New Mandala

28 responses so far ↓

• 1 Nirut // Jan 19, 2007 at 12:37 pm

  And so we ignore any and all cultural norms and practices, fruitful insights into structures of power and their particularities in the Thai case and frame all action here in terms of procedural democrcay. Forget that ELECTIONS are rituals of legitimation of the state hence the political tension, and in favour of doing this we take the rhetoric of the struggle to make another claim for legitimacy, (another version of how things should be, in contrast to Thaksin populism or Junta sufficiency, effectively another spin on the rural urban lowerclass middleclass divide) at face value because of an ungrounded certainty that the overwhelming popularity of Thaksin came from his popular policies. what is the problem with this? There is no accounting for just how Thai Rak Thai operated on the ground and how they took the electorate inthe way they did…far more complex and “extra-democratic” processes were at play …really this assumption that Thaksin was popular with the poor but not middleclasses, was voted in on his policies alone is just intellectual laziness on behalf of foreign observers and ideological struggle for the voice of legitimacy amongst local observers/participants.

• 2 fall // Jan 19, 2007 at 12:39 pm

  Quote: “Suppose we have a new constitution, and there is an election. We may get Chuan [Leekpai] or Abhisit [Vejjajiva], the very same people whom Thais sought to replace with Thaksin six years ago,” said Yos. “What good will that do us?”

  This is a very, very interesting observation.

  Quote: “Democracy may be full of weak points, but the question is: if you don’t choose democracy, what’s the alternative?” he said

  I think the urban middle-class had spoken “We want M. 7 PM!”. But the fact that these middle-class do not want anyone from TRT to be the new PM or they are willing to vote for TRT-opposition parties should have been enough answer. Churchill got a point, but may be Thai collectivism society demand big-brother government style?

• 3 nganadeeleg // Jan 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm

  Yes, the full article in The Nation is interesting – props to The Nation for continuing it’s analysis.
  Other notable quotes:
  “Whether members of the military, industry, police, technocracy or politics, this elite conspires to manipulate politics and tanks and guns to determine who will be in charge.
  Most are likely to be guilty of corruption at some level – or even worse, as the recent bombings illustrate. So, regardless of which group is in power, they seldom fully expose one another.
  “Our political history clearly demonstrates that none of these people will ever go to jail,” Thitinan said.
  “The [CNS] target is not about putting anyone in prison; it just wants to keep Thaksin and his people out of politics.”
  Thammasat’s Vipar agreed the crooks were likely to escape legal punishment. “Thaksin will be allowed to return and live happily like other dictatorial leaders in the past.”

  “While the poor may get trapped by populism, the middle class also gets stuck in flawed ideologies. To me, this emphasises the fairness of the ‘one man, one vote’ system,” Viroj said.

  A fairly depressing analysis.
  2 choices:
  Populism with corruption, or Flawed ideologies with corruption?

  Gives new meaning to the saying ‘We get the government we deserve’

• 4 anon // Jan 19, 2007 at 7:55 pm

  Nirut, is there any accounting for just how the junta operates on the ground and how they have lied to the people and censored the media?

  You might not call it democracy, and Thaksin and the 1997 constitution might not have been perfect, but they were much better than the junta and the 2006 constitution.

• 5 Nirut // Jan 20, 2007 at 12:52 am

  There is accounting for how the junta, Thaksin or anyone operates on the ground as it is here where the fundamentals of political logic and practice occur in a daily sense and with out the nitty gritty of the daily politicing the rest falls apart. the corporatisiation of local political institutions to Thai Rak Thai and the buyng of support where smaller political bodies join the juggernaught are quite telling in terms of the way they constructed popularity as their catch cry of legitimacy. The Junta is not doing this rather they are muting and suppressing many of these groups and the persuasion of these groups to be still is fundamentally different to how they were brought into the fold with Thai rak thai. I have tried to argue here on numerous occassions for a an interest in the local level wheelings and dealings that are pivotal to the outcome of Thai rak thai or Junta popularity/legitimacy but have failed to arouse much interest except at some stage from James who is interested in migration and labour. The power of the sterotypes of “vote buying and corruption” on the imaginations of th contributers to this blog and the very western centric view of what this is and how it works i sa difficult one to overcome. In fact anything much critical seems to be the exception than the rule to the already preset parameters as to what constitues an issue and what to do about or how to engage with it.

