As I have written earlier, much of the ideological justification for Thailand’s coup rests on the view that Thaksin’s electoral mandate was illegitimate given that it was “bought” from a politically naive and unsophisticated rural electorate. The so-called pro-democracy movement of Sondhi Limthongkul makes much of the need to educate the rural masses before they can play a legitimate part in the electoral system. The elitist and undemocratic stereotype of rural ignorance is one that I am committed to challenge.
In the days following the coup I asked a colleague to collect some quick comments about the political situation from residents in a village in northern Thailand where we have both been doing research. Here are some extracts. (These are my translations of paraphrased notes prepared by my colleague.) There are diverse political opinions, some passionate and some more apathetic. There is a strong critical edge, often spiced with an acute sense of humour. Not so different to the situation here in Australia! I hope these brief extracts can make some contribution to dispelling the common image of rural people as politically naive and unsophisticated.
Grandmother A: When there was the flooding no one came and helped us. Next time we will choose someone who will come and help us. I like Chuan Leekpai. Speaking of politics, the people in this house like Chuan. We never vote for Thaksin and we are very happy about the coup. The people in Chiang Mai like Thaksin too much. Just like Mrs C. She likes Thaksin a lot. When people complain about Thaksin she gets very angry. She is angry if people gossip about Thaksin. I wonder if she will still argue with us now that the coup has happened.
Aunt D: Talking of Thaksin, I call him “sapsin” (property). I don’t like the way he has cheated so much money. My relatives in Bangkok [in-laws] don’t like him at all and never agree with his actions because he just throws money away. The money that Thaksin uses is the country’s money. It is not money from his own pocket. But we should be careful or we will get into trouble talking about politics. If there are five people it is no good!
Uncle E: We should give Thaksin a chance to improve in relation to administration. Especially in relation to agriculture, because he had accepted that in the past he had taken little interest in agriculture. Thaksin is like someone with a lot of children. Taking care of everything properly for everyone is not possible. I would like to see some of the people who criticise him take his position and see if they really do what they say they would. There are people who just want to obstruct.
Mr F: There must have been some discussion between the army and Thaksin or his people. That’s why it was a peaceful coup. Otherwise there would have been violence. The people in the centre don’t like, or even hate, Thaksin. They are worried about the economy and the how the various projects of the Thaksin government will turn out.
Uncle G: I didn’t want it [the coup] to happen. But I had just about given up hope of help from the government [he had been active in lobbying, unsuccessfully, for support for longan cultivators in the village]. So, I am not really so interested. But I am following the news about the country and who will be coming into the administration.
Mr H: Here there isn’t really any impact [from the coup]. Everything is normal so we villagers don’t really have a lot to talk about. The coup is good because there has been confusion for a long time – protesting against each other so that you don’t know who is on which side. Some people were paid to protest. There is no benefit [from all the protests.] If there is an end to the chaos and confusion the government will be able to work better.
Mrs I: The coup is a good thing. It will make the country peaceful. There is not much impact for us. We are just selling things normally [she is a small shopkeeper]. In fact, we are not selling so well because it is raining. My son who works in Bangkok as a driver called me before the coup and said “Mum, today there will be a coup. The palace is preparing cars, everyone filling up with petrol. So if there is an emergency they will be able to leave the palace at any time.”
Uncle J: we are farmers, we plant rice. Our job is paddy farming. We use fertiliser and weed the fields according to our own plans. People do what they want according to their own job. I am not interested [in politics]. When I have finished work I drink whiskey.
Mr K: Thaksin has a lot of money so doesn’t have to be afraid of anything. He can pay the people who are responsible for the law so everything will be OK for him. If he runs for politics again I am not sure if people will support him. Perhaps they will because there are many benefits from Thaksin that the villagers like. But perhaps the new government will not allow him to run again. I think the coup is a good thing. It has made things quiet again. Thaksin has nothing to worry about. He can go off on a holiday overseas. No big problems for him. And the coup looked quite pleasant – smiling tanks. There wasn’t conflict between Thai people. In fact it became a fun thing and lots of different people came out and supported it.
Aunt L: I like Thai Rak Thai. They solved the problem of drugs very well. Without Thaksin the problem would have increased a lot. Let’s see what this government will do. I don’t think they can manage the problem. They say Sondhi wants to be Prime Minister.
Mrs M: I voted for Thai Rak Thai because I like Thaksin a lot. He has made the economy better and we can sell things well. And money has come into the village to help us.
