Earlier today I presented my paper on the “rural constitution” to a seminar in the Political Science Faculty at Chulalongkorn University (thanks to MAIDS for hosting the seminar). The reception was friendly. It was good to see Ji Ungpakorn there and I appreciated his comments about the complexity of political patronage in rural areas. Supporters of Thailand’s coup have been quick to disparage patronage system without understanding the social and cultural complexity of patron client relations and their embeddedness in local systems of political evaluation.
I was asked to comment on local people’s reaction to the argument that Thaksin had behaved inappropriately towards the king. I answered that among the many criticisms that local people expressed about Thaksin and his government this is not one that I had heard. Nor was there any sense in which those who did strongly support Thaksin saw this as representing a lack of loyalty to the monarch. “Thaksin versus the king” may be a conveniently simple catch cry for those committed to discrediting his government, but it is not one that had much resonance in the rural area of Thailand where I worked.
There was a reporter from The Nation there, so it will be interesting to see if the “rural constitution” finds it’s way into newsprint. It would be a nice contribution to The Nation’s fearless defense of the democratic rights of rural people!
Some colleagues here in Thailand are preparing a Thai language summary of my paper. When this is ready I will post it to New Mandala.
27 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // May 19, 2007 at 1:39 am
It is interesting, though surprising, to learn that Ji has become well-versed in the complexities of rural Thailand. Another expert had this to say on the subject: “The rural poor vote to repay the patronage they receive…We cannot allow the patronage culture to remain the way it is, but it cannot be changed without altering the production mode. Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture” (Borwornsak Uwanno, as quoted from a dinner talk by The Nation, May 17, 2007:3A).
2 Tosakan // May 19, 2007 at 2:22 am
Interesting that you said there was a reporter from The Nation at your seminar.
Did the reporter ask you any questions?
I assuming s/he didn’t, which wouldn’t surprise me.
3 Sawarin // May 19, 2007 at 4:47 am
Borwornsak Uwanno– I assume that’s your sarcasm, right Srithanonchai?
4 Jon Fernquest // May 19, 2007 at 11:30 am
IMHO there should be more coverage of this sort of event in academia in the newspapers.
I wanted to go but I was slow in getting my work done which oddly was about a Thai economist associated with ANU who won a prestigious economics award this week: Dr. Archanun Kophaiboon of Thammasat University.
It’s great that Thailand has a full diversity of intellectuals, including Marxists. Even if one is skeptical of Marxism, Marxism by now is part of Thailand’s heritage. Many of the people in jungles during the 1970s now occupy places in society, sometimes important, and there ’s always the Carabao literature tradition, little shrines full or memorabilia, old photos, and torn Jit Phumisak books from the 1970s. I surreptitiously purchased some interesting stuff from one of these stands during the annual festival at Chiang Rai’s old airport this year (while the neighbor who was selling sticky buns across the way looked on a little disapprovingly, or maybe that was my imagination).
5 patiwat // May 19, 2007 at 4:59 pm
I believe Bawornsak is exaggerating the extent of rural poverty. Thailand has had single digit poverty since the Thaksin era. Sure, Thailand still has many “poor”, but relatively few don’t have enough food to eat.
6 Ji Ungpakorn // May 19, 2007 at 7:17 pm
I have written a short article in Thai based on your paper which we shall publish in the July edition of “Turn Left”. People need to read about your research.
7 Srithanonchai // May 19, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Sawarin: You are right. It is amazing what kind of clichees are held by the Bangkok academic and technocratic elite. One could shrug one’s shoulders, but these people are influential and base part of their actions on such nonsense. They seem to know so little about their own country.
Patiwat rightly points to the low poverty rate Thailand has, although this has little to do with Thaksin but has been a broader trend starting in the mid 80ties. Simply speaking, if vote buying was a matter of sufficient food or poverty, there would be hardly any vote buying in Thailand.
Moreover, similar acts employed by the bureaucracy are never looked critically upon. Paying villagers to turn up to greet PM Surayud or granting a travel allowance of 100 baht plus snacks or lunch for people recruited by the bureaucracy to attend public hearings on the draft constitution are done matter-of-factly. No talk of “participation buying.”
