Here is the paper presented by Chairat Charoensin-o-larn of Thammasat University at the Thailand Update held at the ANU late last month [chairat-2007.pdf]. I think it is a balanced and nuanced account of Thai politics since the coup. Here is an extract from the conclusion:
Politics will only become stable when the political system can accommodate all the important social forces within it. Reconciliatory politics and military coups work against each other. Coups represent the exclusion technique of governance rather than inclusion. The junta will definitely try to isolate the former TRT groups either by forging an alliance with the former opposition parties led by the Democrats or by arranging a realignment of political groups into a new party as an alternative to both the Democrat-led and the former TRT-led parties. The strategies of fragmentation and isolation at best will push the former TRT group into the opposition camp after the general election and at worst will intensify the great political divide in Thai society.
Despite the impact on the changing contours of the Thai political map, the historic verdict of the dissolution of the TRT party and other measures taken by the junta to clean up “bad” politics have left open several spaces for future debates. The end of the TRT party is in no way a guarantee of the Democrats’ rise to power. Neither does it mean a better future for the country and for democracy. People’s high expectations of the coup and the new election will be met with frustration. With the approval of the junta-supported constitution in the referendum on August 19, we can expect a return of the military and the big bureaucrats to the Thai political scene.
The security state and the bureaucratic polity will reemerge on the Thai political map in the forms of coalition government, appointed senators, committee members of independent organizations, and the controversial internal security bill. Elections will not solve the problems the nation faces; they will only serve to convince the world community that Thailand has, once again, a democratic form of government. Unless Thailand is able to design a system of institutionalized conflict management such as a strong and respected parliamentary system that is capable of converting “antagonism” into “agonism,” then the future prospects for democracy in Thailand is still in doubt.
6 responses so far ↓
1 Vichai N // Sep 15, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Is Thailand really capable of achieving a “strong and respected parliamentary system”? That had been the ideal from the start but with the disgraceful profiles of Thailand ‘representatives of the people’, the members of Thai parliament, getting there may be two or three decades ahead.
But in the meantime? Could strengthening Thailand’s political party and election funding rules help in reducing the influence of ‘big money’ politics, or the rise of deeply flawed manipulative big-pocket politicians like Thaksin? And how in the hell to arrest the culture of vote-buying and vote-selling that undermine the very spirit of democracy and encourage the rise to power of thug-politicians like Newin, Snoh and many others?
Rule one is to ensure no one, Prime Minister of King, will be above Thailand’s constitutional rule of law but who will enforce Rule one?
And at this crucial moment in Thailand’s political development, when the unifying or calming influence of HMK Bhumibhol would inevitably soon be absent considering his advanced age (and the Crown Prince should he assume the throne will bring more distress than calm to Thailand’s troubled political waters), will the Thai people allow its Kingdom to degenerate into a political morass similar to the Philippines for lack of collective purpose and collective will?
I am afraid our elected and non-elected leaders have failed us since democracy day-one and Thailand should be prepared for rise of demagogue and charlatan politicians . . . a Thai Chavez or even a Thai Mugabe with their open-ended promises to the Thai poor (almost like Thaksin) . . .
2 Restorationist // Sep 15, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Vichai N asks: Is Thailand really capable of achieving a “strong and respected parliamentary system”? Yes, it is. But it requires the reigning in of the military and the palace first, bringing them under real constitutional controls. Because these two groups interfere in the writing of constitutions, parliamentary systems are always hamstrung. Look at the new constitution. It is bound to lead to “elected and non-elected leaders” (odd term, because it means all leaders…. In the case of the new constitution, the appointed senators) failing again. They have to fail as the constitution demands weak, coalition government with the military and the palace lurking in the shadows.
3 serf // Sep 16, 2007 at 3:18 am
As the barge slowly sinks, will the common man be allowed to come to the rescue?
I’ve started this comment about ten times. Each time it goes nowhere. We are all completely hamstrung! I sometimes think I don’t want to hang around and watch the inevitable catastrophe. We shouldn’t have to sit around and watch an accident that even one of us mere underlings could have the power to prevent. No wonder people decide to emigrate! Who can really blame them for wanting to go somewhere where their word will count for something, however minor!
4 James Haughton // Sep 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Vichai raises some good points here about the corruptive influence of money politics.
It’s worth remembering that the democratic systems of most western countries were plagued by corruption, vote buying, pork barrel politics, etcetera for most of their history (and some still are); reform tends to be a gradual process as electorates become more educated, and anti-corruption measures often work better from the bottom up than the top down, which I take to be the process indicated by the Transparency International figures previously discussed.
5 jeru // Sep 17, 2007 at 7:36 pm
What’s that again James H: ” anti-corruption measures often work better from the bottom up than the top down”? Why bottom up than top down? That I would like to get more elaboration from James H.
Because common sense suggest anti-corruption that proceeds from top down demonstrates both strong will and good prioritizing . . . with rule of law to be seen as undiscriminating with no one above, and punishing those found to have abused the highest/higher elected/appointed office then working down seems the best way to do it. When it is seen that those holding the highest office carries no ‘immunity’ from prosecution or arrest or jail term for abuses, minor graft below would significantly diminish because it can no longer be said that it is “the Thai way of getting things done”.
6 James Haughton // Sep 18, 2007 at 3:41 pm
It would be nice if anti-corruption could proceed from the top down. The problem is that anti-corruption agencies in developing (and many developed) countries are usually demoralised, starved of funds, marginalised, etc by the governments they are supposed to monitor. Going straight to the top is more likely to result in the agency or those within it being punished than effective change occurring.
The practice in development circles these days is to strengthen anti-corruption watchdogs to go after the little fish first. This creates a success record which generates internal morale, experience, favourable publicity and support (at least in public) from the politicians as well as the general public. The watchdogs can then start working their way up the food chain.
The idea is similar to New York’s “zero tolerance” policy that some credit for the reduction in major crime. This is also known as the “broken window” effect; criminals who see that minor crimes (eg breaking a window) go unpunished and unfixed are emboldened to commit bigger crimes. Broken windows, while minor in themselves, send a message that a state of lawlessness prevails.
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.