days, has failed to go the full extent in pushing the reforms through, except for the feeble constitutional amendment on electoral districts, which is self-serving.
My only hope is that the ruling Democrat Party will propose in its platform a vision of political reform and the changes that need to be made.
That also goes for the opposition Puea Thai Party and the red-shirted United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship, whose leaders have been released on bail. They should work together in proposing their own vision of political reform; as they have been protesting against injustice and double standards, now is the time to advance concrete propositions for change, for the people to consider.
But if the same political attitude dominates, both parties will be bluffing one another on selling their brand of populist programmes and projects. That would seal the fate of political parties in the eyes of people who want real progress.
Then a third way will rise from somewhere else. Listen to the Thai cyber world and you will hear the rumblings growing louder by the day.