Thailand’s military regime is intent on erasing the political legacy of the Thaksin era.
At today’s ANU presentation by political scientist Surin Maisrikrod post-coup politics in Thailand was explored in terms of the “anomalies” of the Thaksin regime. To my count, five main anomalies were identified. (By “anomalies” I presume Surin meant things which set Thaksin’s government apart from previous governments.) First, there was the mythologising hype that Thaksin was a knight on a white horse that had saved the nation from the 1997 crisis and enslavement to institutions such as the IMF. Second, Thaksin fundamentally politicised the rural population. He was the first political leader to seriously pay attention to rural people and attempt to incorporate them into the national political and economic system. This incorporation, through schemes such as OTOP and the village fund, was highly politicised. This politicisation was guided by ex-Communist Party of Thailand figures (”Octoberists”) who had thrown in their lot with Thaksin. Third, Thai Rak Thai was not quite a normal political party but more a cult-like political movement based on unconditional belief in the leader. Its operations were based on populist nationalist sentiment and political chauvinism. This movement bought together a wide group of people in an unprecedented political alliance. Fourth, Thaksin did not pretend to be a democrat and openly adopted an autocratic style. He introduced a system of “winner takes all” one party rule. This is why it is legitimate to refer to his government as a “regime.” Only after the coup did Thaksin start to invoke democratic principles. Fifth, Thaksin surrounded himself with progressive anti-traditionalists. The “Octoberists” had come to realise that a revolution was unviable and sought to implement a revolutionary project by peaceful means.
Surin then went on to address some of the implications of these anomalies for the Thaksin era. Thaksin achieved overwhelming electoral victories but his manipulation of democratic institutions made a mockery of the electoral process. A key consequence of his “winner take all” approach was that political life became deeply polarised with people either with Thaksin or regarded as his enemy. Another feature was an unprecedented level of corruption. The 13 major cases being investigated by the Assets Examination Committee amount to over 300 million baht. Finally there was the view that Thaksin was disloyal to the king.
According to Surin, there have been two primary goals in the post-coup period. First, to dismantle the Thaksin structures and, second, to avoid the pitfalls of the Thaksin period in the future development of Thai democracy. These goals have primarily been achieved via the reassertion of the bureaucratic polity. The drafting of the new constitution provides some useful insights into the directions of post-coup politics. Various provisions represent an attempt to constrain state power, to reduce the power of political parties, and to increase the power of bureacrats and the judiciary. The other key initiative is the dissolution of the Thai Rak Thai party by the Constitutional Tribunal. Surin suggested that the dissolution of the party itself was less significant than the fact that it closed off a future legislative path for Thaksin supporters to pass an amnesty that would free him from corruption allegations. These are serious allegations, Surin argued, that could end in prison sentences for Thaksin and some of his colleagues.
Surin concluded his presentation by saying that he intended to make some comments on the role of the monarchy but, unfortunately, time had run out!
Unsurprisingly, questioners took up this issue, inviting him to reflect on the role of the monarch. From my recollection he made two main comments about the monarchy. First, he put the familiar royalist argument that the king has been a stabilising and “self correcting” force in Thai politics. Second, he argued (rather passionately) that foreign scholars were quite wrong (and even neo-colonialist) to argue that Thai scholars did not discuss the role of the monarchy. Surin asserted that this discussion did take place in Thailand though perhaps in rather different terms to the sometimes “arrogant” discussion in the west (typified by Handley’s contribution). Surin suggested that there is a lack of foreign appreciation of the extent to which the king represents a sacred moral force in Thai society.
One audience member took issue with Surin’s depiction of the Thaksin regime’s anomalous position arguing, in particular, that autocratic styles of leadership had predominated in post-1932 Thai politics. This participant also argued that Thaksin was not the first to politicise the rural people, rather this had first been done by the king via his numerous rural development initiatives. What Thaksin had done, according to this participant, was to challenge the king’s rural support base.
During the discussion Surin raised the “what if” prospect of Thaksin having remained in power. He suggested that an extension of the Thaksin regime would have ended in violent confrontation. I asked, as others have on this blog, why the political crisis could not have been resolved by the election scheduled for late 2006. If the prospects for continued Thaksin rule were so bad why wouldn’t the electorate have thrown him out? Somewhat surprisingly, Surin was not willing to answer the question. I also commented that I found the concept of rural politicisation rather patronising. Does anyone ever talk about urban people or academics being politicised?
There were other questions, comments and responses. But I am happy to leave it to other New Mandala readers who were present to add their own comments on the seminar. Apologies if I have misreported or misinterpreted anything that was said!
