It is now conventional wisdom to state that PAD protest leaders actually want violence in order to invite a coup against the government – I can see how this might logically flow from their actions, which is to say it is one possible outcome. It can also be deduced from some of Sondhi’s comments. But I am not comfortable with that idea being defined as PAD’s key strategy: it recycles reactionary ideas about the way in which protest is merely the plaything of conspiracy and the cynicism of leaders. Something more fundamental is going on in Thailand right now.
- Extracted from Michael Connors, “PAD and non-violence”, 14 October 2008. This is from an e-mail interview with Christian Science Monitor.
It is, I might add, great that Connors is continuing to put these materials up on his valuable site. They certainly help all of us to better understand the terrain of debate beyond the quick grabs and soundbites that are reproduced in the media.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Oct 17, 2008 at 10:28 pm
It might be helpful to make the usual distinction between tactic and strategy.
2 goodbyedemocracy // Oct 18, 2008 at 10:50 am
Something more fundamental? Lets look as some fundamentals that have led to obfuscation as PAD & the Democrats in tow call for a New Politics:
1. PAD destroyed three important powers: (a.) Judicial power (b.) Administrative power and (c.) Legislative power. I’ll address these separately below:
2. The judicial system has been destroyed & corrupted since the 2006 coup- e.g. evidence that everyone can see is the case of Samak’s cooking show on TV (nothing to do with conflict of interest, but accusations were that he received remuneration for this). On the other hand PAD had seized Gov House, were reluctantly issued with arrest warrants on serious rebellion charges only to be revoked by their mates in the court (see NM article “Whither Thai Democracy”). The two cases are not comparable, but the petty case has been punished severely while the severe one which is dangerous for the integrity of the democratising nation-state saw the PAD thugs immediately released. This should be evidence enough to see the endemic corruption in the Thai court system. Recall earlier red cards issued to PPP MPs while Democrat Party MPs in clear vote buying exercises were ignored.
3. The symbol of destroying administrative power is when PAD invaded national broadcasting TV NBT & tried to seize the Ministry of Finance & Telecom buildings. They then seized Gov house, destroying public property & use the PM’s office for their own meetings and the public hall for their conferences. These are not trifling matters. But, again, they were untouchable and when a pathetic effort to exert law was shown they were shortly afterwards let out of prison.
4. PAD has set up a ruthless core consisting of ex-prisoners, disenchanted ex-soldiers and unemployed Democrat voters mostly bussed in from the south. These guys are not afraid of killing. While many of the pro-Gov supporters (Nor-Por-Chor), most of them older folk, workers and farmers, are still in hospital from severe wounds (from spears, gunshot wounds & etc.). This was never mentioned on the Thai media. Never did the Queen give attention to these victims of democracy. This has profoundly saddened the very heart of devotion to royalty- the countryside.
5. Legislative power abuses: this occurred on 7 October when Somchai’s elected Government was going to declare its policies in the opening of parliament in order for it to be able work and exercise its elected power. PAD knows that the Gov had to declare these policies within 15 days according to the constitution. So their aim was to stop the democratic process and the legitimacy of the Gov. They had a number of pro-junta selected Senators try and disrupt the parliamentary session, while the good old Democrat Party, who should have been exercising their duty of parliament, stayed away.
6. This showed that the Gov had little choice and needed to make a decision for crowd control which led to a tragedy of two deaths & hundreds more injured. PAD turned this event against the Gov in order to attempt a final coup and bring the Gov down. At the same time they did not mention that the PAD mob came with serious weapons (given by whom?), including bombs (found in the car that was bombed by PAD). In fact the car belonged to a PAD leader from Srisaket Province and the person who died was a PAD weapons trainer who is ex-policeman & belonging to the Democrat Party (his younger brother-in-law is a Democrat MP).
If these three institutions mentioned above are destroyed, it does not take much to see the consequences. PAD wants to destroy the very framework of Thai democracy and implant a strategy for its own control through the Democrat Party. The assumption is that the rural masses are not fit to vote. I am surprised that many Political scientists and Political Economists have not been able to separate these issues out for serious consideration. In the 2007 Constitution it is named “Monarchy-Democracy” System (roughly translated). What PAD may be doing, though this is conjecture, is to destroy the democracy link to return power to the monarchy-military through the aristocrats (amaathayathipatai). The king’s power/authority must work through these three institutions mentioned above. PAD are destroying the monarchy, as Thais have lingering uncertainties over the nature of democracy (however defined) since 1932.
Goodbyedemocracy.
3 BkkOptimist // Oct 19, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“if the stalemate continues, it is not impossible to imagine a move against both sides by a draconian faction within the elite who use the vacuum of power to reestablish order and sweep away this conflict. Of course, for that to happen, it won’t be a ’soft’ coup. Alternatively, an elite compromise could be reached which leads to the popular arms of both wings being amputated and a deal done.”
I agree with this outlook by Connors, and I tend towards the latter option as being the “middle of the road” solution that is likely to happen – certainly a better option that Molotov cocktails and tanks in the streets.
@goodbyedemocracy – So Democracy would be a Prime Minister putting forward policies told to him via telephone from London by a fugitive from justice?
Go back to the real fundamentals – Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship. That is what brought the PAD onto the streets – the coup happened when it did because that was the last opportunity to oust him before absolute power would have been obtained.
I am not blind in thinking that one side is totally right and the other totally wrong – the real issue here is that politics in Thailand have been corrupted, as never before, by a man who nearly became the equivalent of Burma’s ruling junta. The issue is not that the PAD thinks that the “rural masses are not fit to vote” – the issue is that the vote of the rural masses was manipulated by an individual who wanted nothing less than to be an outright Dictator, and is still being manipulated to that end.
