It seems the world is whipping the democracy horse yet again. Getting on their soap boxes to rant and rave on something of which they have meagre understanding. I refer to “History Repeats Itself” by W. Scott Thompson, International Herald Tribune, 1 December 2008, and “Thai Royalists’ Efforts To Undermine Thaksin Are In Vain”, an editorial in The Washington Post, 5 December 2008.
“Democracy”, in its more modern form, is held to be the Westminster system or the American presidential one. For the first, look at Ireland, a country still divided by English democracy, and Scotland, given token self-rule under English democracy. And America, where representative governments are blatantly elected by big business. Look again at their efforts at promoting “democracy” in South America. Unfortunately, the defence of “democracy” is enshrined in the American credo. That it why they cry foul when ever it suits them and turn a blind eye to versions of democracy a la Putin.
Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand never were and are not now democracies. The elections are a sham and a mere process to tip the hat to USAID and security concerns, as well as allowing entre to some of the more exclusive global clubs.
Where is the journalist or academic putting pen to paper on what is essentially different about Thai-style democracy, or even if the country needs it. Why is it a forgone conclusion that Thailand must have democracy? How good is the record for this form of government in Thailand? Is Thailand really the nation state that it purports to be? Would it not be better to focus on the systems of government in Laos, Vietnam and Burma and insist with equal vigor that these be supplanted by “democracy”? To suggest that the election in Thailand was “fair” is ludicrous – there has never in the history of this country been a “fair” election. A journalist or academic worth his salt would expose how “influence” reaches to the village level in Thailand and how this is manipulated at the top. But then that would be admitting failure of the American dream wouldn’t it?
At the end of World War 2, Britain sought to punish Thailand and its Field Marshall Prime Minister. America, for commercial and other interests insisted on being hands-off. This allowed the continuation of military rule, instead of nipping it in the bud. At the same time at Potsdam, the Americans agreed Europe needed a strong France, and promptly handed them back Indochina. How many US lives did that end up costing? And when Vietnam warmed up, America needed to exert its influence on Thailand and continued to prop up the generals. Of course this had to be given a gloss of “democracy” to satisfy public and world opinion. The Americans are directly responsible for perpetuating military rule and influence in Thai politics and now cry foul when poor old Thaksin is given the flip by the same generals.
There is a current discussion amongst academics as to whether or not Hun Sen is good for Cambodia. While the jury is still out and there are a number of negatives, he kills less of his own people than the Khmer Rouge did and the relative stability is resulting in some improvements, such as education.
Could not similar arguments be put forward for the present monarchy in Thailand? Despite several negatives, is the royal system really so bad? Does it do untold damage to the Thai people?
I suggest it unwise to clamour for change for change’s sake. Even the mirage remains very murky. The English press in Bangkok is full of well meaning Letters to the Editor, many of them from Australia, and ruing the dangers to democracy caused by the reds, the yellows, the full spectrum of political parties and even the monarchy itself. Democracy is not in danger in Thailand. You have to have something before you can consider it to be in danger and Thailand never has. And I would beg every such well intended Australian to first ask themselves, “Who is the head of the Australian Army?” His counterpart in Thailand is a name that is on everyone’s lips.
The International Herald Tribune article states that Thaksin was a police general. He was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in 1987. Whatever happened to journalistic accuracy?
17 responses so far ↓
1 Alvin // Dec 8, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Shouldn’t the desirability of democracy in Thailand be a question for the Thai masses – rather than say, the Thai elite, or foreigners – to decide?
2 Martin // Dec 8, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Need democracy? What Thailand needs is the freeing up of democratic processes at the highest levels in this society.
With something like 19 coups since the Depression, isn’t it time that the elite stepped down? It has demonstrated over and over again that it will not accompany (radical?) change, nor dissent, and the all too common backlash against change usually ends up with grassroots activists found floating in klongs , or ‘disappeared’ and the army on the streets of the capital.
Democracy within the ‘patronage’ system cannot develop any further; organisations such as the Assembly of the Poor must become the political parties of the future and their representatives take their rightful places in the parliament, otherwise the wheeling and dealing between those connected to the elites will ensure that democracy will remain ‘hamstrung’ and ineffective.
3 Terry // Dec 8, 2008 at 1:38 pm
A fair comment Alvin. History shows that the “form” of government chosen by the people, for the people, etc. is often the result of some revolutionary action. Thailand is yet to have such a revolution.
If you were to discover some magical means by which to poll the masses fairly on their preference for a political system, assuredly they would choose the present monarchy. Such preference could however, soon change and the major issue facing Thailand today is succession, not democracy – an issue the Thais are prevented from openly discussing.
4 Dorm // Dec 8, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Of course, but trying telling that to any Thai politician. There are almost zero committed politicians out there. PAD has admitted it wants to hobble democracy. PPP/PT/TRT/UDD/DAAD wants to do the same by dishonest means.