42 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Jun 7, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“Somewhat surprisingly, Surin was not willing to answer the question.” >> Did he expressly reject to answer your question?
2 patiwat // Jun 8, 2007 at 12:10 am
I find it surprising that despite the many critical comments regarding the other “anomalies”, nobody questioned the claim that Thaksin was disloyal to the King.
In a monarchy (even a democratic constitutional monarchy), disloyalty to the King is either the worst form of slander or, by itself, sufficient reason to remove a government and try it for treason.
Yet smart critical people seem to accept this Finland Plan charge hook, line, and sinker – despite the complete lack of direct evidence or public debate.
3 Republican // Jun 8, 2007 at 3:57 am
I like the hoary old accusation that neo-colonialist Western academics don’t understand or are arrogantly biased against the monarchy. I suggest that Dr. Surin just makes a couple of clicks on his mouse and has a look at some of the Thai political discussion blogs. There he will find a rapidly mushrooming number of republicans and not an insignificant number of Jacobins among them – and people who probably have never even heard of Handley. They are making far more serious accusations than Handley and most other Western academics at this moment, especially about the incident that brought the king to the throne, which Handley brushes over with remarkably little comment. In fact, over all, as I have argued before, I would say that the Western academic establishment in Thai Studies has been every bit as, if not MORE, loyal than their Thai counterparts, but WITHOUT the excuse that the Thai academics have – their Western colleagues do not work under the threat of lese majeste. (Which, by the way, makes the spectacle of Western academics doing “serious” research into the viability of the “sufficiency theory” even more comical).
“Stabilising force”? – well, Stalin, Suharto, Saddam, Mugabe, etc. can all be seen as stabilizing forces. It helps when you have the military, bureaucracy, judiciary under your control, a personality cult promoted by the state, massive financial resources, control of the media and total censorship of any criticism. The point being? “Self-correcting” is also problematic. When things start to go against the monarchy it is true that the king will “correct” the situation, not by himself but with the help of the military, paramilitaries (in the past), and now the judiciary.
The point, as one well-known THAI academic frequently points out, is this: if one is to talk about how the democratically elected Thaksin “manipulated” democratic institutions (through the “politicization” of the rural population – ie. letting them vote for their government), why the silence about how the unelected royalist-bureaucratic network manipulates these institutions, and has done so long before Thaksin? Why the criticism of Thaksin – who CAN be and has been publically criticised (but has been denied the right of reply over the last 9 months) – but the silence vis-a-vis the monarchy, which can’t, by law? And from an academic who does not work in Thailand and so is not bound by lese majeste?
Re. the dissolution of Thai Rak Thai by the Constitutional Tribunal did Surin mention how the decision has made a mockery of the Thai legal system, a story which even Thai Rath carried on its front page today?
4 nganadeeleg // Jun 8, 2007 at 8:54 am
“Thai Rak Thai was not quite a normal political party but more a cult-like political movement based on unconditional belief in the leader. Its operations were based on populist nationalist sentiment and political chauvinism”
Great description – I wonder which of Thaksin’s attributes led to that unconditional belief?
I never had that unconditional belief, but it is my guess that it did not come from his Integrity or Intellect, and was more related to his Wealth with a bit of Arrogance, Greed & Superstition thrown in for good measure.
If the prospects for continued Thaksin rule were so bad why wouldn’t the electorate have thrown him out?
Good question, but it probably says more about the attributes of the electorate, than those of Thaksin.
I cannot say it any better than Charles Frith said over at Bangkok Pundits site:
“And there you have Ladies and Gentleman democracy when its given unreservedly to the masses. Surely there should be some sort of basic exam before voting is given out to people who don’t even understand what the Senate is.
Same applies to Western democracy too. People are tested to drive cars, why not before they vote?“
5 Andrew Walker // Jun 8, 2007 at 9:46 am
Answer to Srithanonchai (comment 1): yes, he explicitely refused to answer the question based, if I heard correctly, on his claim that we were on “different ontological planes.”
6 Andrew Walker // Jun 8, 2007 at 10:28 am
“And there you have Ladies and Gentleman democracy when its given unreservedly to the masses. Surely there should be some sort of basic exam before voting is given out to people who don’t even understand what the Senate is.
Same applies to Western democracy too. People are tested to drive cars, why not before they vote?“
Wouldn’t my New Sakdina system be a whole lot easier?
7 Vichai N // Jun 8, 2007 at 1:40 pm
It is not that the Thai masses are uneducated about what their vote represents. On the contrary the Thai masses had been taught over the years that their vote represent immediate social benefits immediately cashable at every election . . and villagers who won’t go along with the practice are ridiculted or intimidated.
