Amidst the prolific discussion of the Thai coup is an emerging argument about “Thai-style democracy.” In an eloquent paper presented at the Asia Research Institute in Singapore, Thai scholar Pattana Kitiarsa provides a number of explanations of the “gentle, bloodless” coup in terms of what he calls “Thai-style democracy”. This is a non-western form of democracy based on distinctively Thai cultural values. Thaksin’s downfall is explained in terms of his lack of Buddhist virtue and legitimate authority:
Thaksin’s deep crisis of legitimacy, despite having full control of power, reflects the fact that he had failed miserably to convert his power into the Buddhist ideal of moral and political authority.
While accounts of legitimacy that rely on Western democratic rationality may point to the importance of Thaksin’s electoral victories, Pattana points to the importance of “Thai Buddhist-based cultural paradigms.” He quotes from the Buddhist thinker, Sulak:
I hope I shall live that long to be able to witness the return of Thai democracy to its roots in the Buddha Dhamma—despite the destruction of Thai Democracy by Mara [the devil] who happens to be the chief executive of the Thai nation at present.
Culturally embedded interpretations of the coup are certainly valuable. But the emerging argument about Thai-style democracy appears to play nicely into the ongoing project of discrediting Thaksin’s electoral mandate. A focus on elections is portrayed as a particularly “Western” take on democracy that ignores the Buddhist-informed subtleties of politics in Thailand.
But I don’t think that culturally sensitive anthropological analysis should lead us away from the fact that the Thaksin government was handsomely elected three times. One of the implications of the Thai-style democracy argument is that only elite thinkers like Saneh, Prawet and Sulak are in a position to make legitimate judgements about Buddhist values. But why can’t the voting populace make similarly culturally embedded judgements? Aren’t they in an equally good position to make judgements about Buddhist virtue, morality and legitimate power? Or was there a requirement that votes be cast according to “Western” values? Pattana gives some hints as to how he might respond to these questions (my emphasis):
[Thaksin’s] heroic image as the man with money and vision had deeply impressed the villagers. Chao ban [villagers] do not take Thaksin’s side in terms of class triumph over their urban counterpart. They do so because (1) they are indebted (pen ni bun khun) to his money (or their own tax money) and some material interests; (2) they more and more subscribe themselves to his model of success in life. With his money-politics success, Thaksin is their hero; and (3) they are impressed with his down-to-earth and populist political performances. The middle class media and scholars are struggling to truly understand the chao ban and their moral economy. Why do they fall easily into Thaksin’s populist traps? However, the bottom line is that Thaksin has not yet achieved his righteous status in the Buddhist ideal of leadership despite his large-scale state-funded vote-buying.
But whose bottom line is this? According to “Thai style democracy” it seems to be only elite thinkers who can draw bottom lines. By contrast, the voting populace is too mired in non-Buddhist and (seemingly) non-Thai populism and materialsim to make legitimate judgements. Again we a left with the view that the Thai populace is, in a sense, unready for democracy. Pattana writes:
The Thai as a people and as a nation are constantly structured to yearn for the great elitist leaders, who are morally qualified and charismatically capable of performing their masculine heroism for the good of the nation (not the democracy). The 19/9 events consolidate the thesis that there is still a long way to go in the grass-root struggles for civic, transparent democracy, because the fundamental aspects of Thai political structure and culture seem not to work that way.
Thai style democracy? Asian values? Democracy the Burmese way? I like what Amartya Sen had to say:
The recognition of diversity within different cultures is extremely important in the contemporary world, since we are constantly bombarded by oversimple generalizations about “Western civilization,” “Asian values,” “African cultures,” and so on. These unfounded readings of history and civilization are not only intellectually shallow, they also add to the divisiveness of the world in which we live. The authoritarian readings of Asian values that are increasingly championed in some quarters do not survive scrutiny. And the grand dichotomy between Asian values and European values adds little to our understanding, and much to the confounding of the normative basis of freedom and democracy.
I wonder if Thai style democracy is the sufficiency democracy I wrote about earlier?
21 responses so far ↓
1 disgusted // Oct 30, 2006 at 4:15 pm
So does Pattana have any examples of elected leaders who exemplify Buddhist virtue and legitimate authority? Chavalit? Chuan? Banharn? Chatichai? The Pramoj brothers? Khuang? T. Nawasawat?
