The ambiguous meanings behind Thailand’s referendum result.
Thailand’s military government won a resounding and decisive victory in the country’s controversial referendum on 7 August.
While it is clear that the triumph of the Yes vote will now see the country governed by a military-backed constitution – one that sees the military and elite minority control the country’s politics well into the future – an equally important question needs to be asked: what were the intentions and motivations behind ordinary Thais’ votes? The answer is rather ambiguous.
Media, academics, and civil society have interpreted the result’s meaning from very different perspectives.
Some see the Yes vote as indicating the high popularity of the junta, while many interpret the result as an expression of Thai voters’ preference to have an election sooner rather than their willingness to support the military. Others attribute the victory to Thais’ demands for anti-corruption, or even to the Thai people’s weariness of endless political conflict.
Such ambiguity is not unusual, as referendums often pose a particularly complex challenge – what David Estlund has called the “disjunction problem.”
Simply put, the motivations behind someone’s vote for a particular outcome could be derived from numerous reasons. As a result, it is extremely difficult to identify which individual reason is the main contributor to the way someone voted, and the overall victory of one position.
It is of course impossible to grasp the complete meaning of the people’s vote since they are an aggregation of individual voices. Yet, free campaigns, public debates, and the role of the media could help mitigate the problem by roughly defining the meanings of each voting choice.
In such an open and free context, the media would start this process by articulating the main rationales in favour of each choice. Public debates and campaigns would then capture these reasons and further inform the key directions of debate.
With some degree of public consensus on the meanings behind each choice, citizens could then strategically decide to select the choice that they think is likely to win and help achieve their objectives, while neglecting their less pressing agendas. Such strategic thinking also more clearly shapes the meaning behind each choice.
The need to establish a common understanding of the meanings and the potential outcome of each vote does not imply that citizens who disregard mainstream reasons and strategic thinking are irrational.
However, providing the directions for strategic thinking and conveying the meanings assigned to each vote are nonetheless vital because they can help political actors better understand what voters want, thus enabling them to respond to voters more rationally.
In the Thai referendum, the meaning of each voting choice was poorly formed. This is largely because the authorities imposed severe restrictions ahead of the poll.
While politicians, political leaders, and key activists could express their stances on the referendum, without public debate and campaigning, the rationales in favour of each choice were scattered and conflicted with one another.
From the rhetoric expressed before the referendum, rationales for voting Yes ranged from supporting the junta and opposing Thaksin, to opposing the junta. The latter was aimed at preventing a longer term for the military government. Other reasons for advocating Yes were that the Draft Constitution was most suited for the current political circumstance, and that it could bring about a general election early.
Likewise, the rhetoric for voting No expressed prior to the poll widely ranged from supporting the junta to opposing the junta.
The former indicates a preference for the junta to stay in power longer. The latter showed disagreements with the content in the Draft Constitution, which will result in an enhancement of the elites control over Thai politics and considerable reductions of entitlements on citizen’s fundamental rights. Some Thais also expressed their intentions by not to voting to refuse the legitimacy of the junta-backed Draft Constitution and the unfair referendum.
As a result, post-referendum Thai society remains unsure of the vote’s overall meaning. Political actors, in turn, cannot rationally respond in such a situation. This has led to more questions about the future directions of Thailand’s politics. For example, should the military remain in government longer? Which parts of the Constitution should be especially reconsidered? Or what are the main areas we should improve in the future?
What Thai society could do now is to attempt to understand the meanings of the vote better – perhaps by conducting valid opinion polls. Otherwise, with the ambiguous meanings of the people’s votes, each group could endlessly interpret the meanings in favour of their preferences — and this would bring about the problem of the legitimacy, which is ironically the raison d’être of the referendum.
Tawan Manakun is a master’s degree candidate in political theory at London School of Economics and Political Science.
Jittip Mongkolnchaiarunya is a master’s degree candidate in international affairs at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. She is currently interning at the Sydney Cyber Security Network, the University of Sydney.