Patronage is a pernicious evil that corrupts and impoverished the very poor being patronized.
Jail those who sell their votes . . . jail the whole vilate and kamnan who perpetuates the vote buying practice! Once these villagers learn that selling vote is a felony, they would learn their lesson that their patrons are in fact criminals to be avoided at all cost.
8 jonfernquest // Jun 8, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for this interesting summary. I would certainly agree with this statement:
“questioners took up this issue, inviting him to reflect on the role of the monarch…Surin asserted that this discussion did take place in Thailand though perhaps in rather different terms to the sometimes ”arrogant” discussion in the west (typified by Handley’s contribution). Surin suggested that there is a lack of foreign appreciation of the extent to which the king represents **a sacred moral force in Thai society**.”
It will be interesting to see an economist enter the ongoing debate evaluate Thaksinomics. One already has:
http://www.readbangkokpost.com/business/shin_sale_and_coup/economic_damage_control_how_to.php
9 Srithanonchai // Jun 8, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Andrew #6: Thanks for this piece of additional information. The fact itself and even more so his reason (if you heard correctly) are truly unbelievable.
10 wordwallah // Jun 9, 2007 at 2:44 am
Just a couple of quick, if likely to result in more heat than light, questions:
How much validity is there in the proposition that the Thaksin regime was more corrupt than past governments in Thailand?
And what is meant by the “more” in this common assertion? It involved more money? It was somehow more illegal? More ethically offensive? More necessary to bring about his ouster?
Have past governments been as carefully scrutinized for corruption either during or following their terms of government, or is this a “first” in Thailand?
11 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 3:13 am
The end of the CNS is coming: It’s very difficult to predict how things are going to play out, and I could well be wrong, but I sense that the CNS is in its last days. Thai Rath has now clearly shifted to a more anti-CNS stance. It ran a sympathetic story on Sudarat today, about how she is being tailed by security. The story was also on the news tonight, one of the first sympathetic stories on a Thai Rak Thai member I think I’ve heard since Sept 19. I think that after the dissolution of the party the Thai Rak Thai voter base is enraged now. Every new attempt by the CNS to destroy the party is throwing fuel on the flames. The CNS has stupidly turned them into martyrs with the Constitutional Tribunal’s decision. The King’s speech the week before the decision supporting the judges may now prove to be a very bad decision tactically. Even the anti-Thaksin academics and NGO networks are also now becoming actively anti-CNS. It is likely that more CNS allies will start to abandon ship before it’s too late. Someone on Prachatai says they have 50 000 people at Sanam Luang now (can anyone confirm that?). Speakers are openly attacking Prem calling for him to be dismissed – the closest thing to a direct attack on the King. Wisa Khanthap is also there. It’s surprising how quickly the anti-CNS campaign has escalated, but also how openly Thai Rak Thai are leading it. PTV announced a couple of days ago that they were going to march on army headquarters on … 24 June! This is the code that they are using and I sense that more and more people are deciphering it. But they may not have to wait until the 24th, things are moving quickly now. The question is, will CNS (or other forces) provoke a confrontation and violence. Very likely I would think, because the CNS and its allies have everything to lose, and because, this is the way it always ends. In which case, what is Thai Rak Thai’s game plan?
12 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 3:27 am
Meanwhile a lot of the mass media is in denial. On tonight’s radio (Or. Sor. Mor. Thor.) program after program about the monarchy. ANU researchers into sufficiency economy will be excited to learn that SE has become famous internationally! It’s official. Apparently it is going to be used as an economic model for developing countries! No doubt the Royal (Thai) Embassies around the world have been very busy. Now there is one institution that is well overdue due for massive reform. No wonder they are so anti-Thaksin.
13 Taxi Driver // Jun 9, 2007 at 8:57 am
I hope that Republican’s #13’s prediction of the coming end of the CNS is correct (sooner rather than later and hopefully without any violence). I too am also beginning to sense a change: up till recently, those who are critical of the CNS are automatically (and unjustly) branded a Thaksinite; now one can criticize the CNS and even the yellowshirts are beginning to nod their heads with you!
14 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 12:44 pm
One of the most interesting developments is the joining of parts of the former anti-Thaksin movement with the anti-CNS push now. Despite their broken hearts with the CNS I think that they remain as anti-Thaksin as ever. But what may be dawning on them is the simple fact that if you are to have “democracy” in Thailand then all groups will have to reckon with the mass support that Thai Rak Thai still enjoys. For the anti-Thaksin hardliners – the PAD especially, but also the Democrats – their problem is how to avoid being tarred for ever with the label of being apologists for royalist-military dictatorship (in my opinion Aphisit is “dead man walking”). A group calling itself the “Artists for Life” recently issued a “thalaengkan” which basically expressed Somsak’s “2 mai ao” position – “No to CNS and No to Thaksin” – and was heavily criticised on Prachatai (which is naturally sympathetic to the AfL. constituency). I wonder how At Carabao will jump; no doubt many people remember his “Thahan Phra Racha” song.
