New Mandala

13 responses so far ↓

• 1 Thai TV // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:06 pm

  Chang Noi is goddamright!

  Hope others will understand the wisdom of his words!

• 2 nganadeeleg // Sep 1, 2008 at 7:49 pm

  Firstly, please forgive me for hogging the blog with so many posts of late, but I’m getting bored with this hobby and have decided to go out with a flourish.

  I normally like Chang Noi, but I am compelled to comment on the following statement:

  “The bleating about vote-buying and patronage politics is simply an attempt to undermine electoral democracy because it seems to be working”

  If manipulation of the institutions & bureauracy by whomever is in power at any point in time is electoral democracy working, then I would hate to see what it’s like when it’s failing!

  Rather than disenfranchise Thailand’s rural masses, I would much prefer for them to become a force for the elimination of corruption in politics by demanding integrity from their political candidates & withholding their vote if they do not demonstrate it.
  (and by integrity I do not just mean sticking to their pork barrelling word!)

  In electoral democracy the real power lies with the masses – I disagree with Chang Noi that they have used that power wisely!

• 3 fall // Sep 2, 2008 at 12:24 am

  The problem is that they have learnt to use the vote only too well.
  Anyone want to do an academic paper on that?

• 4 Leif Jonsson // Sep 2, 2008 at 6:59 am

  Well, there is no indication that less money is spent on getting votes. After 1992, with vote-buying condemned, the money went instead for fancy advertising, billboards, and the rest. Noticing some of this while upcountry, it seemed a case of Bangkok people paying other (middle+ class) Bangkok people to make the rest of the country vote for certain candidates or parties.
  Clean elections are very much a middle class cultural agenda (among other things). Campaigns against vote-buying “consolidate[d] a conviction among the middle classes that democracy belongs to the middle class, and that the lower classes are incapable of effective participation in a democratic system” (this is from Jim Ockey, 1999:246). There is a long history of exchange-relations as the lubricant and justification for political integration and economic inequality (and exchange is quite central to any social life). There is also a long (Thai, Bangkok) history of discrediting farmers and other lower class Thai people as social actors.

• 5 karmablues // Sep 2, 2008 at 11:45 am

  While I agree with Chang noi’s assertion that the issue of vote-buying has at times been overblown, I am also taken aback by the “[electoral democracy] seems to be working” bit.

  The only explanation for the “seems to be working” comment by Chang noi, would be, that in 2005, Chang noi was listening to Thaksin’s election campaigns, and was cheering away along with other Thaksin supporters in agreement to Thaksin’s own perverted vision of Thai democracy (which Thaksin had in fact already implemented very successfully).

  Baker and Pasuk described it as follows:
  “In his 2005 election speeches, he suggested to his audience that the bundle of liberal democracy – rule of law, freedom of criticism, human rights, oversight by parliamentary opposition, checks and balances on the executive had done little for them in the past, and that making him into a powerful executive would deliver them greater benefit. He described criticism by press or opposition as “destructive”…. In his public criticism of opponents, he focused especially on people associated with Thailand’s history of democratic development (Thirayuth Boonmi) or with the reform pressure of the 1990s (Prawase Wasi, Anand Panyarachun). On several occasions, he encouraged people to draw parallels between himself and authoritarian military leaders in the past, especially Sarit Thanarat, whose memory had become associated with direct and decisive action.”

  It is difficult to deny that democracy had not been seriously sabotaged by Thaksin, but blaming it on voters making the wrong choice is misdirected. I blame it on Thaksin, rather than the voters. People had high hopes for Thaksin when he first came into office and I think many good-willed people in 2001 actually thought that the masses had indeed used their votes wisely. But many would later realize that they were wrong. For example, Sulak Sivaraksa said in 2004:

  “PM Thaksin Shinawatra, whom this writer and other well-meaning members of civil society supported when he first came to office because his policies appeared to be pro-poor, has shown himself to be a conceited, intolerant, dictatorial ruler, who has no respect for democratic values, good governance, or the rule of law. Thaksin lost no time in showing his true colors. He made enemies of anyone with dissenting views, particularly academics, intellectuals, NGOs and civil society.”

• 6 nganadeeleg // Sep 2, 2008 at 1:04 pm

  Karma Blues: Of course Thaksin must take the initial blame, but after his true colors were shown, it was up to the voters to do the weeding out.
  (by my count there have been 3 elections since 2001)

• 7 karmablues // Sep 2, 2008 at 2:01 pm

  nganadeeleg: “after his true colors were shown, it was up to the voters to do the weeding out.”

  remember who was in control of the media during the period? his true colors were not shown to most of the people.

  for just a few examples, see:

  http://www.theasiamediaforum.org/node/415

  http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15547

  http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/24/news/thai.php?page=1

  After all those many years of being fed government propaganda, many people would probably find it difficult to accept that TRT had done many bad things. Probably a similar argument about why a lot of royalists would find it difficult to accept any criticism about the monarchy. Many people genuinely had fallen in love with Thaksin (he was very charismatic and his policies did bring perceived and real benefits) and can’t accept criticism about him. I have seen it happen on many occasions. They get very very angry when people speak negatively about him or TRT. There are many who are not open to debate about whether Thaksin/TRT is good or bad for the country.

• 8 nganadeeleg // Sep 2, 2008 at 5:02 pm

  Karma Blues: OK I accept your point about the prevalence of propaganda (on both sides) and on reflection agree that Thaksin should take much of the blame.

  If only he (or his party) had moderated his worse excesses he would probably still be in power, and the country would not be in the mess it currently is!