Uncle N: I used to vote for Thai Rak Thai but I didn’t like their candidate last time. So I didn’t vote for him. I voted for Chaat Thai and the Democrats because both of these parties take a middle line. I would like a Prime Minister who is interested in local development more than economic development.
24 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Oct 26, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Interesting – I particularly like the comment about confusion from all the protesting….and some people were paid to protest.
Who was paying?
2 patiwat // Oct 27, 2006 at 8:15 am
Some background demographics might be insightful.
Was it a talaad (market)? Was it in or near the ampher muang (provincial seat)? How does the village classify under the SML program? Did the village warrant a primary school? Lower secondary school? Upper secondary school? Was the poverty headcount rate below the 15% average for the Northern Region? Was it one of those villages where most of the young have left to find jobs in Bangkok? Does the village rely on terrestrial TV, or does it get satellite channels like ASTV?
3 Andrew Walker // Oct 27, 2006 at 9:05 am
Patiwat: here is a bit of backgrount. This is an ethnically northern Thai village located about one hours drive from a major provincial centre in a relatively remote inter-montane valley. It is located about 3 kilometres from the small district centre where there is a small market, hospital, highschool etc. The village has a population of about 400 people (100 households). There is no primary school in the village but there is one in a neighbouring village. I am not sure of the poverty headcount, though I must say that the figures I have seen seem very unreliable. But I can say that there is a substantial landless “underclass” who rely almost completely on local wage labour. There is a strong agricultural sector in the village (rice in the wet season and various cash crops in the dry season). But I suspect (surveys have not been analysed in detail) that more than 50% of income is earnt off-farm. There are relatively few young people in the village – most are off studying or working in urban centres. In fact, there has been a pattern of out-migration for some time (a few decades at least) partly as a result of the limited agricultural land. Most villagers watch standard TV, though a few now have satellite dishes.
4 patiwat // Oct 27, 2006 at 10:48 am
Andrew, thanks for the data. I’m tempted to link the villagers political views to their economic-demographic backgrounds, but feel that more comparison data would be neccesary to make any firm statements.
Do your surveys also cover indicators of political knowledge and opinions?
5 Andrew Walker // Oct 27, 2006 at 10:55 am
Over the next few months I will be writing a paper on “political values” based on research undertaken largely in this village. When I have a relatively complete draft I will post it to New Mandala.
6 Nirut // Oct 27, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Mr Andrew, if I may I would very much like to hear more about what it is you are looking at in terms of “political values”. From what I can see here (in terms of the discussion regarding “political culture” and “vote buying”) in the “cause” you are championing of dispelling the myths and stereotypes that characterise discussion of Thai political culture, you risk performing the same disservice to the rural population as the middle-class you have systematically disregarded in each successive post on the subject. Can you on the one hand treat middle-class versions as illegitimate while then stepping up and, as I am assuming you propose to do.. speak OF and FOR the rural population in their stead? And if so by what merit is your project any different to those you decry? if you are interested in “political values” wouldn’t you need to try and reconcile the differences while treating each with equal legitimacy (be objective) and inquire equally into both as to what is “making them tick?”. Of course I think so and believe such a project would have great merit…however, the approach you take of taking things at face value and “seeing if they are so?” as they are said, combined with surveys and interviews as your primary data source I doubt you will do justice to the project you propose and simply reproduce the already rich source of paternalism that Foreign and Thai scholars alike have been passing off as scholarship for decades…of course you will find contradiction (as others before you have) and you can then talk about discourse (as others are want to do in smilar situations) and then when all is said and done the conclusions will pretty much be that there is more complexity to this “political values” than previously thought but what it actually is will remain elusive as ever…
7 Andrew Walker // Oct 27, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Nirut, thanks for this penetrating critique of my not-yet-written article.
8 Nirut // Oct 28, 2006 at 1:17 am
Mr Andrew, mai pen rai, I hope it is helpful, at least as it was meant , that is a penetrating critique of your methodology for the unwritten article, deduced (assumed) from the tone of the posts here and discussion leading up to now. But surely I was not that correct in my deductions (assumptions) that I “hit the nail on the head?”