Another of the very interesting aspects to this latest “anti-dictatorship” movement is that as far as I can see (tell me if I’m wrong), in the pro-democracy, anti-dictatorship discourse of the protesters the monarchy is absent. No pictures of the King and Queen to demonstrate loyalty. And oblique references to the monarchy, eg. the abuse hurled at Prem, are clearly representing the monarchy as an anti-democratic force.
Yes, how to avoid bloodshed in the political transition that has to come is the most difficult problem. But when it’s a question of survival “those behind” the CNS have always demanded their blood sacrifice.
15 nganadeeleg // Jun 9, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Wouldn’t my New Sakdina system be a whole lot easier?
Andrew, that’s more complex than necessary.
No need for university education – all that is required is some basic education about voting responsibilities to make it clear that the old practices of Vote buying, Corruption & Superstition belong in the past, and are not the way for the country to move forward.
Alternatively, the politicians could just be bypassed, and fortune tellers elected instead.
16 Srithanonchai // Jun 9, 2007 at 3:03 pm
“Thai Rath has now clearly shifted to a more anti-CNS stance.” >> If this is the case, it would be interesting indeed. I sensed that Thaksin would have a difficult time when Thai Rath slowly started to turn against him in its commentaries.
17 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I”m trying to guess Thai Rak Thai’s game plan. Pure speculation, but other people on this blog may be able to help correct me if I’m wrong. Or add bits that I’ve overlooked.
As I’ve said all along, the most powerful political weapon that the anti-Thaksin forces have had on their side is lese majeste. The problem that Thaksin has had all along has been that he has not been able to reveal publicly the extent to which the monarchy (in McCargo’s “network monarchy” sense) has been intervening in, obstructing, and manipulating the political process. Because if he were to come out and say so he would (and indeed has been) accused of lese majeste. This must have been the source of great frustration for him. I sensed that with the “phu mi barami nok ratthathamanun” speech before the coup, which did in fact scare many people who might otherwise have supported Thai Rak Thai. So the problem for Thaksin was, how to communicate to his mass support base that the monarchy was initially obstructing and now actively working to destroy Thai Rak Thai, without alienating this mass base which is loyal to the throne – but only as a result of the propaganda and indoctrination that all Thais go through, and NOT out of a rational calculation of self-interest. So if you look at the hi-thaksin website it all looks very loyal to the monarchy, but in the Thai way, the reality is the opposite (note my Rule # 2 of Thai politics, the name and the thing – or representation and reality – are never the same).
This is the communication problem that Thaksin had, which has been a severe handicap in the political struggle with the monarchy since late 2005, and which the anti-Thaksin movement exploited to the full. (Those who deserve the greatest censure are the anti-“rabob Thaksin” academics like Kasien et al, who, as Somsak has often pointed out, day in and day out hypocritically attacked Thaksin, who could not defend himself in public without committing lese majeste, but who were silent on the monarchy’s political manipulations. In effect they are responsible for doing the “discursive groundwork” that made the September 19 coup acceptable to the Bangkok middle-upper class, the media, even international observers – witness the spectacle of Thai Studies Centres around the world falling over themselves to invite Sondhi Limthongkul and other apologists to “explain” the coup. SOAS is still doing it 9 months later!)
The way I think Thaksin has tried to solve this problem has been to “lure the tiger out of its lair”. That is, to draw the King out in public as much as possible (through the media propaganda, as well as personal interventions) in a way in which he is forced to associate himself with the CNS, which at first appeared as a saviour to the middle class, but which now looks like a very incompetent, rather ridiculous looking – though still dangerous – military dictatorship). The result has been exactly what Thaksin wanted: for the masses to see that the King is not only taking sides with the CNS, but is actively intervening to help destroy Thai Rak Thai. The coup de grace was the King’s 24 May speech to the judges. For the King it must have been a gamble, but one that has terribly backfired, because it has shown in public that the King supports the CNS dictatorship’s attempt to “execute” Thai Rak Thai. There will be huge political ramifications to the monarchy for this misjudgment. Meanwhile, Thaksin continues to demonstrate his formalistic loyalty to the throne.
18 James Haughton // Jun 9, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Re 12: Agree with you 100% wordwallah, but there were so many things to dispute in what he said, and most of us were more interested in trying to pin him down about the monarchy than disputing his other claims.
