New Mandala

3 responses so far ↓

• 1 Srithanonchai // Oct 10, 2008 at 10:36 pm

  One of the most disturbing elements of the processes surrounding the PAD is that so many members of the Bangkok academic and journalistic elite seem to have been intellectually overpowered, and lost their political-moral compass. It seems that, beneath a superficially stated support for democracy there is, first, nothing much else, and, second, as strictly elitist worldview. In practical terms, this has virtually closed the public space to views not in favor of the PAD, as far as print media are concerned (very similar, or even worse, than what happaned in 2006). It has also strongly impacted on what can safely be discussed in interpersonal communications at the workplace and amongst friends. As a result, the dominant opinion has become even stronger, while minority views (that might in fact well represent the majority) have become weaker.

  This situation helps to underline that Thailand has all along been an oligarchy rather than a polyarchic democracy. However, this is news only to those who had thought that, over the past two decades, Thailand had been “rapidly democratizing.”

  From 2-3 December, the faculty of political science of Chulalongkorn University will host a congress on “Political Science and Thai Democratization.” Scheduled speakers will be, amongst others, Larry Diamond (democracy promoter) and Chai-anand Samudavanija (PAD promoter). It should be interesting to see what they will have to tell each other on democracy in general, and Thai democracy in particular. 20 years ago, Diamond had published a book chapter by Chai-anand about Thailand as a “stable Semi-Democracy.” Now, Chai-anand demands that Thailand must return to the state of semi-democracy.

• 2 Ed Norton // Oct 11, 2008 at 2:11 am

  Dr Connors has long argued that Connors keeps arguing that there is a strong liberal trend in Thailand, notably a royalist liberalism – represented by the venerable Prawase and ever unelected Anand. I have always sort of hoped that he was right, but tended to think that the stronger political trend was a conservatism that is highly authoritarian was stronger. I am wondering what Dr Connors thinks now.

  I know Prawase came out a couple of weeks ago and was pretty much ignored when he suggested a path away from the current situation. Given that many of those who previously “heard” Prawase and other royal liberals are now with PAD, what happens next to Thai liberalism if democracy is immolated?

  I wonder what the odds are for fascism? Economic downturn worldwide followed by a rise in authoritarian models as “liberalism has failed?”

• 3 R. N. England // Oct 11, 2008 at 4:20 pm

  These are bleak views so far. Allow me to suggest something more optimistic.
  Anupong is holding out against another coup, and has rebuked Chavalit for suggesting one. Is Anupong out of line with army politics or is he just trying to keep his seat on the lurching bull? If he does represent some kind of consensus of army opinion, that opinion may be slowly swinging towards the elected government and away from the glowering queen, and her thugs and screaming hags in the streets. In the end, the army may draw the line at Thaksin, but be prepared to support a low-key, conciliatory elected government that allows it a substantial budget. Democracy depends completely on the army supporting the elected government as a matter of principle. Once that happens, the judges and all the other cowardly authoritarians will fall meekly into line.

Leave a Comment