  I thin the constitutions that are a dime a dozen here in Thailand are not particulalry helpful sources of information or mandates of practice as they are touted to be and this is a political reality of Thailand. Power and political relations are structured according to logics and patterns that precede and do not account full for the dictates of constitutions hence the large numer in the past 50 odd years. The a-historical approach to the study of the situation is a concern as a central university site such as this should be more engaged with how thing shave come to be not just how they are. .while I think the site is invaluable in bringing academic and non academic views into discussion and vice versa and vice versa some vigillance is necessary.

  The bette ror not better is a very partial take on things and does limit our appraisal to normative notions leaing little room for appreciating the actualalit of situations.

• 6 Srithanonchai // Jan 20, 2007 at 1:14 am

  Really too bad that the academics, journalists, and activists who like to criticize those other goups are not normally any better than they are. They simply are fellow Thais.

• 7 polo // Jan 20, 2007 at 1:57 am

  Unfortunately Yos Santasombat also had this to say in the piece which suggests he himself doesn’t get electoral democracy — that elections (not coups) are the way voters correct errors, even one’s they made at the voting booth:

  “”Suppose we have a new constitution, and there is an election. We may get Chuan [Leekpai] or Abhisit [Vejjajiva], the very same people whom Thais sought to replace with Thaksin six years ago,” said Yos. “What good will that do us?”"

  Here Yos is saying that having rejected Chuan and Abhisit in the past, then electing them would be some kind of setback to democracy — only because they are part of the “political elite”. That’s absurd, and even moreso if you believe Thaksin used his money to win office.

  What he is advocating is just middle-calss dreaming of a “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” scenario. Even the new US star Barack Obama has been in politics for over a decade.

• 8 Jon Fernquest // Jan 20, 2007 at 9:19 pm

  IMHO It simply hasn’t been worth it for most middle classes in most countries in most situations, South Korea (1980-1987) being a notable exception: “a vocal civil society emerged that led to strong protests against authoritarian rule. Composed primarily of university students and labor unions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Korea#Fifth_Republic

  Export driven growth under Park Chung Hee was like putting Korean society in a pressure cooker and turning up the heat.

  The current government seems to be trying to cool society down and return it to some previous comfy status-quo, hardly the material that revolution is made of. (the tv news uses the phrase “tham hai prachachon deuad rawn” , make Thai citizens boil (emotionally?), referring to the effect of Thaksin’s comments and meanderings)

• 9 Jon Fernquest // Jan 20, 2007 at 10:25 pm

  “Who said people with higher education have a higher [political] morality than rural voters? It’s the same false logic that contends rich politicians aren’t corrupt.\”

  If someone is \”saying\” this it would be nice to see a quotation or citation. Do all higher educated Thais have an official set of beliefs or official spokespeople, like Sonthi? Or do their beliefs stem from old comfortable traditions?

  Does anyone contend that rich politicians aren\’t corrupt? Isn\’t political apathy a better explanation? If things aren\’t that bad, it\’s easier to do nothing.

  In the university I worked at there was certainly no one asking any questions like this. Unthinkable. In fact, the only foreigner that started thinking along these lines was told by his Thai supervisor that the president could \”crush him with one finger.\” Not a very productive line of inquiry.

  \”It was time for the \’educated\’ middle class to stop apologising for it, stop asking others to fix it and start demanding that the electoral process and other democratic checks and balances be respected, he said.\”

  Maybe if the academics studied empirically who exactly this elusive \”educated middle class\” is, they would know better who they are lecturing to and could provide more convincing arguments and solutions.

• 10 Srithanonchai // Jan 20, 2007 at 11:32 pm

  “deuad rawn” does not normally translate as “boil,” but as “worried” or “troubled.”