I was glad to hear Duncan McCargo on BBC World Service radio this morning saying words to the effect that there are no real honest groupings in Thai politics . Many of those who are tacitly accepting Thaksin here haven’t really had to actually live with the divisive results of his continual dishonesty and deviousness. There are of course Thaksin policies worth keeping, but I don’t think that justifies buying the full package uncritically. But in fairness, the worst thing is that Thaksin’s detractors are totally incapable of getting the message behind his rise to power. They have been handed a 2 year respite and have totally failed to make any policy capital of it to make themselves more acceptable to the less affluent electorate.
As for UDD/DAAD (what the f* are you called, do you actually believe anything concrete?), you will have to be far more honest than just saying Thaksin had a few flaws. But that’s all we ever get from Jakkrapob & co. (I know you read this site.) You are incapable of forming a real political group/party without relying on someone else’s money. Thus, you TOO will always have to dance to the rich man’s tunes.
5 R. N. England // Dec 8, 2008 at 3:46 pm
This post demands a careful response. To push democracy on a highly stratified society, by trying to elevate the weak in the face of opposition from the strong, is a sure way to cause violence. The US learned this when they arranged for an elected, Shiite majority govenment in Iraq. The dominant minority Sunnis would not tolerate it, and tore the country apart.
The unequal system of patronage/monarchy derives from the animal world to which we belong. To preserve the peace in such a system, you need to feed the top dog first. The only path to stable democracy is to persuade the elite of its benefits. They may need to be pricked at times, but not so hard as to antagonise them. Historically, taming the elite has been easier if they have absorbed the Christian New Testament first, in particular the Sermon on the Mount; but respect for the poor is part of Buddhist teaching as well. The rational argument for democracy is that no other system has been shown to provide a better basis for the peace and prosperity of a very large community. Equal suffrage and equality under the law have an ideological, not a genetic basis like patronage/monarchy in social animals. Legal equality simplifies and strengthens the effectiveness of laws. On the roads in Australia, which car has the right of way is determined by their spatial relationship, not the status of the driver. In undemocratic Thailand, the judges see to it, subject to certain considerations, that a Toyota gives way to a Mercedes: equals are left to play a game of bluff. Such feed-the-top-dog-first judgements are acceptable to people who regard themselves as inferior. The Thai education (subjugation?) system has helped to turn out people with this outlook. Favouring the top dogs can help to keep the peace in the short term, but it builds up resentment against the elite and the legal system which is manifested in sporadic violence and anarchy, especially when the position of top dog is up for grabs.
There have been some spectacularly successful (though by no means peaceful) systems of patronage/monarchy in history. The absolutist regime of Louis XIV is the best example in Europe. But who can forget the king’s words uttered in 1715, with the succession falling to his infant great-grandson, “Après moi le déluge” ? The series of deluges caused by various forms of absolutism ended in Europe only with the establishment of democracy in 1945.
The present unrest in Thailand appears to me to have two linked causes. (i) The refusal of the elite to submit to democracy, as in Iraq. (ii) A succession-related deluge aggravated by the unfortunate fact that a strong leader thrown up by the democratic institution of Parliament is inevitably regarded by vast numbers of Thais as a kind of alternative monarch. So far the unrest is not very serious. This is because Thailand today is a more civilised place than Europe was, even a few decades ago. Thailand will probably revert to its old undemocratic ways for a while at least. The next few years will be miserable for Thais. Who knows whether the elite will yearn for the boom days of Thaksin, or blame democracy and the cowboy banking system of the English-speaking world?
6 polo // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I don’t think this post requires any “careful response”. The correct response is, what an absurd rant. A rant against “democracy”, a rant against journalists, a rant against the US, a rant against England, a rant against Australians, a rant both for against and for Thailand.
Give me a break — if you want to pose as a thinker about big ideas like democracy and monarchy, what does that have to do with whether Australians know anything or whether the IHT made a mistake about Thaksin’s rank (and who is to say he didn’t secretly promote himself while PM!).
The post does not really merit a response, but here is one anyway:
1. If the Thai system as it is works well, then why have there been so many coups and coup attempts, and why has society been on edge for a coup for three years? And why have coups not led to better overnment?
2. If the Thai system works acceptably well, then why is society on the edge of violent conflict just because no one knows how succession will turn out? Why can one group shut down the airports imperviously causing untold economic damage, setting a good example for any other groups numbering in the thousands which has a beef with the political system or political figures? Some places call that anarchy, and I challenge Mr Commins to argue that anarchy is better than whatever.
3. To defend my friends in academia and the media, for decades up until today they have reported and detailed “how ‘influence’ reaches to the village level in Thailand and how this is manipulated at the top.” Otherwise, Mr Commins, how do YOU know about it — only from thorough personal experience across the whole of Thailand?
(n.b. NM lowers its standards with a post like this)
7 Alvin // Dec 8, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Given that the Thais have already been actively exercising their right to vote, the crucial issue is not democratization but rather the threat of disenfranchisement.
8 Dorm // Dec 8, 2008 at 5:27 pm
^ Or not honoring the trust the electorate have placed in you.
9 Terry // Dec 8, 2008 at 8:43 pm
For the benefit of Polo:
1. “How good is the record for this form of government in Thailand?”