Or is Pattana implying that elections are not the best way of selecting people of high Buddhist virtue? Then maybe the Sangkharaj or the King should select the Premier. If so, the system of politics most suited for Thailand would be that used in the pre-1932 era.
2 Bystander // Oct 30, 2006 at 6:37 pm
Thai-style ‘governance’ will be a more honest way to put it. The word ‘Democracy’ is so overused and abused that it doesn’t mean anything any more. Heck, what’s the official name of North Korea? Democratic People’s Republic of Korea!
3 vichai // Oct 30, 2006 at 9:00 pm
There is no need to be confused gentlemen.
Democracy never has been an absolute with strict 1-2-3-4 rules to be observed to qualify, or is it?
To me Democracy is pure common sense. Democracy was invented (some credit the Greeks, others some ancient community in India long long before) to provide the people with a say on who rules and how these rulers are to be judged whether they deserve to be retained, kicked or jailed. Keep it simple gentlemen.
Somewhere along the translation in Y2006, many western democracy advocates stuck to oversimplification that in the case of Thaksin’s democracy rejected by the people with a popular coup, they have violated democracy 1-2-3-4 rules. Says who? They must be speaking only of rule no. 1 . . the election by majority vote. What about transparency, accountablity and integrity of the ruler?
Surely gentlemen we are much wiser and much more scholarly in this forum, are we not? We can ask Dr. Jory or Andrew Walker to contribute their academic wisdom in the debate. Is it true that only a majority vote is all that is needed to justiy Thaksin Shinawatra corruption rampage and extrajudicial abuses . . without accountability . . as d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y?
I am just a small businessman gentlemen. Why don’t we toss the question to Dr. Jory and Andrew Walker? But somewhere in my intestines (usually my gut sense never fail), I sense righteousness in General Sonthi’s coup that toppled a darkly corrupt Thaksin regime that was never democratic.
4 Bystander // Oct 31, 2006 at 2:54 am
If only… the Dragon was slain and they all lived happily ever after,
and not … the Ring of Power has a mind of its own.
5 disgusted // Oct 31, 2006 at 4:16 am
vichai, by your own definition, Surayud’s-coup installed government is worse than Thaksin’s. Thailand’s democracy has indeed taken a step back.
Elections. He didn’t come into power through elections and when the junta delayed elections from 12 months to 17 months, he was totally silent. “F” for public mandate.
Transparency. Is Surayud explaining any of his policies to the public? No. He’s flip-flopped on alcohol advertising. He’s flip-flopped on populism. Heck, even the official policy he announced a few days ago was just vague hand-waving. “F” for transparency.
Accountablity. If you don’t like his policies, you can’t petition your MP to introduce a vote of no confidence. You can’t make a public protest without breaking martial law. “F” for accountability.
Integrity of the ruler. The man came to power through force and governs via martial law. He’s continued the emerency decree in the South. The only thing going for him is he hasn’t been accused in public of worshipping dead fetuses or desecrating religious shrines. “F” for integrity.
6 nganadeeleg // Oct 31, 2006 at 7:13 am
Just a suggestion… why not accept that the coup is a fait accompli.
They have promised new elections next year – take them at their word – there will be plenty of time for criticism and protest if they fail to deliver on the elections.
‘Democracy’ was clearly not working under the old system and the country was in a stalemate situation going nowhere.
Realistically, the coup government is likely to do less damage than the Thaksin government would have done over the next year.
Just accept the situation and have a fresh go at ‘democracy’ next year when the air has cleared.
Positive suggestions for the new constitution would also be helpful.
7 disgusted // Oct 31, 2006 at 10:44 am
The coup is a fait accomply, but how the civilian interim government runs the country is not.
The government and the junta have the authority to allow the parliament to have greater rights of oversight and allow public participation in the political/constitutional process. It’s not as if they have that much to be afraid of from the parliament, given that they appointed all of its members.
By making ongoing decisions that limit the transparency of their rule and reduce any accountability they have to the people, the government/junta are trampling on the principles that they used as rationale for their seizure of power.