19 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Reply to Srithanonchai: right. I think that Thai Rath is smart in its ability to smell the political wind and know when to jump. Thai Rath is an interesting case, because a large section of its “natural market” would be Thai Rak Thai voters, so the decision to go along with the coup must have been a difficult one – although made easier by the coup’s branding with the name of “he who can not be mentioned”. Matichon also looks like it is shifting. (They ran a very interesting cover on their weekly magazine with a picture of the King giving his 24 May speech. But the interesting thing about the picture was that it was framed by a television set – all you semiologists out there could interpret that in a number of ways, but I would think one of the meanings is that if the King wanted to give some “advice” (555) to the judges, then he hardly needs to appear on television). If this is right and Matichon is shifting then they will take a significant section of the middle class and “intellectuals” with them, important when push comes to shove.
But Manager is a different story. They will fight to the death. The Dao Siam of the 21st century. (Perhaps SOAS can invite Sondhi back for a repeat lecture to explain his commitment to democracy – there should be no problem organizing a budget for the trip). As for The Nation, does anyone read it anymore?
20 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Back to the question how to avoid bloodshed – THE most important problem now.
More speculation. It seems to me that what the anti-CNS movement must do, and Thai Rak Thai as well, because the movement is effectively being led by Thai Rak Thai (but in the Thai way), is to make sure that if there is any violence it is very clear to everyone that the monarchy is directly implicated through its support for the CNS, the coup that brought it to power, and the attempt to destroy Thai Rak Thai. Because in the 21st century (as opposed to 1976), if the monarchy, through its association with the CNS, were clearly and directly implicated in a massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators (many of them Thai Rak Thai supporters), then that would mean the end forever of the monarchy’s political role – if not necessarily the end of the monarchy as an institution. I wonder whether this is the message that is being sent to the Palace. Then again, this would only work if the Palace people act rationally in the interests of their own self-preservation, which we know is not always the case, especially for certain rogue elements.
The goal for Thai Rak Thai, and anyone who wants an efficient working liberal democracy in Thailand, is the permanent neutralization of the monarchy – which certainly doesn’t foreclude its transformation into a true Constitutional Monarchy. But this will take much work and superior political skills.
21 jeru // Jun 9, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Republican have you started writing a new movie script about Thai Rak Thai party and its battle with the Thai monarch?
Republican you do carry a lot of fantasy in your head. First you had your grudge against the Thai monarchy and their speeding motorade because a Thai policeman won’t dare give HMK or The Prince a speeding ticket . Now you are trying to rabble rouse the Thai Rak Thai party (certainly a party of thugs if we can recall Newin leading his TRT paid goons besieging Nation and Manager headquarters) to a bloody insurrection!
Republican you just as mad as your Khmer voodoo worshipping idol Thaksin!!
22 jeru // Jun 9, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Thaksin’s anomalies are not ‘erased’. How can that be? Thaksin’s anomalies, if examined a little bit more closely, were in fact felonies.
(a) The election fraud by top TRT executives was a serious feloniy. And I hear the Election Commission will in fact start criminal proceedings against a few TRT executives, Thaksin certainly included, soon.
(b) The tax evasion by the Shinawatra clan is also a felony. Thaksin being the head of the clan, and the tax evasion happening conveniently during his rule allowing him to influence Thailand’s Revenue Department Chief, should make for a strong case to criminally charge Thaksin for employing his office to carry out the tax cheating.
(c) The extrajudicial rampage of the village police hicks during the anti-yaa baa of 2002-05, with Thaksin doing the directing and goading and the rewarding, that led to thousands needlessly slaughtered must be a felony!
(d) The Rajadisek land scandal imbroiling both wife Potjaman and Thaksin into some criminal liability is also a felony.
(e) Some corruption scandals may later on find its way into Thaksin’s or Potjaman’s doorsteps.
Thaksin’s anomalies are not erasable. But those anomalies could earn Thaksin a lot of jail time.
23 Republican // Jun 9, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Add a footnote to para 2, #20. On hi-thaksin you can download two mobile phone ring tones, “khor mor chor ork pai!” and “song phra jaroen” (so everyone on NM can be happy). Interestingly ICT has just lifted their blocks of pro-Thaksin websites.
24 nganadeeleg // Jun 10, 2007 at 9:01 am
To summarise Republican’s posts: The Finland Plan is alive and kicking.
25 Pragmatist // Jun 10, 2007 at 3:08 pm
to Republican:
You write about Thaksin being stymied by the monarch and his network intefering in the political system. It has long been accepted by most Thais, if not by you, that the monarch has some legitimate spheres of influence – the military and the judiciary being chief among them, even according to Handley. Please note that according to the 1997 constitution the commander in chief of the armed forces is the monarch, not the prime minister.
