Yesterday’s presentation of the new Thai government’s policy agenda has set off a new round of name-calling about so-called “populist” policies. This is to be expected from the usual suspects in the media and the Bangkok elite.
But is it too much to hope that, this time around, academics and other public policy commentators might hold off on their pre-programmed anti-populist stance and actually engage in some meaningful analysis of the implementation and impacts of these policies?
“Populist” is an easy term to bandy about, but serious assessment of government policies requires solid leg work. Are Thailand’s intellectuals up to the task?
14 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Feb 19, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Where can we find “serious” research in the social sciences in Thailand?
2 Scott // Feb 19, 2008 at 2:43 pm
What are populist policies? Frankly, Samak could learn a thing or two about appealing to voters by the use of populist policies by listening to Obama, Clinton and Edwards in the USA.
3 jonfernquest // Feb 19, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“…academics and other public policy commentators might hold off on their pre-programmed anti-populist stance and actually engage in some meaningful analysis of the implementation and impacts of these policies?”
Sinking their fangs in at this early stage is a bit premature. IMHO
Worldwide academics who get their act together and become public intellectual blogging academics are slated to usurp part of the domain of journalists, the op-ed section of newspapers, and the more op-edish parts of the business section, for instance. And also radio and tv. Brad De Long, professor of economics at UC Berkeley has already done this and this blog has done this on certain topics.
“Academic blogging” should be considered “being a public intellectual in my discipline.”
An essential sharing of one’s expertise with the outside world.
I’m afraid only the whip of management types will get it to happen though.
4 Viroj NaRanong // Feb 19, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Before finishing “eye, ear, (and then) leg work” on the new government’s policies, may I request a privilege on saying something based on what I learn in the past?
If I may borrow jonfernquest’s comment on “A Wake-up Call” post:
“If the intellectuals with their disdain for populism, soaps, sleaze, and low standards, weren’t there, they would have to be invented, or the system would slip down a rat hole”,
and if “low standard” is a real important issue, it looks like most part of the system has already there in that rat hole.
After we have heard a lot of those in academia’s laments on populism, I was very surprised to learn that many (if not most) Thai intellectuals(?) who criticize populism equate the term with “popular(ity).” They think that populist policies are merely “policies that people like (hence ประชา (subj) นิยม (v)).” (Maybe if we ask them about the meaning of “socialism” and “capitalism,” we might be given similar answers.) It is plausible that after some of these people simply learned of the term via newspaper and heard such a P-word over the wine, they are able to come out in herd to give public outcry on the matter.
One thing that I can agree with Walden Bello is that Thaksin is not qualified as a true/real populist. (For that matter, some NM readers might recall that I denied credit of inventing the terms “royal populism”–which, in my opinion, is clearly an oxymoron.)
As I recall, while Thaksin and Co. seemed to be proud with the term “Thaksinomics,” they never admit or label their policies with “populism” during their two terms.
It has been interesting to note that, after populism had been bashed for a long time, the last election witnessed at least a few parties willingly associate the term with their campaigns.
5 Grasshopper // Feb 19, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Surely your loaded question can be resolved by remembering Thai humidity. If you bring Thai academics to the ANU, of course they will be up for it. With Canberra temperatures, unbiased thinking is much more feasible. Also, the cold nights will give the academics the opportunity to pursue an avenue of cruelty against dear R9(R9R9R9R9 etc) through existentialist critiques of ‘love’, HAH!
6 jonfernquest // Feb 20, 2008 at 5:12 pm
1. Things are way more complex than partisan politics makes them out to be, therefore…
2. Any research or investigative journalism that shows how “populist” programme funds are used and what benefits come from them, is surely necessary for meaningful debate…if this info is not available, both positive and negative, then garbage in, garbage out, as computer programmers say…too often an issue gets its 15 seconds of media coverage one day as breaking news, only to be forgotten about, anyone who can describe the economics of Thailand’s agricultural commodity markets, for instance, surely deserves a prize, but…
3. Supachai’s right. The coup was a blessing in disguise.
7 Observer // Feb 20, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Supachai is an absolute idiot. A military coup throws out an elected government, tries to cement its illegitimate hold on power, trashes the constitution, rigs the political system and practically wrecks the economy and that is good because it saves us from having poor people be less poor?
