The Impossibility Of Thai Politics

8 Responses to “The Impossibility Of Thai Politics”

1. Jaded on July 31st, 2009 7.36 pm

   Goodness Dan,

   I have a certain amount of sympathy with your feelings of frustration but I actually think that looking for a clean, efficient and “final” solution to the conundrum of how to reconcile the modern pluralistic world with the feudal nation of Thailand is as mistake. Within the minds of most Thai people there are conflicting views and prejudices. The PAD managed to mobilize a certain number of credulous zealots because the full consequences of their actions were hidden in a complicated parliamentary endgame which saw the Democrats come to power. No matter how much the media try to twist the facts and scapegoat Thaksin it’s almost impossible to ignore what has happened since the Democrats took nominal control of the situation. While I don’t believe Abhisit is anything but a public relations professional masquerading as a political leader I can see that he is giving the Thai people an opportunity to learn from their recent mistakes. As the rampant corruption, dirty dealing and sleazy cronies outdo anything that happened in Thaksin’s government the Thai population are now enjoying an opportunity to reassess their views. In a country where nobody admits to error, and where an minor incident causing loss of face can easily lead to murder, the current stalemate is an object lesson to all elements of Thai society that authoritarian power has it limitations. The longer this charade of democracy continues the more likely it is that Thai society will demand and get a break with the past. Given that the current round of instability was orchestrated by conservative forces it’s entirely likely that they will become victims of their own subversion of constitutional authority. They broke the rules to satisfy their desire to control the nation. This was a terrible mistake for a group of people who hope to preserve traditional institutions. Once you disregard the rule of law the vulnerability of all public institutions becomes obvious. The inevitable breakdown of social consensus is undermining a lot of people’s belief in the established social heirarchy. In such circumstances, a strong man approach would lead to vicious and severe conflict of the worst kind. Far better to suffer the war of words, accusation and counter accusation, and rampant corruption of the present than to try to rebuild an authoritarian leadership that could, and probably would, provoke a civil war. Everyone can see that a change of regime in inevitable. One good thing about the present administration is its lack of durability. Like the previous military appointed regime, many of its supporters are there solely to take advantage of the enormous opportunities for misappropriation of public funds. The last regime ensured amongst other things that Thailand’s new fighter jets cost twice as much as those of other corrupt countries, I imagine that the Democrat’s huge public spending on infrastructure will offer similar value for money. But, once the money has been allocated, a fragmentation of this coalition of the greedy is inevitable. It’s only fair to say that the shrewder Democratic leaders are trying to stabilize the political process before this happens. They know a breakdown is inevitable and they do not wish to see a strongman any more than do the progressive side of the struggle for power. If at this moment a strongman appears then, I fear greatly for Thailand’s future … So, annoying as it is, I embrace the morally bankrupt politics of the present for the face saving release that they undoubtedly are.

2. BangkokDan on July 31st, 2009 8.17 pm

   I’m aware it’s highly slippery territory Jaded. One of Thailand’s most progressive times was under HE Anand Panyarachun who enjoyed de facto authoritarian powers … Or you say there’s not a single unifier left? Doesn’t need no charisma nor a plebiscite, but a someone who can be respected by most. Otherwise I see no way out for Thailand. The kind of participation practiced here is based on marginalization and therefore leads to regression, not progression.

   BangkokDan

3. Regular Reader on July 31st, 2009 8.55 pm

   I think Jaded has expressed the views of many long time Thai residents.

   I definitely agree with his point that another authoritarian leader would be more disasterous for Thailand than the present set up.

   For starters, the “authoritarian” leader in waiting would just come marching back (as he tried to do in April and continues to agitate for).

   But, I guess no matter what, there is one event that will happen which will completely change Thailand forever.

   If only we could debate it.

4. Jaded on July 31st, 2009 9.44 pm

   Oh dear … This is a level of disillusionment that must come from prolonged exposure to the political conflict. I empathize strongly with your disillusionment. However, I feel that your solution has much in common with some recent suggestions that were made by the PAD … While it’s always possible that the “right” person might be found, and then be allowed to choose their own cohorts in power, it’s probably unlikely that any ethical person would accept the role. He or she would know that they would be faced with an opposition backlash of great anger and strength. Such an appointed leader would have no choice but to attempt to establish their authority and pre-empt any conflict with some serious repression. I imagine that this would involve curbing what remains of Thailand’s free press and instituting draconian restrictions on civil liberties and political movements … In short, to be an effective appointee, they would need to assume dicatorial powers. I can’t see any vounteer who would be an ethical person along the lines that you are suggesting.

   Oh, but you did mention Anand … A man who never interfered with the military and therefore presided over the 1992 massacre. But it is probably unfair to suggest that he has any responsibility to bear as an appointed prime minister. After all, he publicly disagreed with their actions. It’s generally assumed that he had no way of controlling the military and no political base of support to oppose them… Well this is what is assumed…. Still he did work for progressive legislation in many areas. But was he a successful progressive? Only if you ignore the fact that the military ignored any of his legislative and administrative initiatives that might limit their ability to “eat.”

   Even if you regard him as an ethical person, can you identify someone similar now? I suppose you could quite easily find a prominent figure in Thai business of similar calibre.

   Someone that the British would refer to as “sound.” Lets see … He would need to serve on the right board. But, to reassure the genuine progressives he should have a vaguely left wing past. Most importantly he should have extensive administrative experience to complement his true understanding of how Thailand should really governed. Obviously, only a product of Thailand’s incorruptible and highly educated bureaucracy can be relied on.