• 11 Vichai N. // Jan 21, 2007 at 12:29 pm

  Democracy with unethical players right at the top is democracy lost. Corruption had always been a perennial issue in any democracy. But corruption carried out by the ‘top man’ himself becomes totally unacceptable and when that ‘top man’ appear intent on carrying out his unethical rule indefinitely come what way, coups occur. Philippines, Indonesia, and now Thailand.

  There will be such reruns in the future unless the cycle is broken. In South Korea they broke the cycle by jailing corrupt Presidents, Chun and Roh, and that established ‘rule of law’ as paramount.

  I am disappointed with PM Surayud/General Sonthi that they are being very slow in bringing Thaksin Shinawatra to justice for his alleged many many crimes, the extra-judicial abuses during Y2003 on top of my list (but may at the bottom of the junta’s priorities). I do not mind if Thaksin is jailed for that shady Rajadipisek land deal or for tax shenanigans.

• 12 anon // Jan 22, 2007 at 5:43 am

  Vichai, if a system of government only works when it is led by ethical and effective leaders, then a dictatorship would also work, right?

  The fact is, democracy is the system of government that best limits the power of villains.

• 13 Vichai N. // Jan 22, 2007 at 1:27 pm

  You got that right Anon!

  A military dictatorship with an ethical and effective leader would definitely work and last till the leader dies.

  A democracy too with an ethical leader and effective leader would definitely work and that leader would be re-elected for as long as he remains effective and ethical.

  So Anon . . how do we proceed from your premise above?

• 14 Jon Fernquest // Jan 22, 2007 at 7:25 pm

  “Who said people with higher education have a higher [political] morality than rural voters?…

  [...It’s the same false logic that contends rich politicians aren’t corrupt. While the poor may get trapped by populism, the middle class also gets stuck in flawed ideologies. To me, this emphasises the fairness of the ‘one man, one vote’ system,” Viroj said."]

  IMHO There is one very important way in which Thais with higher education have (in aggregate) higher morality and serve as a moral exemplar for the less-educated and poorer voters.

  In aggregate they simply ***take better care of their children*** and this builds a better community. They are more likely to:

  1. Send their to school: Mattayom, college, graduate school.

  2. Less likely to allow their children to run around at night on motorcycles, drink, and take drugs.

  3. More likely to expect their children to get married in a traditional fashion and raise their family in a responsible fashoin, rather than to get some young woman pregnant and then runaway.

  4. Less likely to send their daughter to a Bangkok brothel, karaoke, massage parlour, etc.

  5. More likely to experience some change in family fortunes, from generation to generation, like increased social status, or wealth, because their children move in a higher status university educated social group university, for instance..

  This is based on observation. I live in a rural area when I’m not working in Bangkok. If I was a political scientist or a sociologist, maybe I’d do an empirical study, but I specialize in economics journalism and Burmese history (c. 1350-1600).

  Although education tends to be associated with having some money, people in rural areas often take good care of their children too even if they pull them out of school early, for instance having them work in a small family business, but the poor pulling their children out of school or allowing their children to leave school at an early age is very common in Thailand and does contribute to the social problems enumerated above which anyone can observe with their own eyes if they live in a small rural town or village long enough.

• 15 Vichai N. // Jan 23, 2007 at 2:04 am

  Try as I may Mr. Jon Fernquest your lengthy post leaves me bewildered and lost. What was it you were trying to convey Mr. Fernquest?

  Do you condemn Bangkok because they have more money and praise the poor because their lives are simpler and more basic?

• 16 Batman // Jan 24, 2007 at 12:02 am

  Mr. Vichai, it seems to me he is saying that the poor cannot be trusted to vote honestly and that democracy is a bit flawed. I also find his argument quite provocative but difficult to argue against.

• 17 anon // Jan 24, 2007 at 6:02 am

  Jon seems to be taking argument for limiting suffrage for the poor seriously, so I’ll give him a serious response.

  He notes that the rich are alone worthy of representation because they,
  > 1. Send their to school: Mattayom, college, graduate school.

  This is not limited to Thailand. In nearly every country, developed and developing, income is always correlated with education. Yet universal (or near universal) suffrage is the norm for most democracies. This is because without representation, the poor can not trust the altruistic elite to provide them with the economic and social reforms to raise their status.