Thaksin, in his ego-driven, winner-take-all style, clearly was trying wrest these institutions from the influence of the monarch. The rural masses did not elect him to do that. Nor were they very aware – thanks to government control of the media – of the tensions and conflicts over Thaksin’s attempts to do this. It is highly unlikely they would have supported his agenda.
Furthermore, while you excuse Thaksin’s misdeeds on the grounds that he was being interfered with, you cut the monarchy, the military and the judiciary no slack in defending their turf when they were being interfered with – unconstitutionally by Thaksin. A relative of Thaksin who was a high-ranking official at the Justice Ministry did visit the judge presiding of the Shin Corp case against media activist Supinya Klangnarong to pressure him to find in favor of Shin. Yet I don’t see you complaining about Thaksin interfering with the judiciary. And the monarch telling the judiciary to do its job and apply the law is not the same as him instructing them what decisions to make. He did say “political parties must exist” in his address to the judges. You are also ignoring the fact that TRT clearly and repeatedly broke the law.
In his five years in office, Thaksin was blatantly anti-democratic and corrupt. It seems, however, that in your virulent anti-monarchist stance that you are willing to accept his dictatorial program because he was willing to challenge the monarchy. It’s okay if he’s a dictator because he’s “your dictator.”
Never mind what’s good for the country.
I think the fact that you are making insinuations about the death of King Ananda betrays a severe intellectual bias. Wow. Some people never let the B.S. rest, even after 60 years.
26 Republican // Jun 10, 2007 at 4:58 pm
On the “Octoberists” and Thai Rak Thai: There has been a lot of analysis (before the coup, as well as after) about the significance of the “Octoberists” in the Thai Rak Thai party (Pansak, Jaturon, Sutham, etc.), and this comes out in the report on Surin’s ANU presentation. The suggestion is that the “leftists” / communists are using Thai Rak Thai to implement their socialist agenda. But as we all know, many, if not most of the October generation, and those sympathetic to its ideals (especially the academics, NGOs), joined the movement to oust Thaksin, even if many of them were under the influence of the “song mai ao” ideology. (We could call this group the “orangists”: reds mixed with yellow). Apart from their royalist-nationalist ideology the orangists are also animated by a strong anti-capitalist, anti-globalization sentiment, expressed in terms of a rejection of “Thaksinomics” and a disgust at businessmen and politicians, especially those with a business background. This anti-capitalist sentiment of the orangists was later exploited by the King with his sufficiency economy “theory”.
This “split” in the October generation has also been discussed in Fa Dio Kan and elsewhere.
The funny thing is, much of what Thai Rak Thai has done to date (within the constraints of the political realities) has demonstrated it to be animated NOT by communist ideology but by liberalism and populist nationalism with a welfare safety net (even though like all parties it is a mixture of ideologies, private interests, egos, alliances of convenience, etc.): emphasis on elections for political legitimacy, reform of the state bureaucracy, the privatization of state enterprises, free trade agreements and regional economic integration, as well as the 30 baht health scheme, village development funds, “eua athorn” projects, etc.
So, mutatis mutandis, not unlike the successful formula of New Labour.
If there is an example of a living communist ideology in Thailand, surely it is to be found not in Thai Rak Thai but in the ratchakan state, which shares many of the classic characteristics of a Communist Party: unelected, unaccountable, inefficient, illiberal, hierarchical, anti-capitalist, and fearful of the outside world. The kharatchakan are like Communist Party members: privileged for life, see themselves as an ideologically pure class above the masses, dependent on the state and the Party Leader. The Party Leader (for life) is the King, surrounded by a state promoted personality cult of the same order as that of Mao or Kim Il Sung. As in Mao’s “little red book”, the sayings of the King are promoted as official political morality. Sufficiency economy is the anti-capitalist economic dogma. The discourse of “khon di” is similar to that of Soviet or Maoist campaigns eulogizing those who hold up the ideals of communist orthodoxy – in the Thai case the loyal kharatchakan. The ratchakan discourse of “democracy” is comparable to the “democratic centralism” of Leninist states – which explains the inability of kharatchakans to understand the fundamentals of liberal democracy, especially the legitimacy of elections. (This also explains how both the ratchakan state and the Thai Rak Thai- anti-CNS movement can both mobilize the discourse of “democracy”, when the substance is quite different). Like the Communist Party ideologists, the ratchakan state’s propagandists (academics, media commentators) think “for the People”, because the People are insufficiently ideologically sound and so can not be trusted to think for themselves.