• 9 Srithanonchai // Sep 2, 2008 at 7:31 pm

  One thing is certain, Chang Noi has come a long way from being a hard-core supporter of the Jao Pho approach to provincial electoral politics to the “insight” that rural voters are individuals who make rational political decisions when casting their ballots. But, perhaps, this view goes too far into the opposite direction.

• 10 Fonzi // Sep 3, 2008 at 7:02 am

  I think if you asked the average Thai person on the street, rich or poor, educated or uneducated, most if not all would say that there was a massive corruption in the bureaucracy, the police and the political realm. Yes, even those sanctimonious Democrats are corrupt as well.

  I think what separated Thaksin from the rest was that he didn’t treat the poor with contempt. He ate with them, he showered with them, he took the government on the road, he splashed a lot of money around, and he kept his campaign promises.

  This was revolutionary for a Thai politician.

  Those who think they are born to rule– the Democrats, the academics, the media elite, and the high ranking bureaucrats– have a feudal mentality that treats most of the Thai population with contempt. They don’t think they have to do retail politics or serve the general public’s interests. They think giving the little people the time of day is beneath them. The notion that their Isaan maid who is crawling around like a slave at their feet should have an equal political voice makes them want to puke.

  So, if you were part of the hoi polloi, who would you chose: the corrupt elitists who have contempt for you or the corrupt politicians who actually make the effort to address your concerns?

  I’m not saying that Thaksin should get a free pass for his corruption, but the notion that the reason he is only popular because he bought votes is bunk.

  I think Andrew is right. You have to look past the boon koon บุญคุณ obligation of vote-buying and reciprocity and understand that there are more variables at play that are based upon making rational political decisions. Also, it is the height of hypocrisy for the elite to look at the poor villager collecting a couple hundred baht and a box of Fab for a vote when they are the ones who are raking in millions of baht in kickbacks from utilizing their positions of power.

• 11 Srithanonchai // Sep 3, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  The Manager newspaper already has an (implicit) anti-Chang Noi in the edition of September 3. The headline reads “Civil disobedience against political business and pseudo-democracy.” The article confirms the view that voters in up-country towns and rural areas are uneducated and poor, and thus under the influence of powerful figures. Voting depends on money being paid to the voters (ngoen mai ma ka mai pen). Therefore, things such as “coming from elections” and “democracy” really are only about “pseudo-democracy” (and thus don’t need to be accepted).

• 12 matty // Sep 4, 2008 at 1:01 am

  I am not sure how to call it Fonzi – but eating with them, bathing with them, and then corrupting them with straight cash handouts? Eating with them and bathing with them would have been enough to secure Thaksin his votes . . . the cash handouts was to propagate (expand maybe a better term) the culture of vote-buying that Thaksin could certainly afford and the best way for him to be sure (of winning).

  I just won’t buy Chang’s Noi faith that even with blatant and pervasive vote buying going on, those village voters “have learnt to use the vote only too well.” Oh yeah?

  The contrived conclusion from the premise just doesn’t make sense.
  Until somebody can explain this to me well, ‘Rural Constipation’ best describes the village vote-buying politics to me.

• 13 Srithanonchai // Sep 4, 2008 at 6:22 pm

  On the day I placed my previous comment, a PAD leader said that the resignation of Samak would merely be a condition to negotiate the “new politics.” In the Bangkok Post of September 4, there was a long interview with Sondhi, which included statements on “political reform” as envisaged by the PAD. What follows are the relevant parts.

  “And four, a new political order must be set.

  We don’t mind what the proportion will be between elected and appointed representatives (in parliament) as long as the people are allowed a direct role in running the country. Even if it’s 20% direct participation by the people, it is a victory for us (the PAD).

  The proportion is a secondary matter, something tentative. Direct participation will lessen the extra-parliamentary pressure on those running the country. If people are kept out of the equation of power, the pressure bearing down on the administration will be fierce.

  The MPs work for the vested interests of political parties and for personal benefits. In other countries, there are lobbyists who speak for people’s groups to push their MPs and senators to pass laws, but we have no such system to speak of here.

  Thai politics do not represent the diverse needs of the various segments of society. The MPs are no help to their constituents because they answer to the policies handed down by financiers who helped vote them in. The civic sector is also an interest group.

  We’ve never had MPs who are truly representative of the labourers or farmers who make up the majority population. There has been no channel through which these groups could win seats in parliament.

  Who in their right mind would spend some 30 million baht buying votes if they weren’t intent on recouping that investment once elected?

  …

  A: Mr Abhisit would still be a far better choice than the PPP if the House remained intact and the coalition partners switched their support to Mr Abhisit. However, Mr Abhisit must abide by our demands and he must be committed to political reform.

  …

  A 50:50 proposal has come forth. If 480 MPs is just too many, perhaps we could have two MPs for each province or 152 MPs overall. Another 152 MPs could be appointed. To achieve this, we would have to alter the charter.

  ..

  A: Everyone loves our King and despises Mr Samak. No one in the upper strata of society accepts Mr Samak because he is abrasive and rude. Intelligent and well-to-do people, people in the ruling class, doctors, nurses and businessmen and leaders, do not accept Mr Samak. Everyone here at the rally speaks the same language.”

  I don’t think that Sondhi read Chang Noi’s article, and I think he would not care at all. As a letter to the editor (Nation, Sept. 4) bluntly stated, the election was bought by the politicians and thus illegitimate. Therefore, “the people” can topple the government. From this perspective, which includes the PAD, things are really that simple. Facts do not count much. On the other hand, provincial political structures really are not normally accessible to ordinary people, but very exclusionary. Will we see another round of “political reform,” this time not led by Prawase, Anand, or Borwornsak, but by Sondhi and Chamlong? They demand to amend the constitution in a way that abolishes the basic structure of electoral representation as we know it.

Leave a Comment