  > 2. Less likely to allow their children to run around at night on motorcycles, drink, and take drugs.

  If that was a criteria for suffrage, I think the Greatest Generation – the parents of American Baby Boomers, hippies, stoners, and the Summer of Love generation – would all be disenfranchised as well.

  > 3. More likely to expect their children to get married in a traditional fashion and raise their family in a responsible fashoin, rather than to get some young woman pregnant and then runaway.

  Teenage pregnancy is correlated with income and education in most countries of the world. But is taking away voting rights really the best means to improve sexual education and access to low-cost condoms?

  > 4. Less likely to send their daughter to a Bangkok brothel, karaoke, massage parlour, etc.

  I’ve never slept with a single prostitute (and I’ve slept with dozens of them) who was sold into prositution by her parents. In fact, I’ve never met a single prostitute who told her parents how she was making a living.

  > 5. More likely to experience some change in family fortunes, from generation to generation, like increased social status, or wealth, because their children move in a higher status university educated social group university, for instance..

  You’re saying that the rich will get richer, but the poor never will. This is wrong, of course – the advances in educational and economic standards among the Thai poor over the past decades proves you wrong.

• 18 thanakarn // Jan 25, 2007 at 12:27 am

  Why should people presume that only the educated have a monopoly on graft, corruption and criminal misdeeds?

  The percentage of criminal minds are more likely nearly the same for the population of educated as well as the uneducated, for the rich as well as the poor. Many in this forum have already admitted as much that many of those who claim to be ‘poor’ are probably much better off than they let on . . so they can chisel more from the unwary gjuillible ‘good at hearts’, or, from equally corrupt politicians ready to greasy their ready open palms in exchange for their vote.

  The constitutional penalty for selling the vote should be the electric chair!

  I am only half-jesting. But this culture of corruption long ago practised by politicians/political parties for many decades but most recently more blatantly, massively and ingenously employed by Thaksin Shinawatra as his cornerstone ideology (we remember his ‘corruption is OK’ radio sermons to the poor) to gain his mandate to rule will totally corrupt any virtuous aspiration written in the Thai constitution.

  The Thai constitutional reformers must clearly devote at least one paragraph to describe in no uncertain terms that: (a) the vote is a sacred power entrusted upon a citizen, (b) to misuse this sacred power of the vote by selling it or exchanging it for favors is a criminal offense and would be severely punished, and (c) both the buyer of the vote and the seller of the vote would lose their constitutional right for _____ years if found guilty of this constitutional offense.

  Once this paragraph is added to the Constitution, at every election this paragraph should be required to be added to any election billboard or posters by any political candidate in Thailand, and, all calling cards or handbills that politial candidates distribute during this election must be required to include this one special paragraph of the Thai constitution.

• 19 21Jan // Jan 25, 2007 at 12:43 pm

  thanakarn, you don’t get it, don’t you. Democracy is ALWAYS about vote-buying one way or another. Vichai might be shocked but it is most of the time the personal benefit that let people vote and almost never some noble attitude: The middle-class votes for tax-deductions and infrastructure-projects and the upper class (most probably) for the politicians which they can influence (buy) most easily. If you have children you might vote green and if you are working-class you might vote socialist / social-democrat. You cannot blame the poor for voting with their pockets, because everyone is doing it (and that the poor sold their votes in Thailand directly for years is only due to the fact that they had the impression – at least until the arrival of the populist policies of TRT – that this would be the only gain they could get from elections because no party cared about their interests) Let me cite Ajarn Thongchai at the end who makes a valid point when he says:”Democracy anywhere in the world is never a rule of the educated, the smarter, the urban, or the better-informed. It is a rule by popular mandate. No matter if/ how ignorant people are, the elected government has the rights to rule. It is true that democracy does not mean only election. But election is THE ultimate and unviolable source of legitimacy to rule. The higher moral or good ethics is not. The higher education is not. The better access to information is not. Nor are weapons or any unelected aristocrats.”

• 20 Vichai N. // Jan 25, 2007 at 11:39 pm

  I truly grasp your meaning ‘21Jan’.

