Many commentators have suggested that the Samak government’s proposal for a referendum to resolve the current political crisis is a stunt.
Of course it is.
What comes of the stunt remains to be seen. The referendum questions need to be clarified. The constitutional implications need to be explored. A legal framework needs to be developed. And a general willingness to participate in the conduct of the referendum needs to be cultivated. Samak may find that some of these barriers are insurmountable.
But to dismiss the proposed referendum because it is a political stunt would be to miss the point. This is the season for stunts in Thai politics. The PAD are stunt masters. Samak is playing along.
The beauty of Samak’s stunt is that it speaks to the core truth that lies at the heart of the current political crisis: the PAD’s low level of popular support. Samak’s referendum proposal highlights the very limited popular foundations on which the PAD campaign is built.
Whatever happens with the referendum – or even with Samak himself – this core truth means that the PAD cannot succeed in their current attempt to reshape Thai politics. Despite the many political difficulties it has experienced, Thailand has moved too far along the democratic path to revert to a system where governments are appointed rather than elected. The PAD’s “new” politics was still-born.
So can the PAD, in any form, play a part in Thailand’s political future?
Of course it can.
But it will need to move out of the euphoric bubble of protest and engage in a longer term campaign of cultivating electoral support. PAD boasts about its NGO, union and academic networks. These could provide a starting point for a campaign of recruitment, political persuasion and broad-based mobilisation. Genuine alliances need to be built with existing political parties. Perhaps even a new political party could be formed. Policies need to be proposed. Political slogans need to be fine-tuned. The anti-corruption message needs to be forged into a coherent platform.
In order to achieve any success in this longer term campaign, the PAD needs to abandon one of its defining characteristics: its contempt for the electorate and its rejection of electoral judgement. Insisting that the electorate is incapable of making informed political decisions may win the PAD some short term tactical victories. Making exaggerated claims about rampant vote buying may help to tarnish some of Samak’s electoral legitimacy. Alleging that rural voters are easily swayed to do the government’s bidding may, in some quarters, help to discredit Samak’s proposal for a referendum. But if the People’s Alliance for Democracy wants to develop into a credible political force, sooner or later it will have to engage with the people and their genuine electoral aspirations.
It remains to be seen if it can do so.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Sep 9, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Sounds all quite nice, except that you are asking the PAD to act contrary to its raison d’etre, and its core strategies. They have already rejected all suggestions about entering the parliamentary mainstream (although, of course, they can change their minds), because they think that it is rotten to the core (they have waited since the early 1990s that change would come about by regular means). That’s why they have targeted the very top of the political system and systematically built up their bargaining power. The PAD has come to the point where they hold all the trump cards in their hands–a huge amount of political capital for negotiations. The PAD has taken great risks, and spent huge amount of money, to get into this position. Why then should they leave the scene empty-handed?
2 ratisee rumruay // Sep 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jumlong would do a lot more good applying his vast experience in government service to more constructive purposes, instead of rendering disservice to the country.
3 Observer // Sep 9, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Change did come about in 1997 in the form of a popular and progressive constitution that handed power from an unelected elite to the people. In practice it seemed to have some minor flaws that could have been adjusted, but the PAD and their supporters haven’t once pursued the “fix it” route, instead opting for “throw it out”.
It seems clear that their strategy has resulted in three more lost years for the people of Thailand. Nothing the PAD or their ex-junta allies has dome in any small way has addressed the core issues they claim to be obsessed with.
Thailand has weak institutions and poor law enforcement. A group of elite tearing down institutions and breaking laws hardly seems like a cure.
4 JA // Sep 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm
In the opinion of this non-expert, I think the last two paragraphs are spot on – couldn’t agree more.
Two anecdotes:
One of my in-laws is the hua kenang for his village in the Northeast, so there is vote buying – apparently the going rate is 300 baht per head. I asked him over the weekend, if there was no money involved who would he and most of the village vote for? Without question, the TRT/PPP because not only did they promise improvements for the viallges in his area, they followed through on their promises. The money might be a little incentive to go to the polls, but most would vote PPP anyway. He calls the Democrat party the ‘No Party’ because of what he sees as their contrarian attitude towards all that the PPP/TRT wants to accomplish.
On the other side, my neighbor is a supporter of the PAD and consistently votes Democrat. He is frustrated that the the people in the North and Northeast aren’t ‘educated’ enough to understand how the current government is hurting the country.
Say what you will about the rural poor, but they are not stupid. I think they understand the realities of Thai politics but it’s an abstraction, the corruption doesn’t really impact their daily lives. They are willing to overlook a lot, as along as they believe that their interests are being looked after. What my neighbor and others of similar mindsets are missing is that it’s not enough to ‘educate’ the poor as to the evils of the PPP, they have to convince people outside of Bangkok, through their actions and policy proposals, that their side is good for not only the well being of the country, but for the people as well.
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.