8 fall // May 20, 2007 at 12:52 am
“Only when people have enough to eat can we inculcate people with democratic culture”
After people have enough to eat, it would change to “Only when people have enough education…”. After that to “Only when people have enough experience…money, achievement, title…”, on and on until it end up with elitist group and totalitarian system where (supposedly) one best man rule.
Democracy was meant as a way to fulfil the need of the mass. If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food. That simple. Democracy itself is patronage system. I think Bawornsak himself need to be inculcate with democratic culture.
9 jeru // May 20, 2007 at 2:31 am
“If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food.” – Fall
Politicians are allowed to PROMISE in a democracy Fall, but NOT bribe or buy votes.
10 Amateur // May 20, 2007 at 8:54 am
Has anyone ever mentioned how villagers fall into debts thanks to the village funding scheme introduced by Thaksin?
11 somsak jeamteerasakul // May 20, 2007 at 11:54 am
Re: Khun Aldrew
“It was good to see Ji Ungpakorn there and I appreciated his comments about the complexity of political patronage in rural areas. Supporters of Thailand’s coup have been quick to disparage patronage system without understanding the social and cultural complexity of patron client relations and their embeddedness in local systems of political evaluation.”
just for the record, may I repeat here what I said at the seminar regarding Jai’s comments.
It’s good to hear Jai criticizing those academics and ngos who refused to accept the decision of the rural people. Yet Jai was among those, I called “2 Nos” (2 ไม่เอา) activists, who AS SOON AS the majority of the people (largely in the rural areas) elected Thaksin, came out and shouted “Thaksin Get Out!” It made no sense then to say (as Jai and people like Nidhi, Thaongchai, etc did) that “I am for an Elected PM, againt a King-selected PM” but at the same supported the campaign to oust the newly elected Thaksin.
12 fall // May 20, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Vote buying is an inherent problem in all kind of government and in all level, not just in democracy. Well, except one that does not have voting.
The problem of vote buying is not that the poor sell their vote. It is that the vote buyer can check whether the poor did vote according to what they sell. If an election is to be held and vote counting/result is complete anonymous. The people would be free to vote who they want.
(From my understanding) It also base on fundamental concept that people would eventually increase their “demand level”.
What’s the different between a “promise” and a “bribe”? A promise can be broken, but a bribe is out right there. It’s just a game theory: if all politician make false promise and deliver only bribe; the people “demand level” never increase. But in order for democratic election system to result in efficient leader, a “promise” must be kept and successfully “deliver”. The next contestant, thus, have to “promise” and “deliver” even greater things.
The problem is elected senator usually does not “deliver” on their “promise”. If only there are to be a campagin on track record of each contestant “promise” and “delivering” rate.
Hence, “If these people need food, they will elect PM that promise food.” At the next election, once people are fed, they would increase their demand and the PM will have to promise that.
13 Srithanonchai // May 21, 2007 at 1:41 am
Again, it is not primarily “the poor” who sell their votes. If one sticks to this cliche, one will never understand the phenomenon. Also, the candidates would be happy not to buy votes and save their campaign expenses. But many voters want money for their votes, even if the candidate is the one they actually want. If one asks voters why there is vote buying, they tell you things like “It is a custom,” “We have come to be used to it,” “Thais have hearts for hire” (this is a very profound statement), or they just find it funny that they got a few hundred baht without actually thinking much about it. I mean, if a canvasser turns up with the money in the village and starts distributing it, few villagers would probably not like to participate.
14 Vichai N // May 21, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I have said this once and I have said it twice. So I’ll say it a third time.
Thailand should lock up people who sell their votes. Selling votes is criminal. If it is not that clear, then the new constitution should include one special article on this subject, saying IT IS CRIMINAL TO SELL YOUR VOTE.
I have no sympathy for people who sell their votes. They should be locked up along with Thaksin who buys their votes.
