However, as Thaksin faces further obstacles in his attempt to make a come back (loss of visa to the UK, among other things) it is likely that he will bring the more left-wing elements of his support base to the fore (note the mention that Thaksin is being considered for the Simon Bolivar medal in the press recently!) in an effort to put popular pressure behind constitutional amendments and a possible amnesty. In pushing beyond the populist pro-poor and politically ambivalent position that has so far characterised the pro-Thaksin camp, a more leftist strand might be mobilised. This would also entail a more openly critical approach to the monarchy and further investment in the idea of democracy. If politicians have been running the Thaksin rehabilitation campaign so far, we might now see those leftists activists who have banded behind him upgraded to HQ. Leftist support of Thai Rak Thai pro-poor policies and their antagonism to ‘feudalists’ has been a useful prop for Thaksin in the media, but has not really mattered greatly in the provinces where Thaksin has needed few ideological embellishments. It may now become more meaningful in the Grandmaster’s play.
- Extracted from Michael Connors, “King-People Mutuality and the Thaksin gamble” Sovereign Myth, 10 November 2008.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Srithanonchai // Nov 17, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Academics seeing the development of an institutionalized political party system as important for the consolidation of democracy will be interested to learn that Thailand is moving into this direction, with the Democrats taking over the part of a royalist-conservative party, while PPP will figure as a socialist/social-democratic option. But don’t hold your breath…
2 Rembrandt // Nov 17, 2008 at 8:59 pm
But in their heads, there is doubtless not much room for truly left field views. The power trip and the collection of capitalist baubles is far more important to all Thai pols. I might believe the above when someone decides to actually incorporate the word ’socialist’. Some hope!
3 jonfernquest // Nov 17, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Srithanonchai: “Academics seeing the development of an institutionalized political party system as important for the consolidation of democracy will be interested to learn that Thailand is moving into this direction…”
What? The details paint an entirely different picture. As Chang Noi observes: “The political parties are a highly undemocratic part of Thailand’s political system” and there is no evidence that this is changing. Socialism the answer? The Burmese Way to Socialism of the 1960s slowly degenerated into the nightmare we find there today. Vatana Asavaheme is the best example of how “undemocratic” so-called democratically elected politicians can be. The ICT minister for example is one of his close buddies.
“Consider the example of Vatana Asavaheme. In mid last year, Vatana emerged as the major business financier of the Puea Phaendin party. When the party leader, resigned his ministership, Vatana orchestrated the changes in the party’s line-up of ministers. During the recent negotiations over the Cabinet, Vatana was again reported to have selected the Puea Phaendin ministerial cadre. The fact that he is a convicted criminal and fugitive from justice, and that his lieutenants had to leave the country and consult him in the back-rooms of a Cambodian casino, made no difference to his influence. A former police chief did not mind being among Vatana’s choices. A party spokesman explained that party MPs “still had respect” for Vatana. It’s not difficult to decode what that statement really means.
Consider, then, the social cost of such a politician. Take the Khlong Dan case on which he was convicted. In order to make massive profits, a public investment project was significantly altered from its original design and location, resulting in a higher cost to the taxpayer, lower efficiency, greater environmental damage, greater inconvenience to large numbers of people, and ultimately large expenses for a long judicial process.
Now multiply those costs across a long political career. .(many more damning examples)..scandals over land, forest encroachment, construction contracts, and forgery.”
(Source: Chang Noi, The problem is politician-buying not vote-buying, 29 september 2008)
4 David Brown // Nov 18, 2008 at 12:20 am
hi Srithanonchai
I am an oldie with some intelligent observer but not academic claims for myself
but I am seeing the institutionalized political party system as important for the consolidation of democracy and am pleased that it is trying to develop
the biggest obstacle right now is the PAD, which I was being run as a successful protest business by Sondhi but is now decaying
I think Chamlong has been released by Sondhi to try to negotiate immunity from prosecution for the PAD leaders
If that happens I see the grand democratic experiment continuing with a lot of issues being raised by the old traditional rulers as they gradually find some sort of place for themselves in the majority of Thailand that will not permit them to dominate anymore
So, two parties plus an emerging right-wing military-industrial complex that will eventually form another party
5 Ralph Kramden // Nov 18, 2008 at 8:16 am
Srithanonchai: while I detect a tongue lodged in a cheek, it is probably worth saying out loud that the Democrats have, from day one back in the 1940s, been the royalists.
For Dr. Connors (who has no comment function at his blog): I agree with you that there is royalism on all sides, but how could it be otherwise, at least when it comes to public posturing? I haven’t read Prachathat, but it does seem like a nice bit of needle to attack PAD on the funeral. So I’m not sure that this is the best example of your point.
However, I agree with your implicit notion that republicanism has been more firmly put back on the agenda, and it may be that this is the more remarkable outcome of this nascent civil war. That outcome doesn’t map neatly to PAD and UDD, but everywhere, the monarchy is now on the agenda. Hence, the palace is now in full damage control mode – that’s what happens when you unleash such forces via a coup. Getting those forces packed away again is not so easy these days, perhaps.
The worry is that the ‘transformative potential of mass mobilisation’ on both sides could go either way, and proto-fascism could becomes real fascism (a la 1976-7).