Do you really think that Thaksin cares a jot for the rural masses? Or Democracy? Please! Thaksin doesn’t want democracy, furthest thing from his mind – what he wants is to rule, absolutely, without having to have his actions held in check by anyone.
4 David Brown // Oct 19, 2008 at 3:11 pm
in public the PAD and its supporters are entirely negative…
we hate this, we hate that, the current government is…. all sorts of terrible things
so, we hear someting about what the PAD does not want
when we ask what the PAD wants we get confuusion
does anyone in the PAD know what they want… who do they want in a government? who do they want to lead the country?
what policies do they want?
do they want an amnesty so none of them will be charged for offences?
do they want the government to give them $1,000,000 each?
do they want a government that operates in secret so they dont have to worry about it?
do they want the Privy Council to rule Thailand?
what, what, what do the PAD want? after getting rid of all the current politicians and everyone else, what do you want?
just tell us, we might want to support you……
5 Ralph Cramden // Oct 20, 2008 at 2:08 am
I am afraid that Connors is confusing for me because he is just not clear in his responses. Something more fundamental is going on. Okay, but what? I don’t see it in Dr. Connors’ interview. I agree with Connors that Chamlong cannot be considered a puppet master, so is Connors suggesting a deeper social conflict? Others have made this point, at least since the coup, but what about spelling it out?
Why does this response appear to deny that PAD are attempting to promote a coup or something else that changes the political balance? Note I say “appear”, for I am sure that Connors sees PAD violence, along with state violence. He is just not being clear about what he is saying.
What of the royalist liberal Chai-Anan’s call for political murders?
Where is the “liberalism” that Dr. Connors usually trumpets for Thailand? Was this liberalism a thin veneer underlain by reactionary conservatism? Is this why we see violence from both sides? In such circumstances, what are the prospects for any kind of Thai liberalism emerging?
6 Ralph Cramden // Oct 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm
BkkOptimist has decided to go back over all this ground and rewrite history for us: “Go back to the real fundamentals – Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship. That is what brought the PAD onto the streets – the coup happened when it did because that was the last opportunity to oust him before absolute power would have been obtained.” There is plenty of contrary opinion and much of it has been expressed here at NM.
BkkOpt might also like to read Connors blog, where he has some contrary evidence, especilly in the special issue of Journal of Contemporary Asia on the coup. Some 200 pages devoted to it there, fully referenced.
7 Srithanonchai // Oct 20, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Goodby:
““Monarchy-Democracy” System > Can you provide the Thai expression?
DB:
“what, what, what do the PAD want? after getting rid of all the current politicians and everyone else, what do you want?” > Indeed, the PAD’s proposals for “New Politics” are rather lame given the PAD’s extreme analysis. Some of the discourse in Phuchatkan, however, depicts the PAD as an avangarde movement–under the leadership not of Lenin, but the five “kaennam.” The rest of Thailand’s population is supposed to follow the decisions of this avangarde. In order not to confuse this with Leninist Communism, they have called it “Thai-style People’s Democracy.”
However, this is all rather vague (although one cam construct a nice, though scary, model by analyzing all the articles on the protests on New Politics), and it is difficult to see how much of a model the “kaennam” really have, and whether they are united behind it.
In the 1970s, the then-famous German communist revolutionary, Rudi Dutschke, was asked on mainstream TV by an equally famous host, Guenther Gaus, what Dutschke’s movement wanted to put in place after they had achieved their aim to destroy German democracy. Dutschke said something to the effect of, “I can’t say that. Let’s burn our house first. What we will do afterwards, we will have to decide upon when the house has burnt down.”
8 goodbyedemocracy // Oct 20, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Srithanonchai:
“Monarchy-Democracy” System = “Kaanpokkrong-raborb-prachathipatai-anmii-phra-mahaakasat pen pramuk”
9 Srithanonchai // Oct 21, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Goodbye:
I suspected that you were referring to that expression. Only wonder why you did not use the usual translation of “democratic system of government with the king as head of state,” or “Section 2. Thailand adopts a democratic regime of government with the King as Head of State.”
10 David Brown // Oct 26, 2008 at 10:24 pm
“Thaksin was trying and succeeding in establishing an absolute dictatorship.”
or was he just winning elections…
as pointed out he was not winning by a huge margin (except when the opposition ran away… hahahaha) …
in fact the margin was such that a half-competent opposition should have been able to seriously challenge
he seemed to be willing to continue to put himself up for election … surely this cannot be classed as even approaching “absolute dictatorship”. …
except I suppose by someone that is not willing to put in the effort to challenge … imagines they can still do it the easy way using military or whatever force… and need an excuse so label it “absolute dictatorship”
11 David Brown // Oct 26, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Connors suggests “Non-violence works best in a responsive political system where predictable protest routines and signals are measured and fed back into policy outcomes.”
But this implies that “Non-violent protesters” should expect the satisfaction of seeing some response in policy outcomes in some short term …
but i suggest that in many cases governments around the world are generally not as tractable as that sounds
in many cases protests that i am aware of or been involved in will be ignored or suppressed and ignored and the protesters are left with the hard slog of challenging at the next election, and the one after, etc (eg various anti-war movements)
it takes real acceptance of failure and dedication in the long term to move democratically elected governments very far
and this seems not to have entered the Thai psyche… the PAD, their backers and supporters seem to be after instant gratification, without the long hard grind of convincing the electorate
I believe this is psychopathic behaviour without regard for the well-being of individual human beings
this is usually associated with far-right fascist and extreme capitalist individuals, I wonder if in Thailand its a product of the old feudal patronage attitudes still poisoning peoples minds or the more modern reasons
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.