8 Vichai N // Oct 31, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I never did claim that a military rule is democratic, did I? The only thing I suggested was Thaksin’s rule had never been democratic and Thaksin was bent on carrying the Kingdom to a long military rule, via his own coup, a la Ferdinand Marcos.
I also claimed that General Sonthi’s intevention was a godsend. General Sonthi said the coup was necessary to remove a danger to the Kingdom of Thailand and his intervention will make it possible to reform the constitution of Thailand to prevent the type of abuses perpetrated by Thaksin.
I believe General Sonthi. Whether or not this forum believe General Sonthi or not is academic.
All we can all do is wait.
9 Krid // Oct 31, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Vichai, your faith in Sonthi is surprising considering that in a few short weeks he already lied about:
Installing a civilian gov. – The PM is a military crony of Prem and Sonthi. The NLA has 76 military and police officers, by far the largest group. Protagonis Meechai is pro-military/bureacracy and contra-people.
Calling elections within one year – This is already extended to about 17 months.
Stepping aside – The government, NLA, constitution council and all committees are puppets of the junta and the coup leaders plan to join a new political party (Seri Thai) to cling to power. Besides that, Thaksin’s coup plans are just as unproven as the black magic allegations which are relevant only for believers in black magic anyway.
Finally, we can do more than wait or Thailand will fall back into a state of arrested development under authoritarian rule that it was so comfortable in for centuries and which is not an option in a globalized world.
10 nganadeeleg // Oct 31, 2006 at 7:00 pm
“we can do more than wait…..” What do you propose, Krid?
Are you proposing to bring back Thaksin and hold elections now?
What would happen to the corruption investigations then?
11 Jotman // Oct 31, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Thanks, Andrew, for a great postinng that draws our attention to the perils of nativism. In recent weeks, the Thai papers have been full of articles spouting nonsense about “Thai style democracy.” In a recent posting on my blog, jotman.com, I explain why talk of “Thai style deomocracy” is every bit as dangerous as “Bush style democracy” in the USA. In fact, it stems from the same pernicious ideological roots as the extreme right-wing agenda of American Christianists.
12 Krid // Oct 31, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Nganadeeleg, IMHO just to wait and see is not enough. The junta has so far performed extremely poorly, not least in the corruption investigations. It seems more like paralysis and infighting (Pridiyathorn-Jaruvan), and lifting their cronies into position. So I mean critical review of their performance, especially in the constituiton drafting process. I did not suggest to hold elections with Thaksin running but even the junta has been ambivalent on this.
13 Vichai N // Nov 1, 2006 at 12:36 am
To ‘disgusted’ (5) you should not be.
To Krid (9) yes I still have my faith in caretaker PM Surayud and junta chief General Sonthi. I have learned to appreciate the extent of menace Thaksin Shinawatra and his gang of crooks were clearly capable of and wish the Generals godspeed in their clean up tasks ahead.
I only have to place myself in the shoes of General Sonthi/PM Surayud and I immediately grasp the difficult clean-up tasks ahead for both these gentlemen. Uprooting the Thaksin regime and its remnants to eliminate its further menace to the peace and stability of the Kingdom of Thailand would take a long time (hopefully 12 months but longer if the General feel the urgency to extend) and may require unpopular measures.
I am willing to give General Sonthi and PM Surayud the benefits of my doubts. So far they have not carried out any abuse and they have not scandalized.
14 nganadeeleg // Nov 1, 2006 at 9:10 am
Amusing and insightful opinion piece in The Nation:
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/01/opinion/opinion_30017665.php
15 cheeky // Nov 1, 2006 at 9:13 am
Signs of Unease in Thailand
Our Correspondent
31 October 2006
Coup opponents plan a rally to test the limits of public support for new military rulers.
Pro-democracy groups and supporters of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra plan to defy martial law and stage a rally on Wednesday November 1 at Bangkok’s symbolic Sanam Luang protest ground near the royal palace as Thailand’s interim government and its military backers face early signs of dissent after September’s coup.
A little-known group of largely web-based activists calling itself Thai Democratic Citizen announced the protest at a sparsely attended press briefing Tuesday. For many of the budding activists in attendance, it was the first time they had met outside of Internet chat rooms.
“Thailand is not a democracy,” Chanapat na Nakhon, the group’s leader, said to scattered applause. “We will fight until we win.”