Villagers and vote buying, muang and middle-class paternalism are, after all, imagined parts (or selectively emphasised aspects) of a whole political milieu, whose assumed differing needs and voting patterns might not be so different if we look at the demographics a little more closely…the middle-class at some stage did support Thaksin as well and so share with their rural compatriots a particular view of politics…what changed?..unlikely it was the extrajudicial killings as they were primarily rural with the exception of khlong Toey (BKK), didn’ t Thaksin’s monopoly on power start to redefine the limits of socal mobility of the middle-class and wasnt he putting a downward pressure on this group in the later part of his “reign”? I remember how he won the middle-class vote on his paltform of the social evils and his no nonsense remedy to them (extra judicial killings) but at the same time he started to eat away at middle-class legitimacy and access to the economy…His pro-republican alliance in TRT of course was problematic to the present coup co-conspirators and their interest,. but, most interestingly he was particulalry ideological regarding normative and sanook practices in the urban middle-classes stomping ground of BKK…hmmm…? Do not discount increased police power that he effected there …
I think that to accept the middle-class ideology and paternalism in the statements regarding the rural poor as representative of their (middle-class) “political values” you would valorise the rural position and if you take the rural at face value on what they say (as opposed to observing long term their practices–both sides would be ideal, of course but you have already set the site as a village in the north), then you are letting the stereotypes you propose to question set the parameters of your investigation…little room for “other” material to shape the process, wouldn’t you agree?
If you were to think about the broader political context and look at other areas of the whole, such as vote buying, not in terms of the face value approach “can anyone provide evidence of it working” but to look at how it works, allow for the possibility that the stated rationale by which you have come to know it may not in fact be an accurate account of what it is in practice or ever have been , nor that it is only important in those terms. For example vote buying may not occur as a reciprocal exchange/transaction between a candidate and his constituents but does that mean it is meaningless? Does the absence of corruption reduce its significance…(corruption of course being similarly problematic to engage with and not a good parameter for research I am sure you would agree)..?
Knowing as I do how particularly money-oriented local and national politics is and how people kill to get access to or control over the modest amount of 3 million baht per annum of OBT budgets to reclaim their “vote buying expenditure” as well as the left over “profits” and in general to have local power, i think it would be rather strange that the candidates would “buy votes” if it were ineffective (esp on a provincial or national level)…so do we have a left over practice that has lost its meaning through increased transparency of governance (become redundant in the face of enlightened western liberal democratic procedures?) there is no such thing as a redundant practice..so what is it candidates are doing…? Remembering you only have electoral official’s word that ballot boxes are not opened at village level etc…in a country where we have serial cheating in lotto, ranging from freezing the balls in the barrel to filling others to make them heavier etc..also the test fiasco with Chula etc etc etc it would be naive to accept this at face value also…all that would come of it is shock and outrage when the whistle is blown (yet again)…
Anyway back to the topic, if vote buying is to be the focus then I can say that in some cases it is effective…firstly hua kanan are not only village heads or so on but rather, include voting age adolescents, members of groups such as glum mae bahn, glum lieng vua, debtors, family group heads, temple Abbotts, all range of people, and where the handing out of money is concerned much of it is done after negotiations are made and promises set and these are not simply a case of vote for me and here is your 20 or 50 or 100 baht. In my experience in recent times the cash hand out is a sign of goodwill and display of financial capacity to rule as well as an upfont payment on the tacit agreement that is still actually tentative but perhaps (I think) an electoral campaign practice…Hua kanan are infact often talked about by their bosses in terms of the number each respective one is seen to have influence over, some are 5 people others 20 and so on…
Reghardless, I still think to look at vote buying as such an important or pre-eminent issue in political culture and values is not going to give you the kind of data you might like, or to avoid the reproduction of paternalism. Perhaps a bit of drama and metaphor by Victor Turner (or Max Gluckman) to elucidate political values in a coup situation will provide the context to avoid reductionism, paternalism and misdirection.
9 anon // Oct 28, 2006 at 3:49 am
Nirut, pity the Thai middle classes – nobody ever listens to them, and they have nobody to speak for them! Next time, they should take to the streets and call for direct help from the King.
10 patiwat // Oct 28, 2006 at 4:08 am
Andrew, you might already have seen Albritton and Thawilwadee’s paper Developing Democracy under a New Constitution in Thailand (http://www.asianbarometer.org/newenglish/publications/workingpapers/no.28.pdf). This was an excellent piece of quantitative research that really dug deep and tried to understand just what democracy meant in the Thai political context. I found the paper extremely insightful, particularly how it described popular mistrust towards party politics. Surprisingly, they also found that rural people had a greater trust in political parties than urban people, reflecting the fact that the elite feared the role of political parties as vehicles for popular mobilization.
The paper also describes the Thai preference for non-partisan government, which explains why Surayud’s cabinet of bureaucrats is being given a chance. It also analyzes the changing balance between Thailand’s relatively modern respect for liberal democracy and Thailand’s traditional respect for social stability.
11 Andrew Walker // Oct 28, 2006 at 6:38 am
Thanks for the various comments and references to other useful research.
