Some will utilize the astrological imprimatur to bolster their position in the power game. Thaksin might have belonged to this group. Gen. Sonthi and Sondhi L. might have been on middle ground.

Others might have actually based their decisions on the signs and portents such as the Erawan shrine demolition. This latter group might include certain people at the very top of the hierarchy in Thailand. The bundle of motives for the coup may actually be sparser than most of us think.

And why are we so shocked that Thai leaders dabble in the supernatural? I don’t believe that you can take the involvement of educated and otherwise rational people in magical thinking at face value. Even if it is true that the leaders of the various factions in Thai politics have been known to take part in some magical rituals and consult astrologers this does not mean that they involve themselves in these rituals in a credulous way. Surely their attraction to the interpreters of the supernatural and holders black/white magic powers lies in the influence of these charlatans over the minds/loyalties of their followers. To ignore these supernatural opinion makers would be to leave open the opportunity of being undermined by them later. By acquiring a supernatural imprimatur the leader is establishing that one important section of the Thai opinion making community is supporting the cause … When commentators sneer at this kind of behavior they are operating with the luxury of not being a player in the game to acquire power. Once you are involved in this game however, any advantage, no matter how marginal, becomes something to seize upon.

If we are looking for propitious moments then the 9th second of the 9th hour of the 9th day of the 9th month of 2009 must be seriously powerful … I know its not the Thai calendar but if the Chinese could go 8 crazy for the Olympics then I don’t see why the Thais wouldn’t find something special to do this year … (Maybe they already have and I am just not aware of it. I understand its great moment for a marriage vow for instance …)

And this stubborn superstition may extend to others, “at the very top of the sakdina hierarchy,” some of whom might have decided that the coup was necessary. So it was not about the Shin deal, Thaksin’s corruption or abuse of power, it might have been that Thaksin was simply seen as a source of evil black magic, of foreign (Khmer) evil detrimental to other “white,” pure and positive spirits protecting Thailand. The destruction of the Erawan Shrine on March 21, 2006 might have played a role as well. The important monument was destroyed by a madman, but arguably “under Thaksin’s watch”. And Sondhi L. openly blamed Thaksin for having plotted to destroy the statue to maintain power through “black magic”. This might have been picked up by the sakdina leadership and the removal of Thaksin was planned.

So the Democrat’s refusal to take part in elections becomes irrelevant to the coup: They simply didn’t want to lose another election and obstinately refused to give in to Thaksin’s shrewd (and politically astute) ploy to call for another mandate. In this view the Dems are just doing the handiwork of the sakdina leadership, shielding their “white magic” from Thaksin’s “black magic,” without much of a political mandate from the so-called elites. This is evidenced by their ineffectual government in recent months. If it’s true that superstition was the motivation behind the coup, “Western style,” “political” analysis of events just might go in the wrong direction. And coming elections and their evaluation will be influenced by the sakdina leaderships desire to keep the “shield” intact. This might (again) trump any political mandate for one side of the other.

Sakdina society, Buddhist mentality, traditional world view … It’s obvious to me that the broad mass of the urban population here are highly aware of what is happening and defining their own positions on the basis of some factors that are outside of the framework of analysis that is currently being applied by foreign commentators. There’s a book about 1992 and its aftermath called “The Funeral Casino.” I have never been able to get through it. The going was to heavy for me and the prose too dry but it’s that kind of analysis that probably carries with it the key to understanding what’s happening here now.

Btw I have just been reading Red vs. Yellow at lunch. I agree with Chris Baker. It deserves to be ranked with the other book as an iconoclastic breakthrough in describing what is really happening in Thailand. White Orchid Press deserves high praise for publishing it too. On a visit to the National Museum recently I stumbled across White Orchid’s second volume of Mulder’s 70′s memoirs. It’s probably fortunate that Police Colonel Watanasak Mungkijakarndee has not been informed of the contents of this volume. If Harry Nicolaides could go down for his novel then some of the comments in this book are fanning those flames.

Matichon reported an interview which Army Chief Gen Anupong Paojinda had with 100.5 FM radio station on May 9. Prachatai English produced an English translation of the Matichon report [http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/1205] – from which the following excerpt is significant:

“The road blockades in Bangkok had many impacts, causing chaos in the country. It was not a peaceful demonstration, and it had to be dealt with. Just a few companies of soldiers were deployed, and they were insufficiently equipped. So they had to use blank ammunition. Although the use of blank ammunition was not really standard practice, there was no other choice. Nothing else could have been done, said Anupong.”

So (as so often), we are left wondering which is the “real” truth? Abhisit took control and ordered the use of blank ammunition – or the Thai Army (despite its bloated budget) simply couldn’t even manage to deploy troops with live ammunition (as Anupong clearly indicates would have been standard/preferable)? Face-saving version for Anupong – reported by some to have been sidelined by Abhisit during the crack-down?

P.S. … I found both of Jaded’s comments provide excellent analysis/insight. One minor point: “sakinda” should be “sakdina” (IMO, hugely important for any outsiders trying to understand the forces and factors that make Thai society – and thus Thai politics – what it is).

Gosh could slap myself for not having been in town for that FCCT meet.

When I last met Nick at some European ambassador’s reception he again stood out as Mr. Fears Nothing.

Not that he’s naive. He’s at the center of it all, also due to his shooting style.

I think Nick is still shooting film, not digital, and despises zooms. With wider lenses he has to be in the midst of it all where he picks up the details the “zoomers” and “observers” never see.

It was quite a sight to hear Nick arguing with an understandably diplomatic, if not apologetic ambassador that evening.

Back to the topic. And who’s the demagogue today with the arch-demagogue in exiled hiding, ready to pounce?

The whole ruling apparatus has turned into one grand, inconspicuous demagogy.

Fonzi‘s comment sums up this neo-demagogy nicely.

With Kasit serving a dedicated purpose. The masterminds were clever enough (no, this was hardly an Abhisit-move), the masterminds were clever enough to get Kasit for a job, very well aware that the crisis will reach a point when the government needs a Kasit to “absorb” the brunt of the criticism.

A troublesome Kasit strengthening the government. Shrewd demagogy.

BangkokDan

I was the guy in the yellow shirt taking down people’s names.