15 Srithanonchai // May 21, 2007 at 7:31 pm
It is not Thaksin who buys votes. It is the candidates in the provinces who operate within their own informal networks. Just as with locking up vote buyers, the locking up of vote sellers faces exactly the same problem, which is the lack of evidence. Of course, there are also more complicated problems. As an investigation officer of a provincial election commission told me after the 2005 election: “How can we expect the police to help us in gathering evidence of vote buying when they themselves help with the distribution of the vote buying money?”
16 fall // May 21, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Vichai –
Criminally penalize vote selling is not a bad idea.
But it would be impractical, if not impossible.
Putting aside the problem of proving vote being sold per person. How does a policeman expect to catch people in a village while the person who buy vote win the election and, hence, power over the local police? Not to mention directly cutting the income stream of the kam-nan and canvasser. That righteous police will “disappear” in no time.
It is kind of like punishing a drug user. That kind of law would only instill fear in citizen, not order. May be need a little detail improvement?
17 patiwat // May 22, 2007 at 4:28 am
Vichai, that’s a stunning idea! Why haven’t our corrupt uneducated legislators thought about it before?
(scratches his head and looks over previous election laws)
Actually, somebody has thought about it before….
18 polo // May 22, 2007 at 11:19 am
Somsak: i don’t see at all how you can include Thongchai is the “2 nos” group. He is among the very few who have been absolutely consistent.
19 somsak jeamteerasakul // May 23, 2007 at 11:20 am
Re: polo
“Somsak: i don’t see at all how you can include Thongchai is the “2 nos” group. He is among the very few who have been absolutely consistent.”
“consistent” with what?
In fact, Thongchai IS a leading proponent – if not THE leading one – of this position. “No to Thaksin, No to King-selected PM”. (The NoVote campsign which, in my view, played a crucial role in creating a situation of impasse was arguably influenced in large part by his suggestion early in the crises.) See even his article after the coup published in the Fa Diew Kan collection
20 Srithanonchai // May 23, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The NoVote campaign, in my assessment, had very little impact on the voters, certainly up-country. They voted NoVote, because they were dissatisfied with the entire situation and because they had no other choice, when they did not want to vote for Thaksin. Why should a supporter should have voted for TRT? For this reason, one even can’t say that the NoVotes were “protest votes.”
21 somsak jeamteerasakul // May 23, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Re: Srithanonchai
“The NoVote campaign, in my assessment, had very little impact on the voters, certainly up-country.”
Sorry, perhaps in should say “in Bangkok” (if I remember correctly the NoVote in BKK equalled or surpassed the number of TRT vote.
Also it played a crucial in the internal debates in the PAD and the student movement. (recently the Student Federation’s Secretary General at the time gave an interview in which she revealed some debates between her and Sondhi, et al over this issue.)
In short, the NoVote was the major concrete proposal of the “2 Nos” position.
22 Srithanonchai // May 23, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Somsak:
All right. I think it is, as you do, important to distinguish the “internal” debates of PAD, students, or whoever from the effects in the environment of such organizations. Often, they are rather self-centered, while outsiders hardly even know them and their discourses. Even in Bangkok, the NoVote campaign was only one element in the total public discourse, and it is not easy to determine how much incluence all the different elements had on the voters.
Where has the interview that you mention been published?
