Now that the list of papers to be presented at next month’s Burma studies conference is out, there looks to be one along the lines of the The Christian Science Monitor article entitled “At the Intersection of Education & Politics: How Teachers Negotiate Civic Education in Burma” by Brooke Treadwell with the following abstract:
This paper explores how teachers’ political and educational contexts have affected their practice of civic education between 1988 and the present. Government sanctioned civic education-related curricular content is discussed followed by an analysis of how teachers determine what civic education material to deliver to their students and how to deliver it. Based on this analysis two key questions will be considered (1) what degree of agency do teachers have to encourage or discourage their students to dissent against the government? (2) to what extent have teacher-student interactions determined students’ choice to engage or not engage in political activism against the Burmese government?
The relationship between politicians and TV shows are nothing new. In fact, theater politics are much more developed in western nations than Asian counterparts. I won’t be surprised to see Kevin Ruud on one of those cooking shows someday since a rock star has already made a minister. Mr. Walker, I think your own back yard is rife with the “disease”.
aiontay: “The economic sanctions came AFTER the militiary killed unarmed pro-democracy demonstrations untainted by money from Soros, after the military put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, and…..”
Much like Tianamen Square, which the Chinese have officially forgotten about, much to their economic benefit. True believers who continue to repeat these mantras in a religious fashion , 20 years after the events happened, and not thinking first and foremost about the economic advancement of the country, are engaging in the same sort of anti-intellectualism that Jeffrey Sachs decried in his op-ed piece today: “In recent years, the United States has been more a source of global instability than a source of global problem-solving. “ (http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=154008&bolum=109)
aiontay: “it is hard to see how ASSK would be serving as prime minister if only there hadn’t been sanctions.”
Significant participation by an emergent middle class (Korea, Thailand) creating more stakeholders in the economy empowered by a strong economy is a force bringing about democratic change. The Thai middle class has very little tolerance for a military coup nowadays, thus there has been none. It’s not hard to imagine a counterfactual world similar to China in which Burma had put the election failure behind them, flourished economically, and already advanced democratically too.
It does seem like the dichotomy of indigenous/legitimate vs. foreign/illegitimate is overly simplistic. This is very much the argument of the SPDC which dismisses any indigenous criticism of its rule as coming from the “minion axe-handles” of “foreign masters”. But how does the indigenous appropriation of foreign ideas weigh in? For example, Gene Sharp was greatly influenced by Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement which was also an influence on the Burmese independence movement through Burmese activists U Ottama and U Wisara, both Buddhist monks, and Aung San (see Myanmar’s Nationalist Movement (1906-1948) and India, by Rajshekhar, South Asia Publishers, New Delhi, 2006). If foreign ideas were necessarily illegitimate and inappropriate, then Buddhism would have stayed in a small corner of northern India.
However, I do think that Jon’s point about the dangers of “outsiders, not fully engaged with their livelihoods in the place they pontificate about from their outside well-funded positions of power” is very important for external actors to keep in mind in all discussions on the situation in contemporary Burma. Nevertheless, this does not mean that such individuals should not consider Burma’s current political context when discussing possibilities for positive engagement. Even The White Man’s Burder which Jon recommended appears to suggest that there are possibilities for accountable forms of external support for indigenous efforts to address locally-perceived needs. And, furthermore, that much of the problem of conventional external support for poverty-reduction has been a negligence of domestic political obstacles. The key is thus to get more local, especially non-elite (whether SPDC, NLD, KNU or other), voices into ongoing discussions and debates about engagement with contemporary Burma and without dismissing indigenous initiatives just because they have political implications (which may very well, for that matter, not even be revolutionary in their intent but simply efforts to resist, mitigate, or wholly evade to local-level implementation of abusive State policies).