So if we regard the ratchakan state as in fact, a quasi-communist state, we can better understand the horror of the kharatchakans and their allies at Thaksin. His liberal nationalism, empowered by a mass party, threatens not only the existence of the ratchakan state and its ideology, but also its feudal head.
27 James Haughton // Jun 11, 2007 at 12:23 am
To Republican re 29: got any english language sources on the split in the Octoberists?
28 Republican // Jun 11, 2007 at 2:48 am
Reply to James H.: not that I know of. But Michael Nelson has just published the first article (a working paper) in English that I am aware of that raises the problem that the anti-Thaksin movement posed for academics, intellectuals and activists supposedly committed to “democratic” ideals, in which he refers to the political positions of numerous “Octoberists”: “‘People’s Sector Politics’ (Kanmueang Phak Prachachon) in Thailand: Problems of Democracy in Ousting Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra” (Working Paper Series No. 87, Southeast Asia Research Centre, City University of Hong Kong, May 2007).
To my knowledge the attack by a number of Thai academics on anti-Thaksin “Octoberists” on websites like Midnight University and Fa Dio Kan dates back as far as early 2006 – soon after the King’s Dec 4 2005 speech which gave the green light to the anti-Thaksin movement. The attack is continuing and I would argue stronger than it was 18 months ago. The key figure is Somsak Jeamthirasakul.
29 Republican // Jun 11, 2007 at 3:34 am
In a dictatorship, because of the curtailment of free speech a great deal of communication among dissenters takes place by means of “reading between the lines”, oblique reference, metaphor, and the use of certain symbols understood by both parties whose implied meaning can easily be denied when required. For example, fans of the old Midnight University webboard would be familiar with the “Lord of the Rings” version of Thai politics. It doesn’t take too much imagination to guess who Sauron was, where Mordor is located, why Sauron and his Nazguls wanted the ring of power (”one ring to rule them all and in the darkness bind them”), and why the hobbit had to destroy the ring (with Gandalf’s help) in order to end Sauron’s power, even though Frodo was himself deeply held in the ring’s power. In politics, gollums come in useful sometimes.
The problem of course is that one can never be sure whether one has read too much into what appears to be a symbolic communication, and the possibility for miscommunication is high. At other times, however, the meaning is crystal clear. Like the timing of the protesters’ planned “big march” on Army Headquarters on 24 June – the day of the overthrow of the absolute monarchy in 1932.
I just heard about another interesting symbolic reference in relation to the rally at Sanam Luang. Am I reading too much into this? Usually when rallies are held at Sanam Luang the stage is set up at the Pin Klao bridge end of Sanam Luang, facing the Grand Palace, so that the speaker’s backs are effectively facing away from the Democracy monument further up Ratchadamnoen Road, and towards the Grand Palace. I understand that last night the protest organizers at Sanam Luang set up the stage at the other end of Sanam Luang, so that the speakers had their backs to the Grand Palace, and were facing more in the direction of the Democracy Monument. Significant?
30 Voice // Jun 11, 2007 at 5:53 am
It’s rumor about Monarchy had conflict with Thaksin or not loyal to the King, in our country , Thais would like to gossip about their monarchy , so, the gang which behind the scene of these political crisis have known this loophole and used it to discredit to Thaksin , they have been tried to instigate since the first term of Thaksin ’s gov.
31 Lleij Samuel Schwartz // Jun 11, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Re: 32…
It’s not just with the dissenters that one has to read between the lines. In the past year, Thai political analysis has grown to resemble Kremlinology. This is in addition to the “Chakriology,” analyists of the extremely opqaue palace must engage in when considering the role of the monarchy.
32 Republican // Jun 11, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Kremlinology, yes, that is actually a good comparison. The problem is, unlike for the Soviet Union during the Cold War, there are few Western scholar-analysts of Thailand who are trained in Chakriology. Most of them seem to become seduced by the pomp and ceremony of the Palace, or even worse, by “Thai culture”, ie. feudalism.
33 nganadeeleg // Jun 11, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“Most of them seem to become seduced by the pomp and ceremony of the Palace, or even worse, by “Thai culture”, ie. feudalism
They seem less dangerous to me than those that are seduced by Thaksin.
34 anonymous // Jun 12, 2007 at 12:59 pm
wordwallah, according to the World Bank and Transparency International, Thailand improved substantially in its ability to combat corruption under Thaksin. None of Thaksin’s cabinet ministers were ever convicted, and parliamentary no-confidenece debates never revealed any substantial evidence of wrong doing. Post-coup prosecuters have struggled to find wronged parties for their kangaroo cases.