Several protests by a few die-hard student groups and left-wing academics after the September 19 coup attracted just a few hundred people as most Thais supported the intervention by palace-endorsed generals to change the course of government.
Thai Democratic Citizen, however, said it expects thousands to show up Wednesday in what may be a test of the power of the Internet to mobilize dissent in Bangkok since the views of the protesters have been scarce in traditional media since the coup.
“I think we can get more than 10,000, but because of martial law maybe people will be scared to come out,” said Chanapat, who says he “favors” Thaksin’s old Thai Rak Thai ruling party but is not a member of the once powerful organization that propelled Thaksin to power in 2001.
The announcement was made with an eye on history. It was held at the Royal Hotel, which sits adjacent to Sanam Luang park and has heavy overtones for those opposed to military rule. During the 1992 pro-democracy protests in which at least 52 were killed, troops were seen shooting protestors and dragging them through the hotel’s bloody lobby. Former army chief and current Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont commanded soldiers during that incident.
Sanam Luang, Thai for “Royal Ground,” is also the site of state ceremonies conducted by King Bhumibol Adulyadej and during the past year supporters and opponents of Thaksin used the park to gather tens of thousands of protesters, who then marched to nearby locations like the Democracy Monument or the Parliament building.
Anti-Thaksin protesters held a week-long camp out in Sanam Luang at one point but could not match the number of people who showed up for a pro-Thaksin rally at Sanam Luang shortly after he called for an early election on February 24.
Some of those rallyists said they were paid by the billionaire politician to show up while others insist that it is a mistake to underestimate Thaksin’s support among the rural poor.
Chanapat said his group receives no financial support from politicians and relies on its members, mostly small business owners, who are launching a media campaign and distributing black protest t-shirts and wristbands.
Previously Chanapat was best known for filing lawsuits against leaders of the People’s Alliance for Democracy, the anti-Thaksin coalition led by publisher Sondhi Limthongkul, that led early protests. Chanapat had urged police to investigate the group’s leaders for urging royal intervention as a way to oust Thaksin.
The group also filed formal charges with the Department of Special Investigation, Thailand’s equivalent of the FBI, against coup leader General Sonthi Boonyaratglin on September 26, a week after the coup. Although the interim constitution promulgated by the coup leaders absolves them of wrongdoing, the protesters claim that the charges were filed before that constitution took effect.
The group said it wants to reinstate the 1997 Constitution, which was suspended by the junta, and let the coup leaders know that what they did is unacceptable. They wish to restore the dignity of the King, whose image, they claim, was hurt after he was forced to endorse the coup under dubious circumstances.
Prior to Tuesday’s press conference, the group circulated an email that contained a link to a video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCWKM0UK7Ns) that claims Bhumibol, who is treated like a god in Thailand, did not support the coup. Others saw the king’s endorsement of the junta—as well as the prominent roles in the interim government given to his close advisers—as the primary reason why the public at large has stayed relatively quiet since the putsch.
The king has not made any public statements directly about the coup (other than to tell Cabinet members to help rebuild the country’s image), but met with the generals hours after they rolled tanks into Bangkok and endorsed each one of their proposals. The video clip appears to take the king’s silence as a sign that he didn’t support the coup, which allows the protesters to claim they are fighting for the monarch—an essential component for legitimizing any political movement in Thailand.
The video asks why the king’s voice is edited out of a snippet of his meeting with General Sonthi and Prime Minister Surayud broadcast to the public on state television. It then shows documents saying Sonthi should be arrested for “destabilizing the country,” and concludes with calls for a “War of the People” on November 1.
The video link has been posted on several chat forums, where dissent against the coup has been most vocal. The junta initially shut down these websites, but now they are up and running again.
While claiming the king was not involved in the coup, the protest leaders were relentless in attacking Prem Tinsulanonda, a retired general and former prime minister who heads the king’s 19-member privy council and is widely seen as the main actor behind the scenes of the coup.
“There is no way we can have democracy with Prem so powerful,” Chanapat said. Waranchai Chokchana, a perennial losing candidate in elections for Bangkok governor, added: “Thailand has three prime ministers now: Prem, Surayud and Sonthi.”