Nirut, there is much in your comment which will have to wait for discussion of the proposed paper itself. I don’t disagree with some of what you say about hua khanaen and will try to give some insight into their local practises in the paper. You are right – I do focus on rural people. That is my area of interest and my research focus (not just on politics but on other social, cultural and environmental issues – for example, see my earlier post about matrilineal spirits). Others can write about middle-class/urban situations. And I hope that I don’t just take things at face value – but, ultimately, that will be for others to judge.
12 Nirut // Oct 28, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Mr Andrew, of course you must limit yourself to one area and this is more a strength than limitation of your work (your paper on Matrilineal spirits evidencing a strong sensitivity to nuance) but where you question the stereotypes of the portrayal of rural political practice by the middle-class surely in a contextual sense you will need to dispel the myths about the middle-class at the same time? I would say this is achievable if you treat with “political values” in an holistic sense and according to how political power is conceived of and manifest in Thai society, its distribution when understood like this will definitely dispel some of the ghosts of paternalism’s past.
We know and hear about how Thaksin was a popular prime minister and led his party to victory but how much details do we have (data) on how his popularity translated into political alliegance at local and provincial levels? How did people come to know him, who were the local spin doctors so to speak that translated Thaksin the Demi-god into local contexts (urban and rural) where headline concerns over crime and poverty made sense in people’s homes and communities. The opportunism of the population can’t be overlooked in terms of his popularity but Thaksin was represented locally by others and I think these people are key to potentially rich detail regarding the political process, values in practice and behind the scemes in the electoral process…hopefully you have access to these people as they will fill many a gap in terms of the practical application of values to practice…
For example in Uttaradit some 2-3 years ago gangs of “Samurai” sword weilding young men were employed by local politicians from OBT to Ampher to Jangwat and Tetsamontri to threaten and intimidate opponents and their supporters and their mobilisation was reflected in other areas such as the Southern border, the northeast and some of Central Thailand’s more densely populated areas…the upshot of this being that in Uttaradit and the South…and by proxy the other areas I would say, TRT were shown/known locally to be the paymasters of these gangs and the extrajudicial killings that were more than 2500 people dead, similarly allowed for particularly heavy handed political negotiation via the “strong arm of the law”. This was undertaken by local people in local contexts and so local memory would provide a bit of insight into this part of the “political values”. It illustrates that political success and political alliegance came about through practices that are generally overlooked in studies of Thailand’s political system but I think in trms of historical context of the recent past an essential value to pay attention to…again vote buying will be better contextualised from this perspective.
.
13 vichai n // Oct 28, 2006 at 11:18 pm
Just some sincere suggestions Andrew:
(1) Try to equate your village research with your earlier theory that HMK’s ‘Sufficiency Economy’ will keep the poor POOR. And contrast that with Thaksin’s straight cash handouts that was meant to keep the poor BEGGING.
(2) Your research on Thaksin’s omnipotence and spell on the poor will not be complete unless you include Thaksin’s voodoo credentials and penchance for dark magic.
No need to thank me if the above suggestions help in your research.
14 anon // Oct 29, 2006 at 8:07 am
Vichai N, so true about dark magic! Sondhi has secret evidence that Thaksin hired the man who destroyed the Phra Phrom Erawan Shrine. Thaksin took the relics from the shrine and did cambodian voodoo magic to feed the gods of darkness. Why don’t stupid villagers believe Sondhi? Thaksin was so close to opening the gates of hell.
15 Andrew Walker // Oct 29, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Wow, those silly villagers really need to get some education on voodoo! Thanks for the tip.
16 nganadeeleg // Oct 29, 2006 at 6:51 pm
All this talk of voodoo leads me to a suggestion for your research.
Rather than concentrating on ‘vote buying’ I think an analysis of the superstitions and beliefs of thai people might be quite instructive in determining the political sophistication of the various groups in Thailand. Would be even better if you could try to link those beliefs with the way they voted in the 2005 and 2006 elections.
I also liked Uncle J’s comment:
‘I am not interested [in politics]. When I have finished work I drink whiskey’.
17 Andrew Walker // Oct 29, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Nganadeeleg, yes good suggestion. I might start with superstitions relating to the jaw chiwit (lord of life).
And, I liked Unlcle J\’s comment too. It reminded me of all the smart young Bangkok types I\’ve seen unwinding after a solid day\’s work down at RCA. A bottle of Chivas, pumping music and no chance of conversation at all. Perfect!
