In his closing comments on the Critical Transitions in the Mekong conference, longstanding Mekong commentator Phil Hirsch expressed some surprise that one of the most critical transitions had received very little attention at all. He noted that there was only one paper (mine) that addressed the issue of Thailand’s recent transition to military rule. And, what’s more, the topic of the coup seemed to emerge infrequently in the ongoing conference corridor chat. Very puzzling, especially at a conference with such a strong “rights-based” agenda. Despite all the very legitimate talk of the importance of participation and the need to open up public spaces for marginalised people in the region, the abrogation of electoral rights seems to have had limited impact on academic blood pressure.
For those interested, here is the introduction to my paper on “Beyond the rural betrayal: lessons from the Thaksin era for the Mekong region.” I will post a full copy of the paper in a few days (once I have tidied up a couple of rather rough sections).
When I prepared the title and the abstract for this paper in mid-September last year I had no idea that, within days, the three-time elected Thaksin government would be overthrown by a military coup. This coup was very unfortunate for democracy in Thailand but it was rather more fortunate for my paper as the coup, and the reaction to it, underlined many of the points I was planning to make about what I call “the rural betrayal.” This paper is an extension of my previous work in which 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. Here I will suggest that these activist perspectives—given a recent boost by the military regime’s enthusiastic promotion of the royalist sufficiency economy approach—provide a poor basis for defending the economic and political rights of rural people in and elsewhere in the Mekong region. I propose that the key lesson from the Thaksin and post-Thaksin era is that many common approaches to rural politics, society and economy in the region need to be rethought.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Republican // Feb 1, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I would say this is indicative of two things: (i) the problem that most people have of criticizing the coup and the regime too strongly or openly, particularly in academic forums, given the support it has been given by the monarchy (the problem of lese majeste, once again); and (ii) the betrayal of the Thai electorate by the majority of Thai social science academics, whose support for the anti-Thaksin movement last year demonstrates their preference for a royalist-military dictatorship over an elected government. A Thai university seminar is not the place to expect a liberal critique of Thai politics. What you can expect to see are rantings and ravings about the evils of capitalism, Western culture, expessions of loyalty to the monarchy, and of course, deep concern for the plight of the poor rural folk. Just don’t expect these academics to argue that the poor rural folk’s right to elect their own representatives should be respected. After all, that would put these academics out of a job – the job they have given themselves of speaking for the poor!
2 Taxi Driver // Feb 1, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Andrew…maybe you didn’t notice that all the other conference participants were wearing yellow!
3 Srithanonchai // Feb 1, 2007 at 5:29 pm
One of the problems with “Mekong region/countries” ist that they are very different in political terms. Sometimes, this leads to funny situations, for example when training courses for people from these countries are offered. Imagine a course for higher-level civil servants who spend four weeks on being familiarized with “public sector reform.” Given the great political-administrative differences of these countries, this sort of thing can only mean very different things to people from Burma, Laos, Vietnam, China, Cambodia, and Thailand. What will participants from the first three countries think when you explain the approach of “democratic decentralization” to them by using Thailand as an example?
4 Diego // Feb 1, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Or i would add to Taxi Driver, an orange wrist band from Siam Commercial Bank….
5 Tosakan // Feb 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Andrew-
I think this is an important blog post.
Why is there a such limited paradigm when it comes to discussing development issues, especially in Thailand?
Why is there no “criticism” in Thailand?
Why are the political parameters of development talk decided by an out of touch elite that has no commitment to democracy and stifled by political taboo and/or forced to adopt Royalist or feudal socialist trends in its research?
Why do Western scholars kow tow to the whims of Thais and sacrifice their academic integrity in order to get along?
In terms of research, academic freedom and a commitment to liberal values, Thailand seems like a backwater. I can see how the Thais tolerate this, because it protects them professionally and politically, but Western/other Asian academics have no reasonable excuse to cave to the bullshit
6 polo // Feb 2, 2007 at 3:18 am
You wroter: “the abrogation of electoral rights seems to have had limited impact on academic blood pressure.”
I don’t think this should be surprising nor offensive: it is a recognition that, far from being out of the ordinary, the most recent coup was one of many that make up the pattern in Thai politics and was not substantially different from previous ones in motivation and intent.
If people at a conference on the Mekong do not treat it as an extraordinary event changing the pattern of life in Thailand, that is perhaps because it is not an extraordinary change.
I would go further to argue that, even when not holding power directly, the Thai military has a dominant role in Mekong-related policies, a role far more impactful that popular movements.
If that is true, then, what has changed? What need one talk about? Is the Thai policy environment not consistent?
7 New Mandala » Lessons from the Thaksin era // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:21 pm
[...] is a copy of the paper I presented at last week’s conference on Critical Transitions in the Mekong Region: Beyond the rural betrayal: lessons from the Thaksin era for the Mekong [...]
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.