  I have always known that there are many ’standards’ of Democracy. Just as people have different ‘puke’ thresholds for leaders who misbehave, so do people have different standards of how ‘true democracy’ must be measured.

  But your standard of democracy ‘21Jan’ is what provokes a coup, not mine. Election is only the first hurdle to be an accepted elected leader. After the election, the elected must always earn his mandate . . not be repeated elections but by upholding constitutional ethiquetes and maintaining and upholding the rule of law. Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – - repeated reelection will legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.

• 21 Vichai N. // Jan 25, 2007 at 11:40 pm

  Thaksin had violated the rule of law and had been a most unethical leader – - repeated reelection will NOT legitimize his errant record nor absolve him of his constitutional crimes.

  (a CORRECTION on my recent previous post above)

• 22 21Jan // Jan 26, 2007 at 3:02 am

  Vichai, your ideal of the benevolent tyrant is – how to say it – quite strange, even considering that it was Plato’s idea. The general idea behind democracy is that most people vote for their interests (through elections, through demonstrations, through petitions etc.) and then the majority got their interests served (Of course this is a bit simplistic, we need protection of minorities and institutions to check the elected during their term etc). We all should know by now that the coup was not because of moral reasons or to punish immoral leaders: Given the fact that most of the Thai coups had the justification of the immorality of the politicians Thailand should have the highest morality among politicians in the world, because they know that they will be overthrown after the slightest misdeed, but as we both know the Thai politicians are – at maximum – quite average cocerning their morality, so we can conclude that this coup – and a lot of the ones before – was a power struggle between the elites with the old powers / the network as (maybe only temporarily) winners and I think that we will see in the new constitution that the protection of their assets and influence was their main goal.
  Also I think that there will be never a succesful trial against Thaksin because this would uncover the involvement of the old elites.

• 23 Vichai N. // Jan 26, 2007 at 3:26 am

  Very simplistic your democracy version is ‘21Jan’ and very flawed. And I did say your ‘puke’ threshold for condoning seriously flawed leaders would touch stratosphere ‘21Jan’ and that to me is strange coming from somebody who quotes Plato.

  By the standards of American or British democracy, can you really sincerely tell me ‘21Jan’ that Thaksin Shinawatra would not have been promptly ‘booted’ out of office on his questionable ethics alone – - not to mention Thaksin’s unforgiveable real crimes of extra-judicial killings and self-enrichment while in public office?

• 24 21Jan // Jan 26, 2007 at 11:21 am

  Vichai, my view concerning democracy might be simplistic – although I cannot see it this way – but yours is either naive or elitist. People don’t vote primarily for the good of the nation they vote for their own good (and if they vote for the former, they do it because they are in a situation where the national good affects to such a great extend their own well-being that they have to vote this way). Through my life I never voted with my pocket but I can surely say that I always had my own interest in mind when I went to the ballot box and you can’t tell me that you have only noble thoughts of nation and unity in mind when you are voting.
  What you seem to think is either that everyone should eliminate personal interests (maybe through meditation) before voting or you want to give voting-rights only to people who pass a “voting exam” (and probably you are in line with the powers that be)
  It took the italians 12 years to vote Berlusconi out of office but they finally did and I am sure the Thais would have done that one day with Thaksin without the need of a white (black?) knight.
  But why don’t you respond to the argument that the coup was obviously only carried out to protect the interests of the old elite and that the moral justifications were only pretended. I think the possible events discussed in the “Chang-Noi-threat” are the most important reasons for the coup – it’s all about succession and not about some “unforgiveable real crimes” which you like to repeat like a broken record (although these crimes should be punished if there was a direct involvement of Thaksin and proof of it in a fair trial – but where was the outcry of the Thai public when the killings happened and when there would have been more evidence one way or another).

• 25 nganadeeleg // Jan 26, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  21Jan: On the one hand you think the Thai public will vote out Thaksin (one day), and on the other you note there was not much outcry from the Thai public about the extra judicial killings.

  Doesn’t that ring any bells for you?