23 somsak jeamteerasakul // May 25, 2007 at 4:44 pm
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/page2.php?mod=mod_ptcms&ContentID=8141&SystemModuleKey=HilightNews&System_Session_Language=Thai
“มีการคุยกันในที่ประชุมของพันธมิตรฯ มาโดยตลอดว่าจะไม่มีการขอนายกฯพระราชทาน แต่การปราศรัยบนเวทีกลับมีการพูดเรื่องนี้ขึ้นมา โดยไม่มีใครรู้ล่วงหน้ามาก่อน ตอนนั้นหลายส่วนก็อยากจะถอนตัว แต่บทเรียนจากเหตุการณ์พฤษภา ทำให้หลายคนวิเคราะห์ว่าอาจเป็นความตั้งใจของใครบางคนที่พยายามจะดีดให้พวกเราออกไปจากขบวนพันธมิตรฯ เพื่อที่เขาจะได้นำพามวลชนเอง หลายคนก็ปรึกษาหารือกันจนได้ข้อสรุปว่าจะต้องอยู่ต่อไปเพื่อที่จะเสนอความคิดเห็นได้บ้าง อย่างน้อยก็ขัดขาไม่ให้เกิดความเสียหาย” กชวรรณ ชัยบุตร อดีตเลขาฯ สนนท.ในตอนนั้น เล่าความในใจส่วนหนึ่งให้ฟัง
กชวรรณยังเล่าถึงความพยายามของ สนนท.ในการเปิดพื้นที่และเสนอชุดความคิดหนึ่งต่อมวลชนและสังคมในตอนนั้นด้วยการรณรงค์แคมเปญสีชมพู ที่จะรณรงค์ในอีกประเด็นหนึ่งต่างหากจากพันธมิตรฯซึ่งกำลังขอนายกฯพระราชทาน การรณรงค์เรื่อง No vote ในช่วงแรกขัดแย้งกับแกนนำพันธมิตรซึ่งเป็นจุดแตกหักถึงขึ้นห้าม สนนท.ขึ้นเวทีปราศรัย รวมทั้งมีการพยายามทำธงมารณรงค์ แต่ก็ถูกเก็บ ซึ่งในส่วนภายใน สนนท.เอง เธอก็ยอมรับว่าก็มีการแตกแยกกันอยู่บ้าง
“หลายคนอาจมองว่าเราเออออกับพันธมิตร หรืออยากที่จะอยู่บนหน้าหนังสือพิมพ์ อยากขึ้นเวที แต่สิ่งนั้นคือสิ่งที่คนภายนอกคิด และจริงๆมันไม่ใช่ เราก็แตกหักพอสมควร จนถูกรังเกียจจากแกนนำพันธมิตรฯบางคน เราจำเป็นต้องอยู่ และเราก็พยายามทำดีที่สุด ในการหยุดชะลอความรุนแรง ซึ่งคนอื่นอาจมองว่ามันไม่มีผล แต่เรากลับคิดว่ามันมีผลอยู่บ้าง อย่างน้อยที่สุดก็ไม่มีการปิดล้อมทำเนียบ แล้วนำไปสู่การปราบปรามด้วยความรุนแรงอย่างในอดีต ใช่ แม้จะบอกไม่ได้100%ว่าจะมีคนตายหรือไม่ ซึ่งท้ายที่สุดแล้วอาจจะไม่มี แต่อารมณ์และบรรยากาศตอนนั้นมันห้าสิบห้าสิบเลยนะ เราจึงคิดว่าสิ่งที่เราทำไปมันพอจะมีคุณค่าอยู่บ้าง
“อย่างน้อยที่สุดเราได้เคลื่อนไหวต่อสู้ร่วมกับประชาชน และพยายามอย่างที่สุดไม่ให้เกิดการนองเลือดในการเคลื่อนไหวที่บริสุทธิ์ของประชาชน ก็เป็นสิ่งที่เราคิดว่าเราบรรลุภารกิจระดับหนึ่ง” กชวรรณกล่าว”
24 Srithanonchai // May 26, 2007 at 12:11 am
ขอขอบคุณนะครับ
25 New Mandala » The Nation on the rural constitution // May 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm
[...] is the report from The Nation on the seminar I delivered in Bangkok on earlier this month. Rural voters not politically naive, says Aussie [...]
26 Frank Lee // Apr 2, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Re Srithanonchai’s half-truth,
“It’s not Thaksin who buys votes. It’s the candidates in the provinces…”
As widely reported in 2006, Thakin was controlling the Senate by (amongst other means) paying senators 50,000 baht per month to vote as he wished.
There’s the Thai genius for ‘indirect’ methods right there.
Moreover, it seems Mr. Srithanonchai may take after his namesake in the art of clever deception rather more than he would have us realize.
Frank Lee / Bangkok
27 Srithanonchai // Apr 3, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Hi Franky Boy!
Srithanonchai (Mrs.)
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.