6 David Brown // Nov 18, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“‘transformative potential of mass mobilisation’ on both sides could go either way, and proto-fascism could becomes real fascism (a la 1976-7).”
thankfully, the mass mobilisation has happened on the side of one-person one-vote democracy
there isnt any mass to mobilise on the side of the PAD, they represent a small and getting smaller minority and they know it
the big majority of Thai people that approve of being able to judge their politicians and vote directly for them at elections are showing their face and, I believe, will not be able to be squeezed back into the tube as happened previously in Thailand
even at the last coup, the people docilely accepted the military rule… but I think that was an educational experience and, as observed, they came roaring back at the 2007 election
the PAD and their backers are finding that the mass of people have too much inertia to be moved from their new found freedom and authority
so, the PAD are now tring to negotiate their immunity from prosecution then will fade from the scene leaving their arms and mess to be cleaned up by a relieved and peaceful community
if the Democrats can escape from their reputation soiled by association with the PAD they may continue to poll reasonably well and may be able to compete with the PPP at the next and further elections
7 Sidh S. // Nov 18, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I like the optimism of Srithanonchai and David Brown and hope Thai Democracy can evolve in that direction post-PMThaksin and PAD. But it will take a significant societal shift from present realities highlighted by Jonfernquest where convicted fugitives such as Vatana or Thaksin still hold so much influence on and respect from elected political office holders…
8 HC lau // Nov 18, 2008 at 7:28 pm
To keep harping on the conviction of Thaksin, one must ignore the fact that the laws and constitution was changed by the military junta. My question is this. Is the military junta considered a legitimate law making body. If it is then I would argue that Aung San Suu Kyi is guilty as charged by the ruling Junta in Burma (OK, that may be a bit extreme, but the concept is the same)
The current constitution is made by th military to maintain ultimate control. The last time I read “democracy and rule of law 101″ the only legitimate law making body in a democracy is the elected parliement. A military junta or a junta appointed govt has no business passing any laws, let alone changing the constitution.
When all participant get that clear, then we can have a real discussion, otherwise its like Betrand Russell said “If we start with the premise that a dead rat can jump” we can argue anything
9 Rembrandt // Nov 18, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Let me be the first person here to welcome Thaksin Shinawatra back to politics. (Did he ever leave?)
It’s great to hear that he wants to fight his way out of a corner. I would encourage him to fully reveal the sins of his enemies so that they will be forced into revealing his.
10 Sidh S. // Nov 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm
HC Lau, you just keep missing the details. PMThaksin’s convictions (and KYPotjaman’s before that) was also based on the 1997 Constitution (plus 1999 anti-corruption clauses) which PMThaksin worked under.
I think you still owe us a discussion on Malaysian politics (I agree, you went to far with Myanmar – pretty sensationalizing) – as there seem to be intriguing parallels in PMMahathir, UMNO and Anwar Ibrahim saga e.g. PMThaksin wanting to rule on the Mahathir mould, but now wants to refashion himself as the champion of liberal democracy against what he terms “undemocratic elites” (how ironic!). Anyway, I have enough respect for Anwar not to compare PMThaksin with him. Here’s a man who faced his fate (argubly truly unfair, unlike PMThaksin who clearly broke the law) bravely, through torture and years of jail term. Please do correct me on those points HCLau, I probably miss many details in Malaysian politics.
Rembrandt#9, I am really looking forward to hearing PMThaksin naming names. It should be along the lines of “yes, I broke the law – but my enemies, …, …, …, etc. are also guilty of abuse of power, corruption, conflict of interests…”…
11 Srithanonchai // Nov 19, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Jon: A golden journalistic rule says, “Never leave out the concluding sentence of a statement,” which was, “But don’t hold your breath…” So, if you didn’t get the slightly ironic tone of the first part, you should have noticed something with that conclusion.
12 HC lau // Nov 20, 2008 at 12:43 am
Koon Sidh,
It is difficult to compare Malaysian politics with Thailand as the parameters are quite different.
Mathatir had (still have i believe) a database of weakness of all his fellow politicians and used that info to control them. he came close to being ousted a couple of times during his tenure, once by Tengku razaleigh and the second time by Anwar Ibrahim. He won the UMNO presidency only by two votes when challenghed by TZ, and was being pressured by UMNO inner circle to give way to Anwar when the 1997 economic crisis hit Malaysia. The charges against Anwar was badly setup, but Anwar was known as a bi-sexual even during his student union days (for your info – my age group). Nobody bothered too much about it as “gays” are well tolerated in Malaysia – just tune into any Malaysian TV channel.
Tolerence or not it is still a crime and Mahathir made used of that as other stuff would open up a can of worms, as Anwar was privy to many many behind the scene “stuff”. Personnaly I have first hand experience with some of the dealings ( I am afraid I am not at liberty to discuss them) but the charges were made to stick regardless of evidence and the presiding judge subsequently retired.
Anwar was and still is a great orator and a very charismatic leader. His revival also rode on the political expediency required by the opposition if they want to make any headway in the march Election, which saw a hugh upheaval in the Malaysian political scene.
The end result of all that is a curtailment of some mega projects and a re-look at the distribution of “capital creation” policy by the ruling party. As far as I am concern it is a good thing. A better balance of power with a bit more check and balance and better scrutiny. “better live all round” – That’s all I want.
PS – BTW, if I don’t post anything after this for more than a couple of weeks, send me a note at the govt detention camp
Even
13 Sidh S. // Nov 20, 2008 at 2:53 pm
KhunHCLau. Thank you for the very interesting comments on Malaysian politics. Personally, I still hope Anwar gets his chance to lead the country. I totally agree with the “… A better balance of power with a bit more check and balance and better scrutiny” – for a vibrant democracy, I will argue anytime that this is as important as electoral politics. And we are also in agreement there “better life all round”.
Yes, I am aware of Malaysia’s inner security act. We have one too, fortunately it is very rarely exercised – at least for political ends and except in the South. The Lese Majeste law is as far as the Thai elites will go in their civil war… But with increasing violence, that is not guaranteed…
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.