  I’ll spell it out for you:
  - There WAS outrage at the extra judicial killings – but those people were in a minority.
  - There were also people opposed to Thaksin, but they were also in a minority.

  The coup leaders have stated their reasons for the coup, and any other reasons you, me or others may come up with are pure conjecture and speculation.

  Here’s some speculation on my part:
  Caretaker PM, Thaksin, had organised violence for the rally planned on the next day, and would in effect stage his own coup by coming back to restore order by imposing martial law.
  The coup leaders got wind of that plan and decided to act first.

  As for democracy, I don’t like it much for the self interest reasons you outlined, and also because other peoples votes are worth just as much as mine. Yes, I know I’m elitist.
  I think the ultimate system would be something based on Plato’s philosopher kings theory but rather than one ruler I would prefer a committee of the virtuous, with some form of democracy amongst them.

• 26 nganadeeleg // Jan 26, 2007 at 8:43 pm

  anon said: “I’ve never slept with a single prostitute (and I’ve slept with dozens of them) who was sold into prositution by her parents. In fact, I’ve never met a single prostitute who told her parents how she was making a living.”

  Did the parents ever wonder where the daughter got all that money from that she sends back to them, and also uses to buy jewellry etc?
  Are you saying they have no idea?
  Do the parents believe that uneducated girls are highly paid as cleaners, factory workers and waitresses in the big city?

  And their vote is worth the same as mine!!!!!!!

• 27 anon // Jan 26, 2007 at 10:35 pm

  Well, unlike Hollywood movies, most prostitutes that I know don’t wear jewelry. In fact, outside of work they tend to look incredibly plain and live very spartan lifestyles. The ones that are university students tend to dress less provocatively than normal students.

  As for the suspicions of their parents, I really have no idea. When I started working, my mother expected me to send her a certain amount of money every month. If she suspected that I took to drug dealing or pimping to support her, she never told me so.

  Based on your attitudes though there certainly seems cause for suspicion. It seems you’re assuming that any country girl who becomes successful in the big city has to have slept her way to the top.

• 28 21Jan // Jan 29, 2007 at 12:18 pm

  Nganadeeleg, at as you know of course there was a very vocal minority opposing Thaksin last year (mostly for other reasons than the killings but that doesn’t matter) and I saw this as a very good sign for the progress of democracy in Thailand (until they started to call for an appointed government) but I had the impression that no side wanted the demonstrations: The PAD wanted of course Thaksin and the TRT gone and Thaksin wanted them “to shut up” but also neutral people saw the demonstrations as a threat to some kind of imagined national unity not considering the fact the democracy needs dissent (and the fact that Thaksin tried to silence and intimidate some of his critics shows that he didn’t understood it either).
  You say:”The coup leaders have stated their reasons..”, but I say that the world has never seen military who states that they staged a coup because they were a powerhungry bunch of guys – they will always mention noble motifs. For me the start of the constitutional process and the – I would call it – “blame and hide” tactic (accusation in the media but no legal action) concerning the previous government shows that the military/royalists surely want a bigger piece of the pie (although I think you are right that it is unlikely that they will stick to power directly).
  The idea of a philosopher-king as outlined in “Πολιτεία” sure has its charm – especially for people with philosophical education who can imagine themselves destined to rule – but I think this is an idea which might have worked 360 BC in the small state of Athens but not in todays globalized world in a country as large and as diversified as Thailand.
  Concerning the self interest reasons to vote I want to repeat once more that this is not about money (at least not always) you could – for example – vote for a party who plans to distribute some of the countries wealth among the poor because you might think that otherwise the rifts in society might lead to revolution – so you vote for less money in your pocket (assuming that you are not among the coutries poor) but for long term stability. If everyone votes in his own best interest even corrupt politicians shouldn’t have a chance in long term because if they try to fill their own pockets, the pockets of their cronies and please the majority of the voters they will do serious and visible harm to the economy and/or a very large minority of people and so they will be voted out when their missmanagement becomes obvious (but I live now in a country where politicians have to resign when they use their frequent-flyer-miles for private purpose so I might be too optimistic). To summarise my thoughts on the election-process I see no alternative to voting in self-interest.

Leave a Comment