In recent times there has been a lot of discussion of the “populist” nature of the Thaksin’s government’s policies. Yesterday I came across this description of the main elements of “populism.” It comes from Kevin Hewison’s account of localism in Reforming Thai Politics (edited by Duncan McCargo). Hewison is drawing on the work of Kitching in Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspective. According to Kitching’s analysis the key elements of populism are:
1. a reverence for tradition;
2. a preference for organic models;
3. a conservatism where change is seen to derive from the inner growth of community institutions and practices;
4. the past is seen as a ‘golden era’, with modernization having diluted the idyllic village and its traditions;
5. agricultural development is privileged;
6. if industrialisation is even considered, then it must be labour intensive;
7. justice, equity and equality are considered central aspects of society; and
8. outsiders are seen as exploiters, and urban-based exploiters are held responsible for removing the rural surplus.
Doesn’t sound too much like Thaksinomics to me. In fact the economic approaches promoted by other charismatic figures seems much closer to this populist vision.
5 responses so far ↓
1 Peasant // Feb 16, 2007 at 3:01 pm
You’re right in ascribing these characteristics to the CNS, the Interim Government and the Monarch. But to say it doesn’t sound like Thaksinomics is a bit of an overstatement. Essentially, you are saying that Thaksin didn’t fulfill condition 6. He would certainly pay lip-service to the other 7, even if he had no real belief in most of them. Indeed, I half suspect that Thaksin is going to tell us sometime soon that he is also an SE supporter. He claims to be a Monarchist, so that would be the ultimate way of expressing his support for that institution. But of course he will find a way to pledge his allegience that will subvert the junta. Thaksinomics is a bit of a mirage anyway. Like the politicians who preceded him, Thaksin makes it up as he goes along and has no real allegience to anything other than to himself. The fact that SE is no better has not escaped me.
2 patiwat // Feb 16, 2007 at 8:10 pm
That’s populism? It sounds more like self-sufficiency. Or maybe Kevin Hewison was basing that on an interview with with Somkid Jatusripitak
Populism, to me, is more about:
– upward mobility for the lower classes,
– access to credit (and a certain faith that people can responsibly manage it),
– local access to health-clinics (and not just big hospitals in big cities),
– local access to high-quality schools (and not just elite schools in urban areas),
– local access to adult education,
– faith in local elections (and no poll taxes),
– local roads and infrastructure
– cheap energy (since the poor spend a greater percentage of their income on energy than the rich)
– land reform and income redistribution
These have been the central tenets of populism since the days of Huey Long.
3 hpboothe // Feb 17, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Mr Walker – are you seriously suggesting a “checklist” for determining whether a policy or government is “populist”? Oh dear, where to even begin…
“Populism” simply means rule by the people (latin: populus=people); that’s it. It’s not inherently liberal nor conservative, but it calls for direct appeal to masses rather than any smaller body of elites. The more a system appeals to masses, the more populist it is.
“Elements of populism” can be derived from two directions – first, by looking at elements that are more prevalent in populist systems than non-populist systems; or by looking a distribution of specific elements across populist systems themselves. However, to use these elements to define and identify populism would be tautological and incorrect. Rather, whether a system is populist or not must be defined by it’s appeal to the people, and then the other elements examined to see whether it fits the general definition or is an aberrant case.
Most modern systems of government have populist elements to them – it’s hard to find many governments which have NO appeal to their populations. Similarly, most governments and systems also have implicit recognition that pure populism must be tempered – for example any representative system is somewhat anti-populist since it establishes an elite rather than relying on constant referenda. Civil and human rights can also be anti-populist in that they establish lines which popular sentiment cannot cross – while ironically laying the foundation for populism.
The terms is used with a misleading negative connotation in the Thai discourse and that’s a shame. An honest discussion would look at the benefits and problems inherent in policies and governments, not try to describe them with a word that no one understands in order to manipulate opinion. It’s far more useful to look at whether loans made to villages are being spent on productive enterprise rather than just label them “populist” and therefore undoubtedly bad.
Best regards,
HP Boothe
4 anon // Feb 17, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Populism is to Self-sufficiency what Capitalism is to Christianity.
Pretty much irrelevant….
They aren’t opposites – the two are just totally unrelated.
5 Historicus // Mar 3, 2007 at 2:25 am
The context of the Hewison list is: “To begin this assessment [of localism], attention will be given to the populism of the localism discourse. Despite being a most imprecise term in the social sciences, populism has been a major theme of development theory and practice (Kitching, 1982).”
So this discussion is of localism with a populist bent, not of the use of the term to describe Thaksin’s policies and political populism.
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.