Does that suggest that the system works well?
2. Again, no one is suggesting that the Thai system works acceptably well. It clearly has numerous deficiencies. The point is, warts and all, it is not a democracy and it would be a pleasant change if people would stop trying to defend it as such. The Thais will, over time, continue to develop their own system of government, with some serious bumps along the way. The end result may not fit everyone’s ideals of a democratic system. I am not advocating anarchy, rather I suggested (and I confess to borrowing the thoughts from a colleague in academia here) Thailand is yet to have its revolution.
3. A better defence might be to quote chapter and verse. The nature of the electoral game in Thailand has changed significantly and has become more institutionalized. A serious study of this change is (eagerly) awaited. And yes Polo, I would imagine that after living some 30 odd years in Thailand I may have noticed the occasional subtle political change or two, particularly when I am engaged in lively debate in the village, when my family are involved in an ‘election’ or perhaps when I see a real journalist friend get caught in the crossfire from yet another coup.
10 Jotman // Dec 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Terry wrote:
Singapore, Indonesia and Thailand never were and are not now democracies.
The extent to which Indonesia and Thailand are full democracies is a question open to debate .
Nevertheless, it ought to be acknowledged that both countries have made substantial progress in recent decades. Indonesians and Thais have worked hard to build democratic institutions.
As a direct consequence of their progress towards democratic ideals, citizens of Thailand and Indonesia today enjoy fundamental civil liberties that Singaporeans — despite a certain material abundance — can only dream about. This is no accident, and it’s no small achievement.
11 Timothy McCrystle // Dec 9, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I don’t think that the question of Thailand being a democracy or not is debatable. Unless, of course, you consider rampant vote-buying for elections of ALL levels (from tambon nayok to prime minister) a democracy. Or a throng of rabble taking over an international airport because of election results.
12 Alvin // Dec 9, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Again, it does not matter whether we foreign observers think Thailand is a true democracy.
The ones who matter are the Thai voters themselves, who, lest we forget, have been voting in general elections since the 1930s.
What would they think of suggestions from concerned foreigners that they deserve to be disenfranchised because their democracy does not measure up to some arbitrary western standard?
13 Timothy McCrystle // Dec 10, 2008 at 1:30 pm
That last comment is like saying why does it matter what zoologists think of reptilian behavior because they are not actually reptiles themselves.
This is a forum for the discussion of , in this case, Thai politics. What should we discuss, if not Thai poltics?
My wife and children are Thai citizens and I live in the country so it directly concerns me in regard to both my daily life and the future of my children.
My opinion is that if they were paid 750 baht they would think it a great opportunity to be disenfranchised. Which is exactly what the Phantumitr is proposing- abolishing votng rights for the rural poor because they cannot make choices for themselves, many of whom were sitting in Suwannabhumi airport holding brightly colored noisemakers and drinking Fanta from plastic bags for 750 baht because the rich Chinese businessmen who don’t want to lose hold of their power were upset by the third consecutive electoral victory of a new guard of rich Chinese businessmen.
If you consider vote-buying and disruption of international transportation systems to be in violation of some “arbitrary Western standard” and not a universal infringement of democracy, perhaps we need to define terms before this discussion continues.
14 Alvin // Dec 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Timothy, the PAD supporters you cite are seeking to eliminate democracy.
Their vigorous actions to achieve this goal do not make sense if you are correct, for how can democracy be eliminated if it does not exist in the first place?
15 R. N. England // Dec 10, 2008 at 5:08 pm
The truth is that Thailand has for a long time been in a state of transition between a highly stratified society, in which the Puuyai have more rights than ordinary people; and a democracy where all citizens have equal rights.
The courts hand down judgements which reflect this transition. The judgements purport to be based on a system of equal rights, but are in fact designed to support the old stratified system. It is the job of judges to devise the necessary doublespeak to paper over the contradictions.
The universities purport to be spreading the values of the (European)Enlightenment, but teach, with the appropriate degree of subtlety, that nonsense and lies uttered by a Puuyai are to be valued more than the logical and truthful propositions of someone of lower status.
Progress towards democracy, and moral and intellectual advancement go hand-in-hand.
16 Frank G Anderson // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:05 am
“Timothy, the PAD supporters you cite are seeking to eliminate democracy. Their vigorous actions to achieve this goal do not make sense if you are correct, for how can democracy be eliminated if it does not exist in the first place?”
Another wide pen. PAD supporters seeking to eliminate democracy? Is there no limit to nonsense? I am not sure how well-traveled the commentator is in Thai circles, especially media, elite, commercial, diplomatic and academic, but once you get a taste of them all, the problem is a bit more complicated than judging it to be the fault of a group that has finally arrived at the definition of the problem but is getting little recognition or comprehension from even well-educated expats.
17 Alvin // Dec 19, 2008 at 7:02 am
Isn’t the claim that Thailand isn’t and has never been a democracy an equally wide brush?
“Democracy” is a trope that has been mobilized and contested by all sides of this conflict. It would be most puzzling if it turned out that all these angry Thais were not actually talking about democracy after all.
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.