Over the past few years I have been critical of the strategies pursued by NGOs and activist academics who seek to defend the rights of rural people in Thailand. My view has been that these strategies too readily resort to simplified and romantic images of communal solidarity, subsistence orientations and other-worldly pursuits.
In the latter period of the Thaksin era it has become clear that many of these leftish-leaning commentators have been bewildered by the “rural betrayal.” Contrary to the images promoted in the various campaigns for political empowerment (such as the long-standing campaign for community forestry) many rural voters seem to have embraced Thaksin’s vision of market-oriented economic diversification. The result has been an increasing disconnect between academic and activist commentary and the rapidly changing livelihoods and aspirations of people in rural areas. The disconnect is powerfully expressed in the NGO/academic rejection of Thaksin in contrast to his broad electoral popularity in many rural areas. As I argued in a previous post, the constant disparaging of Thaksin’s electoral support has contributed significant ideological legitimacy to the military takeover.
So where to now? There will be a great deal of fallout from recent events in Thailand. But perhaps one thing that might come of it is some rethinking of academic and activist attitudes to the rural populace. The disconnect from the rural which arises from the anti-modern and anti-capitalist thinking of many of Thailand’s leftish leaning commentators leaves them poorly placed to defend the rights of Thailand’s majority to participate in democratic national politics. Thaksin has badly wrongfooted them, displaying a more acute understanding of rural aspirations than many of these “grass roots” commentators. And the wrong foot is not a good place to be when confronting a coup.
Now is the time for some serious re-engagment.
3 responses so far ↓
1 New Mandala » The coup and self-sufficiency // Sep 24, 2006 at 10:08 am
[...] Trying to specify ministerial familiarity with the King’s ideas on economic development is a different matter altogether. To my eye, it is much more problematic. Here at New Mandala we have often written about “self-sufficiency”. In the context of Andrew’s earlier comments on future strategies for left(ish) activist-academics in the post-coup environment, Sophon’s proclamation (however fanciful it may actually be) is a sign that “self-sufficiency” could become a new battleground. [...]
2 Mattias // Sep 24, 2006 at 6:59 pm
I like your analysis of the NGO/rural disjuncture, Andrew, especially in terms of the simplified and romantic images of communal solidarity that activists and NGOs resort to in their attempts to defend the rights of the rural “folk”. I would go further and say that they in fact buy into state centric views of much of the rural population, discursively producing a particular subject for their own purposes and agendas that does the work for the state in terms of muting much of the rural population’s voice. I am a little unclear as to what “otherworldly” pursuits you make reference to and should probably follow up your earlier post or work on this topic as it sounds interesting (are you talking cosmology here/).
Anyway, I would dispute with you that the power of Thaksin in the rural areas is based on appeal alone. This view certainly fits much media reporting and urban middle-class sentiment regarding his successive electroral victories but on the ground in the South (outside of the three border provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala) and the northeast (esp Udorn, KK and Ubon) the Thai Rak Thai power base is grounded in much more complex sets of relations than mere polular appeal. In particular there is a very real threat of violence that hangs over their competitor’s heads and other’s heads, then there is debt, and most importantly how well the party managed to ally itself with local political figures in its corporatisation of politics model (the move to abolish Tambol level politics being in part due to how difficult this level of government, over district and village levels was to control).
My point being that I agree that the rural betrayal you speak of is certainly due to a failure of the leftist activists to recognise what was happening, but I disagree that Thaksin had a more accute understanding of the rural populations aspirations (everyone knows them, the left does not respect them and the right, Thai Rak Thai exploited them). Rather, I think through a combination of exploitation of aspirations, intimidation and a Suharto-esque corporatisiation of local political power, they have managed to retain office, until the coup…the tensions that the expansion of the Thai Rak Thai power base has caused with the military and monarchy has of course been an ongoing presence through the whole process…and most visible in the violence in the south and the War on Drugs extrajudicial killings spree, and more recently the coup
M.
3 New Mandala » The Thai left - missing in action. // Nov 18, 2006 at 8:31 pm
[...] You would think that Thailand’s active and diverse NGO movement may provide some basis for such a leftish political force. But all too often they seem distracted by elitist nostalgia and versions of sufficiency rhetoric (often combined with a simplistic environmentalism that automatically associates modernisation with degradation). As I wrote four days after the coup The disconnect from the rural which arises from the anti-modern and anti-capitalist thinking of many of Thailand’s leftish leaning commentators leaves them poorly placed to defend the rights of Thailand’s majority to participate in democratic national politics. Thaksin has badly wrongfooted them, displaying a more acute understanding of rural aspirations than many of these “grass roots” commentators. And the wrong foot is not a good place to be when confronting a coup. [...]
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.