At one level Thailand’s conflict seems a relatively straightforward matter of class and privilege. On one side is a minority urban middle class that is frightened by the “tyranny of the majority” and that clings onto the established power of monarchy and army. On the other is a provincial and largely rural mass that has recently learnt how to use electoral democracy to overcome state neglect. But at another level, the conflict is more complex. Politicians representing the provincial mass have reaped the gains that accrue to political influence in the absence of a strong judiciary and other checks and balances. Thaksin is an unlikely and unfortunate figure to become the heroic defender of democracy since he does not believe in it, he has manipulated it to make billions, and he overrode liberal democratic principles during his time in power. PAD argues that ethics are more important than the principle of one-person/one-vote, and many liberal democratic activists support PAD on those grounds.
The political crisis in Thailand has lulled but is far from over. Ultimately this conflict is about resolving the increased social and political complexities that arise with prosperity and globalisation. In the pessimistic view, PAD’s crude ideas and crude use of violence are an ominous sign for the future of democracy. In the optimistic view, the current conflict is exploding the old myth of a society unified under the monarchy, ushering in the possibility of a stronger democracy based on open debate and open competition.
From Thailand: Fighting over Democracy by Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker.
8 responses so far ↓
1 NoDorm // Dec 19, 2008 at 9:51 am
he has manipulated it to make billions
I suppose we were all smoking weed to think Thaksin was not a billionaire before he came into office and the Democrats were just taking a nap?
Some of the things that has happened in Thai politics can be explained simply:
1) Allegations of corruption and freezing of Thaksin’s assets were 1: to prevent Thaksin from returning and 2: based on the assumption of money politics – that he uses his vast sums of money to buy votes, to buy politicians, etc. What we saw in the previous election was that Samak merely had to associate PPP as Thaksin’s party to win majority. The democrats sensed that and thus rose the issue of the whole nominee government.
2) Thaksin should be praised for returning home to fight these allegations of corruption. But, no one in their logical mind would want to face a court ruling based not by facts and or laws, but by the dictatorial military. It is nonsensical for he and his family to return.
3) Abhisit after taking over leadership from Banyat has turn the political system into a child’s play just like the spoiled hot tempered child that he is. From the recent CNN interview, you could see that he wanted to punch Dan River’s. Dan though, does a good job keeping a professional face even when he knows Abhisit is shamelessly lying to him when he said that he did not consult with the military at all, that the Newin’s faction switched sides out of their good hearts (even when they were locked in a hotel).
From the corruption, to the killing of innocent people, to the restrictions on free speech, to the meddling of independent systems, etc. This is not representative of Thaksin at all, but it is representative of his opponents. Please be wary of propaganda.
2 Glenn // Dec 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I think this is a good article that explains the situation for people who haven’t followed the story. The authors are people whose work I really like. Their “A History of Thailand” is excellent, and I know they have written several other books including one about Thaksin’s rise to power. I would consider them to be experts.
3 sackman // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Yes, the conflict is far from over. And it’s getting worse because the elites are abusing their power. The elites (Sakdina) are addicted to their privilege and will not let go. They do not want equality. Their network is very strong though, and it revolves around that ‘apex’ institution; hence it’s almost impossible to be shaken. We ‘Red’ people see how unfair and unjust the elites’ organisations (eg the courts and other ‘kormorchor’-related organisations) have become. Their shameless double-standard treatments anger us. We try to fight but we lack good direction and leadership. To make the matter worse, we are not allowed to speak our mind. Freedom of speech does not exist here. Some might have tried, but they are either ignored or jailed. As you can see, only liars (like Sondhi and Apisit) are reaping the benefits from this dirty, manipulated situation.
Dear NoDorm – I like you comment. Thanks.
4 HC lau // Dec 19, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“liberal” democratic activist description would stretch one credibility seriously if one support the PAD declared principles.
- PAD wants this – PAD wants that – PAD accept this to be PM – PAD do not accept that as PM, we will occupy airport again if we don not get what we want -
Those are not democratic principles unless, as Nodorm said ‘you are high on weed”
“Ethics are more important” for heaven sake, Mr. Walker, one should put statements like this by the PAD in quotes ” “. What ethics are we talking about here? The ethics of the Chinese triad gansters? The ethics of the Italian mafia who guarantees your safety if “protection” money is paid?
BTW, are we insinuating that the Democratic party, the PAD and their military / royal backers are clean and free from corruption? Just who was running the country before Thaksin?