35 ThaiBloke // Jun 23, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I think the comparison between the palace and a quasi-communist state is very relevant. Control of the masses, servitude to a central knowledge base, media control, patronage over ability, party loyalty, the list goes on.
I believe that the ‘elite’ do not believe themselves to be quasi communist, in that they may feel that they bring genuine benefit to the poor. That is the problem, one can very rarely see what one has become when one has been in control so long.
36 Vichai N // Jun 23, 2007 at 10:18 pm
“That is the problem, one can very rarely see what one has become when one has been in control so long.” – ThBloke
Actually one 4-year term (which certainly is not “so long” is it?) and power begins to intoxicate any self-respecting megalomaniac. Megalomaniacs are dangerous . . . they gall the masses with false promises, they extra-judicially kill, they steal big, they divide the country and to further add insult to the grievous injury they cause, they cheat big on taxes too. Reminds us Thaksin Shinawatra doesn’t it?
It is not fair to put quasi-communists as royalist inspired, or, vice-versa. Royalists and communists are opposing forces by nature.
But control of the masses had always been THE objective, by communists, royalists, democrats, republicans, leftists, centrists and rightists. At least that is what I learned from my elementary grade teacher.
37 ThaiBloke // Jun 24, 2007 at 4:30 pm
To give it a name is rather irrelevant to be honest.
That is only if one believes that there is pure hearted communist left in the world.
If history has shown anything, communism is the removal of individual rights with subjugation to a single central ideology without the right of protest? Then what is going on in Thailand right now is not that far away.
I am not defending Taksin, rather worrying about the situation whereby a given political party can be removed and another seemingly ordained for election without any consideration for the electorate.
38 Vichai N. // Jun 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Maybe ThaiBloke you should have reminded that particular Thai Party to observe strictly the election rules. They KNEW, every single Thai Rak Thai Party executive KNEW, that the party was committing a serious election law crime by bribing the small parties in that Apr06 failed election. But not one single Thai Rak Thai Party executive made a fuss! Not One!
Any Thai political that is no more than a grovelling butler service to the Shinawatras do not deserve to be called political, or a party, even! IThai Rak Thai #$#@$ is a maid service for chrissake!
39 Vichai N. // Jun 24, 2007 at 10:40 pm
ThaiBloke – Any Thai political party that is no more than a fawning butler service to the Shinawatras do not deserve to be called political, or a party, even! IThai Rak Thai #$#@$ is a maid service for chrissake! (correction)
40 anon // Jun 25, 2007 at 3:46 am
Vichai, get into politics then! Because every single party in Thailand cloned Thaksin’s populist policies in the 2005 and October 2006 election campaigns.
Thailand needs a new choice: Vichai’s Anti-Thaksin Voodoo-Buster Party!
41 ThaiBloke // Jun 26, 2007 at 1:42 am
How about we ask all political parties to strictly adhere to the rules?
I have seen it first hand up country. They are all as bad as each other. How on earth would you describe any party headed by the dinosaurs Banharn, Chavalit or Sanan?
They may have sold their soul to Taksin, but in their time they have sold their soul to everyone simply to get into the goverment of the day. The difference was that when they followed Taksin he delivered them a landslide. He delievered the local politicians a iron clad chance to rip off everyone. What he expected in return was iron clad loyalty which lasted as he was in power.
I dare any local MP to stand up in Thailand and say what his principles really are other than making sure that he and his friend’s businesses get the biggest piece of the pie afterwards.
The system is still sick whether Taksin is there or not.
42 Vichai N // Jun 26, 2007 at 1:55 am
Glad we are in agreement Anon that Thaksin’s politics and disbanded political party was mainly voodoo.
Populist policies . . good programs even as ‘campaigned’ or even carried out would still demand LEADERS OF INTEGRITY to be credible. When we have a criminal gang of sort, operating like a mafia to carry out unprecedented massive blatant corruption, and evading taxes to boot, plus extrajudicial killings and mismanagement of the explosive Southern unrest, those TRT policies will appear to be merely voodoo sleight-of-hand tricks, to hide the criminal looting being carried out by Thaksin’s very corrupt gang of TRT corrupts.
With Anon, Patiwat, BangkokPundit, Republican, Tosakan and many similarly inclined rooting still for a totally discredited ThaiRakThai party, despite all the revelations, what would I gain from Thai politics? I heard those 14 million TRT members still pine for their Beloved Leader (don’t they?) despite everything! That is not encouraging . . . that’s too much voodoo for me, no thank you!
I’ll be content with my infrequent forays into New Mandala to reveal liars and deceivers, paid for by Thaksin.
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.