Thailand is undergoing the same military-civilian metamorphosis which she went through in the past. We have to watch out when the Thai King passes away, there may be a tense period to ensue. Let’s hope there won’t be a big turmoil.
0
0
this constitution is written in order to obtain the power of the military after the death of the king.
The military derives its legitimacy from the king. but the successor is not the image of the father and will not give the military the same legitimacy.
Thus, the military has a new constitution written directives stipulating their status
9
0
Among my associates, relatives and friends who voted Yes, the dominant theme was the fear that Thaksin or his nominee could somehow reemerge if the No votes prevail and its destabilizing consequences while HMK Bhumibhol’s I’ll health looms like gloom over the Kingdom.
3
3
Quote:”….and its destabilizing Consequences” –
yet no one of them want democracy…
they cling on Nai-Prai principle….
– well then they have now indeed what they want –
let them continue to be dust under someone´s feet….
… and let them gently continue slumber in the land of the everlasting false smile ………………………………………………………………
7
0
It’s almost 10 years since Thaksin was removed by the coup in 2006. No corruption has yet been found. During his years the economy was growing fast. Poverty decreased and 100% of the population got access to free health care. Despite this, the budget surpluses remained large and the national debt decreased from ~60% to ~40% of GDP. Corruption was going down according to Transparency International.
The war on drugs was bad, but there are little documentation available about what actually happened. Anyway, it had support from the people of Bangkok.
It’s amazing how much damage a political mud campaign can do to a person.
10
0
Thaksin Shinawatra should absolutely return to Thailand, I agree Chris L. because he has nothing to hide, he is NOT guilty of anything, he had never been corrupt, and he was the most honest and dedicated Prime Minister that Thailand was so lucky to have had. A champion of Thai democracy and a champion of the Thai poor, please come back Thaksin . . .
I really mean it ….. (chuckle)
0
6
He should have the right to get a fair trial.
4
0
More so , the voters should of retained the right to vote him out which is what was likely to have happened prior to the first Thaksin coupe . This of course would have reinforced the value of the individuals vote and that was what terrified the poo yai’s and simply could not be allowed to occur .
1
1
I would be very careful to discuss any meaning and reason why people vote for or against the draft. The result has surprised most, partly because some provinces voted in favour, partly because some voted against. One reason might be that the people deceided based on their own opinions, neither due to the propaganda from the bureaucracy and military, nor from the statements of the politicians and activists. Perhaps people were simply fed up with the constitution writing etc. and wanted to have clearer perspectives. Some empirical research would be interesting.
3
2
Yes, hrk, I heartily agree,
It’s almost as if your take on democracy involves a certain amount of respect for and trust in the “demos”.
How unusual on NM!
1
2
No opposition allowed , campaigning for the NO vote was illegal , overseas citizens excluded from the polls , and a complete lack of information to allow an informed decision by the general population casts doubt on the validity . In addition there are no detailed results released .
9
0
It’s an indication of a complete lack of familiarity with Thai people to suggest that a “complete lack of information” conditioned this vote.
It’s interesting how “informed decision” almost always substitutes for “what I think”.
Being “informed” about yet another piece of paper designed to firm up the status quo du jour until the next time does not include the dreamwork commitment to an ideology that has never had traction in Thailand and even less presence in reality.
0
0
Another attempt which fails to tell Thais what to do now. For those voting to accept the extra question, monitor closely what they are about to do with the draft. In general, Thais should continue to observe further developments closely and see for themselves how their decision is affecting the country and whether they can or should do something about it.
2
0
All those civilian politician did not seem to last too long in Thailand. Some were in better terms with the military than others. Eventually the military took over. I wonder why.
1
0
Frank Leung – given that Prem has basically been in charge, ever since at the least – his infamous July 2006 “jockey” speech – when do you see Thailand being re-United ?
0
0