Seems like he thinks the country is better dead than capitalist. Tell that to Vietnam and China. Luckily democracy will save Thailand from rich pretentious elite fools like him. No wonder he and the democrats have given up on elections, any Tuk Tuk driver can see right through this self-serving drivel
And the only fact he cites in his moronic rant is wrong. Public debt burdens went down under Thaksin.
8 Young Thai Blood // Feb 24, 2008 at 10:11 pm
It is a little bit too fast for someone who is not Thai and comment on Thai issue. Populist list policies is one of the most needed policies in Thailand at the moment.
9 nganadeeleg // Feb 25, 2008 at 9:19 am
….engage in some meaningful analysis of the implementation and impacts of these policies
Please start with the new War on Drugs “populist” policy.
I look forward to AW’s (and the other PPP cheerleaders) take on recent events, and wonder if they are still going to blame those Bangkok elites and the ‘invisible hand’ for everything?
10 Pro-PPP? // Feb 27, 2008 at 7:52 am
nganadeeleg seems to be reading another blog. There’s plenty of criticism of PPP here.
And yes, the Bangkok elite continues to deserve criticism for supporting and manufacturing a military coup and a constitution that demands coalition government and continued corruption in politics. They are to blame. But that doesn’t make Samak and PPP a party of angels. PPP is the Frankenstein creation of an elite strategy that failed. The outcome is likely to be increasingly awful. But maybe that is what the elite wants?
They haven’t given up trying to manipulate events and outcomes. It seems clear that there are elite manipulators who believe that by helping to make the PPP look really, really bad and by nibbling away at their numbers in parliament that the outcome might be a coalition led by Democrats.
The elite seems prepared to take the long road home, but certainly not the high road.
11 nganadeeleg // Feb 27, 2008 at 9:21 am
Pro-PPP: Come on, please spell out just who is manipulating Samak, Chalerm, Jakrapob et al, to make them look bad?
On the other matter, yes there is (justified) criticism of PPP here, but AW seems a little reluctant to comment on PPP, whereas I seem to recall he was not so hesitant when it came to the ‘Old Ginger’ cabinet and the ‘Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party’.
I concede that both AW & Republican have commented on Samak’s Oct 6 lies, although I must have missed their commentary on other recent events such as Samak on Tak Bai, Samak & Chalerm on W-O-D, Jakrapob’s media interference, Sunai’s transfer etc
12 Teth // Feb 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm
nganadeeleg, you are quite right in criticizing them for that. A simple comment and it becomes “Democrat-except-when-we-cannot-win-an-election-and-then-a-coup-is-ok Party”. Such criticism is perfectly warranted, but why is the threshold for the Dems so much lower than for Samak, who had to blatantly lie?
We should at least come up with a scathing, original nickname for Samak.
A part of me, though, understands AW’s stance somewhat. Thai politics is not polarized in the pro-Thaksin/anti-Thaksin axis, but also on the royalist/Republican axis and sometimes choosing to be one nudges you to choose being pro-Thaksin because you hope in the back of your mind that we’ll get rid of one entrenched tyrant first, then we’ll get rid of the other less entrenched one. Sort of the side effect of the silence around monarchy, really. Things in Thai politics are (have to be?) done in a roundabout, obtuse, and ends-justify-the-means way and those cheering on the sidelines will hope along the same ends-justify-the-means lines.
Just thinking out loud.
13 Teth // Feb 27, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Just to clarify: I am not pro-Thaksin. I consider myself a neutral with regards to the Thaksin debate. The third paragraph in the comment above is just simply my thoughts about what might be going on in the head of someone like AW.
14 nganadeeleg // Feb 28, 2008 at 9:33 am
Teth: I can understand that viewpoint, but I take a different view based on the relative ages of the tyrants.
Nature will take care of one in the foreseeable future, and then change will be inevitable.
I am not so sure of how to get rid of the other tyrant.
I wish we could believe him when he says things like this:
Meanwhile, Thaksin yesterday vowed to steer clear of politics. He said he would “never, ever again” enter politics.
“I’ve had enough,” he told Thai Public Broadcasting Service television while at a Hong Kong shopping mall.
Looks like the ‘invisible hand’ will be around for a few more decades yat.
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.