   This is the cardboard cut out version of Anand that Thailand’s history remembers right? The current PM is already measuring up to some of these criteria …

   Despite our willingness to enjoy the fantasy of an appointed honest broker I think most of us know that the authoritarian solution is the problem, not the solution. What made Thaksin difficult to control was not his democratic support base. Normally the executive branch is balanced by other sources of power. But, because the long history of previous corrupt and authoritarian governments, those properly constituted institutions that might have provided the necessary counter balances and limited his options had atrophied. The constitution did not effectively limit his power either as he failed to respect the rule of law and was supported in this by many who subsequently were to bitterly oppose him. So with little in the way of real checks and balances to executive power, his authoritarian impulses finally found resistance in places the constitutional drafters (including Anand) were all too familiar with. It’s clear that drafting yet another “better” constitution merely provides the useless and corrupt administration with an alibi for their complete inadequacy to confront otherwise unaccountable power, persons of authority and blatant corruption. Every time Thailand resorts to extra-legal authority to resolve difficult political situations it further damages its institutions and undermines the rule of law.

5. MongerSEA on August 1st, 2009 10.17 am

   A well chosen analogy; indeed Thailand in many ways is just North Korea with cell phones and an extra plate of rice per person per day.

   As to democracy, maintaining the illusion of it is quite important for the ruling classes as it helps assure the continued largesse of the West. But it has no real appeal to the people who hold the reins of power in Thailand, save as a talking point and justification when one clique or the other decides its been out of power for two long or is getting to small a piece of the piece. (Does one really need to “restore” democracy every 4 or 6 years by rolling tanks into the streets?)

   Otherwise, the powers that be are quite content with the oligarchic kleptocracy that constitutes business as usual. This is the standard mode throughout mainland South-East Asia. It matters little how you plate it over with labels derived from Western political theory, the underlying principle knows no borders: the poor and powerless exist to benefit the rich and strong.

6. Sathip on August 1st, 2009 11.24 am

   I think it’s Thaksin, he started this whole democracy hijacking for personal means and cheating, even more then anyone else did before him. The problem is with the current system, you have to cheat to get him it out off power!

   Just to show you how he operates: Thaksinlive is using a machine to vote, his votes increase 3-4 votes every second even at 3-4 am! He cheats even when using twitter …

   http://www.beartai.com/webboard/index.php?action=printpage;topic=63958.0

   Do anyone of you guys also believe that really 4 million people have voted for his silly petition? How can you ask for a royal pardon, if you dispute that you have done something wrong in the first place. Thaksin logic. He just needs this unbelievable constant media & public attention, which he get’s with his 7 year soap opera politics and rhetorics; in my eyes he’s a sick man! I’m sure more than 50% of the signatures have been produced. Thaksin has to be removed from politics or else no party or democracy can work more or less honest.

   Please don’t forget this.

7. bosunj on August 1st, 2009 11.37 am

   There are days you wish for a noble, convincing, yet authoritarian strongman telling them where the limits are and putting them in their places.

   Interesting, the desire for a strong Daddy figure to tell one everything is OK and who will use his belt because he loves you so much. Authoritarian Followers Syndrome here and here. Where is John Wayne when you need him!

   Fair enough, Thailand had her share of authoritarian demagogues. But has democracy become a less dirty word?

   If Democracy means majority rule then one has a tyranny of the majority. Certainly a dirty word in that extreme.

   The West presupposing that their form of government is “best” and that democracy is “better” than other forms of government right up to the bombing into submission of those who disagree.

   Or, in the instance of one American city where the citizens overwhelmingly rejected three different times at the ballot box initiatives to destroy a perfectly usable stadium and replace it with a new one that provided more of the highly lucrative skyboxes boxes, suites where rich people don’t have to be bothered by the great unwashed or the elements, for the sole benefit of a software billionaire. Finally the billionaire literally purchased the ballot box by agreeing to reimburse the state government the $4 million (THB134,6 million) it cost to have a one issue state wide vote. That billionaire hired the best political operatives, media people, pollsters and ballot stuffers money could buy to eek out a 0.2 percent “majority” vote. It later became public that the same billionaire received a check for more than $1 billion (THB336.5 billion) 4 days after his deadline for the vote for his share of the television rights as an owner of a National Football League Franchise.

   Taxpayers paying public money – nearly a billion dollars with interest – for a stadium for the private profit of a multi-billionaire.

   Ain’t democracy grand!

   Those are just two glaring examples of Western style democracy. Who wants that?

8. whoopla on August 1st, 2009 2.51 pm

   Compared to the deeds of his peers, both current and historically, the most heineous crime Thaksin performed was, as the child in the crowd did in The Emperors New Clothes, was to point out to the gaping (and already bleeding) chasm in Thai society. He opened Pandoras Box. He is certainly not the cause of the division, as that has existed (very comfortably for some) since time immemorial. Whatever he and his nemesis do to rein in the country, the road to an equitable society will no doubt involve considerable blood letting.

   As far as all the other comments about strongmen are concerned, one has to look at the metabolical structure of the business class that runs the country. Again Italy holds parallels with Thailand – fun loving, great food, love sex, mafia and corruption on every level of enterprise and lots of mai pen rai, arai godai etc but when in doubt, she loves a man in uniform.

   Is Thailand waiting for her Berlusconi? God forbid. It’s past midnight, and the pumpkin is still a pumpkin, the frog prince still a frog. Look at the new racists and Nazi movements that are proliferating in Europe. Why should Thailand be any better? Of course none of this has anything to do with the unmentionable events still imminent. Saluti!

Leave a Reply