Nopporn Narimchaingtai, another member of Thai Democratic Citizen chimed in: “It’s sick that the generals and Prem used His Majesty the King to take over power. General Prem does not speak for the King.”
Due to his proximity to the king, it is unusual for the 86-year-old Prem to receive sustained public criticism. Yet the respected senior statesman has been under intense media scrutiny since he met with Pojaman Shinawatra, Thaksin’s wife, last week. Thaksin’s opponents, who already fear that corruption probes will yield nothing of substance, now worry that Prem has cut a secret deal that will allow the deposed premier to return to Thailand unscathed.
Coup leader Sonthi has ordered the Assets Examination Committee, which is investigating Thaksin, to tell the public what it has found. Last week, Sonthi admitted the investigations might not turn up anything.
With the chattering classes ratcheting up the volume, anti-junta activists say the silent majority might take action. Rumors persist that thousands of Thaksin supporters in rural Thailand—which formed the base for his massive electoral wins in 2001, 2005 and the voided 2006 poll—are waiting for martial law to be lifted before holding protest rallies.
Other small signs of dissent have surfaced, such as a pro-Thaksin comic book and the distribution of pamphlets attacking the coup leaders. And while few expect a huge rally this week, a larger than expected crowd could add momentum to nascent protest. It is a threat the junta leaders are taking seriously.
Chalit Pukphasuk, the air force chief who is a deputy leader of the junta, reaffirmed this week that martial law would remain in place for the foreseeable future due to existing “undercurrents.”
“If we can get 10,000 people to protest in Bangkok, then it’s very likely that similar protests will start to spring up around the country,” said a leader of Wayupat, which means Phoenix in English, a web-based organization that claims to have between 500 and 1,000 members.
“Things are beginning to become unstable,” he added. “We have a secret network that is already mobilized, and we plan to keep pressing ahead.”
http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=244&Itemid=31
DDAY 1 NOV 06 at 4 PM onwards
16 James Haughton // Nov 2, 2006 at 12:34 am
Surely the “buddhist ideal of moral and political authority” is to be the Dhammaraja – the wheel turning monarch. If that’s Pattana’s line, then he’s condemning Thaksin for not being king.
But I agree that Thailand is structured towards strong man nak-leng leadership – not because it’s “cultural” but because the country is so overcentralised in Bangkok that he who controls Sanam Luang controls the nation.
17 New Mandala » Buddhist Studies at Oxford // Nov 2, 2006 at 2:04 am
[...] Depending on how widely it is conceived, “Buddhist Social History” is one sub-discipline that is particularly relevant to the sorts of recent discussions we have hosted here at New Mandala. [...]
18 New Mandala » Extending the life of the junta // Nov 5, 2006 at 10:03 am
[...] Those who seek to explain (or justify) the overthrow of Thaksin in terms of Thai style democracy may argue that legitimate power in Thailand is based on narrowly defined Buddhist virtue. But it seems that even the Generals recognise the sacred power of peripheral practise. This ritual incursion into Thaksin’s northern heartland is an attempt by the junta to align itself with forms of belief that often disparaged by Thaksin’s critics as superstition, ignorance and voodoo. The Bangkok Post reports that after the ceremony General Sonthi would be visiting northern military units. Power and influence comes in many forms. [...]
19 New Mandala » Celebrating peripheral power // Nov 13, 2006 at 8:16 pm
[...] A similar trend can be observed in some of the discussion about “superstition” or “voodoo”. Those making a post-coup argument for “Thai style democracy” seem to be arguing that the cultural basis for legitimate power lies in a narrowly defined form Buddhist virtue, with the king as its chief personification. While most casual and academic observers would probably accept that Buddhist and non-Buddhist cosmologies and practices are hopelessly intertwined, elite ideology is highly selective in its emphasis on the basis of legitimate power residing in what Pattana refers to as “Buddhist righteous charisma”. [...]
20 sheddoe.com // May 18, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Coup ruined our country.
=====================
http://www.sheddoe.com
21 sueksit nanhuay // May 21, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Most Thais are neither Buddhist in spirit nor democratic. They are dictatorial and narrow-minded in their outlook, still suffering from something like the stench of the dark ages. So there is no sense at all in the wishful thinking about democracy for Thailand. Be realistic! Just look at how the different power groups in Thailand go on quarreling over trivia.
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.