The real reason The democratic /military mob is so vehement about getting to Thaksin is that they felt he betrayed them. Thaksin came from the system – (Pol Lt Col). Took early retirement and was originally awarded the Nokia distributorship followed by several other telecommunication licences. These are awarded to “own” people for wealth distribution amongst the clique. Thaksin did not re-distribute the money but went on to accumulate even more and finally cummulated into the TRT party. – That, to the ruling elite was a serious stab in the back.
The truth is out there – agent Scully
5 jonfernquest // Dec 19, 2008 at 4:06 pm
“Far from over…”
This is just the latest incarnation of the “tale of two democracies” identified in Anek Laothamatas’s 1996 paper. The problem statement at the end of the paper remains unsolved a decade later: “to retain middle-class support for democracy, these people’s desire for efficient and honest government must be acknowledged…To realize fully its quest for a virtuous democracy, the middle class must actively support rural developments that will turn patronage-ridden villages into small towns of middle-class farmers or well-paid workers.”
How Thailand’s longstanding rural-urban divide differs from other comparable states such as South Korea always seems to be the missing factor. Unlike the “all roads lead to Bangkok” situation in Thailand, South Korea now has multiple economic centers spread out over the whole country though some regions have lagged such as Kwangju where the Kwangju massacre happened. The New Village Movement under Park Chung Hee was hardly democratic yet seems to have achieved its objectives. Teaching at Korean universities and companies I was always surprised how many urban middle class had rural origins. In Thailand’s case often even food processing is not even performed at the rural point of origin of food crops. There was a regional econometric input-output model at the university I worked at in Thailand but that university did not promote publication, seminars, or free flow of information and academic debate, so it is unclear how such academic endeavours could ever become widely known much less help people.
This is a very good and concise statement of the current situation and events leading up to it. Some relatively neutral statement of the problem or conflict that both sides can agree on is an essential first step to resolving a conflict. Otherwise both sides are just talking past each other and calling each other names.
6 David Brown // Dec 20, 2008 at 3:13 pm
In general I think the statement is good, especially the last/second paragraph…
The last sentence of the first paragraph I have a problem with:
“PAD argues that ethics are more important than the principle of one-person/one-vote, and many liberal democratic activists support PAD on those grounds.”
The issue here is that the PAD in general and particularly as personified in Sondhi L and its other leaders are completely unethical themselves. They lie and abuse and commit illegalities (with impunity!). I find it utterly reprehensible to honour them by using any of their statements to support an argument.
As it happens I also disagree with the statement that ethics are more important than the democratic one-person/one-vote principle.
Ethics and the democratic principle are independent concepts and not interchangeable. Its a confusion in thinking to believe that reducing the franchise for voting will affect a change in the level of political ethics.
Because the democratic principle does incorporate a measure of accountability its likely, if anything that there will be increased pressure toward improved ethics in a (real, not liberal bullshit!) democratic system.
The most important issue with ethics in Thailand including in politics is the skewing of the legal system into one system for the rich and another for the poor. Reduce the impunity of Mercedes with darkened windows to traffic offences and the ability of the rich to have poor punished to cover their own murders and other offences will be the best step towards a more ethical Thai society.
Empowering the poor by ensuring their influence in the government of the country is a major step toward pressuring th legal system to change!
7 Ralph Kramden // Dec 22, 2008 at 9:46 pm
jonfernquest chooses to examine a paragraph in Anek. That’s fine, but the last paragraph of Pasuk and Baker also deserves further consideration and is quite a distance from the alleged repetition of Anek’s simplistic rural-urban dichotomy which was reproduced above. There’s more in this article than the so-called rural-urban divide that was, for Anek, embedded in a kind of neo-liberal perspective on the future of Thai society.
8 Moe Aung // Dec 28, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Pasuk and Baker put it in a nutshell. Democracy after all is not the end all and be all. It’s a means to an end, to a fairer and ethical society. Not surprisingly it’s always been open to abuse and rampant manipulation.
I agree with Jon about the rural-urban divide. Unless the issue is addressed, ‘big city bright lights’ will continue to attract and cause this inequitable skew that manifests itself in both rural and urban squalor with untapped human resources, underpaid and exploited labour, shanty towns and squatters. The dream of lifting us all to ‘middle-class’ comfort and not least intellectual political conciousness is after all the socialist dream.
Work that pays a reasonable income for everyone who wants to work, rural or urban, is what the boom-bust system with short term political goals and no proper long term national planning fails dismally to provide particularly in times of recession. This undermines the desperately needed consumption drive for the so called ‘wealth creators and job providers’ which only a responsible and not a cop-out state has the necessary political will and the wherewithal to rectify by ‘pump priming’ as Keynes once famously pointed out.
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.