18 JB // Oct 30, 2006 at 12:56 am
Andrew you will more than a bottle of Chivas if you include Khmer voodoo and/or Isan black magic in your village research. The Chivas is just in case you get squeamish once you encounter a Khmer talisman.
Khmer’s potent dark magic is in the talisman that Thaksin Shinawatra sought from the Khmer shaman recommended by Buriram’s Newin. Cambodians still believe that the unborn, if properly preserved, become talismans which can speak to them through their dreams, guiding their decisions and helping them stay safe and grow in wealth. These talismans are known as Cohen Kroh, literally well-done babies’.
19 cheeky // Oct 30, 2006 at 7:22 am
Thai protest rally anti-Sovereignty 1 November 2006 at Sanam-Laung
Unusual Democracy
As Thailand has been ruled by the military since 19 September 2006 till now, has been published by Thai media that all of us accepted their conduct. In fact, we are as they have told or not?
The best 1997 constitution has been destroyed, not allow gathering than 5 peoples, restrict freedom of sharing the opinion in any website for politic discussion or criticizing and always provide the military guard for any meeting in the public.
One month later
At the present situation, it has been unclear and they still could not prove to the public for the reason of leader changeover, new constitution has been decided according to their need to rule the country.
Recently we were called The Country of Dictatorship from the outsider world in an encyclopedia.
Time to prove “We are a democratic country.”
The rally will be held on 1 November 2006 at Sanam Laung where we all Thais know very well how difficult to get democracy at 4 pm onward.
We are not concerned about the Elite, Ex-PM Taksin, Thai Rak Thai Party, Democratic Party, the ally or any other group. All we ask for is the Democracy handover from the military to the citizens.
Please be with us to publish the fact to the world that we are fighting for a Democracy.
Best Regards,
Thai Democratic Citizen
20 jeru // Oct 30, 2006 at 8:43 pm
Andrew and Nganadeeleg you both should laugh at Thaksin’s Khmer voodoo beliefs. I used to be amazed too in disbelief too that a PM, a billionaire, a Ph.d. degree holder could be so laughably superstitious. But I merely googled and Thaksin Shinawatra’s devotion to Khmer and Myanmar black magic was there to see . . . Thaksin did not even deny it. He even accused his opposition of employing voodoo against him that he had to fly to Buriram to consult a Khmer voodoo to protect himself.
Andrew and Nganadeeleg ณ just brought this up just so people can see how ridiculously whacky Thaksin Shinawatra was. Whacky and dangerous. Any person who would worship dead foetesus must have some gear loose in his skull . . . and Thaksin is a walking nutcase. His fascination with fortune tellers and voodoo begun long long before and he probably credits those dark magic to his billions amassed.
Andrew and Nganadeeleg I dare you ิboth to google Thaksin Shinawatra and black magic and voodoo. You’d be flabbergasted by the idiocy of Thaksin Shinawatra. It was idiocy and dangerous for the Kingdom too. For someone to believe himself omnipotent by the powers of the dark magic must have encouraged him to do really outrageous acts . . . like the extrajudicial killings and the divisive rabble rousing of the villagers to besiege the Bangkok city residents.
Thaksin Shinawatra is still a dangerous man. He must be sitting somewhere in a dark corner somewhere guided by belief in Shaman dark powers and voodoo.
21 Bangkok Pundit // Oct 30, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Jeru – Umm. That sounds familiar, no wonder, you posted the same comment on my blog.
22 nganadeeleg // Jul 10, 2007 at 9:39 am
Thank’s Mr Sunthorn Skulpone for taking the time to write.
(from today’s Bangkok Post letters to the editor):
Mr Burin mentioned educating the villagers about democracy. Let me tell you the real thing. In one election, my own sister voted for the guy who gave her 100 baht rather than our brother who ran in the same district. After the election which our brother lost, I asked my sister who she voted for and she whisper ”they gave me 100 baht.” There is no hope trying to teach my sister democracy. SUNTHORN SKULPONE Kalasin
Maybe she just knew her brother well !
23 Sunthorn Skulpone // Nov 11, 2007 at 4:55 pm
I love it!..”may be she just know her brother well”.
My question is:which one that she knew well, the brother that lost the election or me which wrote the letter to Bangkokpost.
I think my sister knew both of us very well, after all she raised both of us.
I heard what she told our brother..”If you want to be an MP you have to be a village headman first, then move up step by step”.
Sunthorn Skulpone
24 nganadeeleg // Nov 11, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Your sister sounds very smart – great strategic advice for your brother, and she’s also 100 baht richer.
How are things in Kalasin this time of the year? – I hope to visit soon.
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.