“Ideological special sauce”. I like that. Still, you’ve never read Sharp’s work, so it’s hard for me to accept that as an informed judgment. He doesn’t even study Burma. Personally, I do find their rhetoric a little cheesy, but I see their non-violent strategy being used far more effectively by the evil-doers in power in the US and certain other countries than Burmese activists.
“To question something is insulting? Implying no one should question you? Implying you’re more than a little undemocratic yourself.”
No, to imply that (Burmese) people are incapable of thinking for themselves, is insulting, though perhaps ‘patronizing’ would have been a better choice of word. I was not trying to imply anything other than what I wrote, I thought my statement was pretty straightforward. You are free to question whatever you want, and I am free to point out the patronizing implications of your question. Surely democracy does not preclude us hurling insults and judgments at each other, does it?
A wise person I knew once said, “Nations don’t have friends, they have interests.” I would say the same applies to ideology. I understand where you are coming from, Jon, I really do. But I think it is a mistake to think that the US government and affiliated QuaNGOs are acting out of ideology and not practical national interests. The ‘freedom and democracy’ thing is a ruse, but that should not devalue the reality of those concepts as practiced or advocated for by people who truly value the right of all human beings to have control over their own fate. Of course, neither they, me, you, nor many others hanging around NM, are as aware as we could be about how our position of privilege affects our actions and relationships with those around us, but we shouldn’t assume everyone is an ivory-tower ideologue with blinders on. After all, Jon, we are both White Westerners having a fruitless debate online about what we think is best for Burma, and no amount of our personal experience is going to change that fundamental fact.
Another recent Vientiane Times article (Sept. 16) states that the MoIC is keen to get Lao National TV onto the Thaicom 5 satellite. This is because most Lao people with a satellite dish point it toward Thaicom to get Lao Star TV (and doubtless all that Thai entertainment content). It could be that the Lao government wants a piece of the market action, development-speak aside! Interestingly (but perhaps not surprisingly), the article said Vietnam had stepped in to give Lao National Television the satellite time for free. Although Thailand’s cultural influence is still a big issue, that is less the headline these days (look at Ananda Everingham proudly proclaiming his part-Lao heritage when “Sabaydii Luang Phrabang came out, and he is one of the most popular actors in Thai films–this is quite a big step). The big issue is how China, Vietnam, Thailand, and the international donors are jostling for influence in Laos, all for their own particular ends. The interesting issue is the Lao response to all of this–the use of “development English” being just one example.
Jon,
The economic sanctions came AFTER the militiary killed unarmed pro-democracy demonstrations untainted by money from Soros, after the military put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, and after they refused to concede elections that they unsuccessfully tried to rig. And despite opening up the country to foreign businesses, including American ones, they did not change the basic economic tenets of Ne Win’s Burmese Way to Socialism; the state still owns the land, as Stephen pointed out in a previous post. In light of this, it is hard to see how ASSK would be serving as prime minister if only there hadn’t been sanctions.
I’d say that, “outsiders, not fully engaged with their livelihoods in the place they pontificate about from their outside well-funded positions of power” could apply just as easily to an employee of the Bangkok Post as it does to some academic in the US. It’s not like either of them are busy planting mustard right now for the winter crop with the Kachin villagers at Ho Nawng Kaji.
tara: “Where would the US be if we all had thought that jobs-training would be better for African-Americans than civil rights?”
Open Thailand is basically besieged by critical thought and has basically become the a plaything for academics, a professor toy, unlike, for instance, Singapore which keeps this under control.
Critical works on Thai culture and politics coming out of Singapore where no such inward looking criticism is legal is probably the most extreme example of how Thailand has become basically, an intellectual punching bag.
Burma is off the richter scale. Virtually no aspect of this state (history, language, culture) gets studied unless it is directed towards the ongoing 20 year political conflict. This is unhealthy.
If the West had taken a more productive attitude, less ideologically centered position towards Burma 20 years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi would probably already be running for her second term as Prime Minister (China – officially – forgot about Tianmamen years ago). As it stands, what we have is an unproductive stalemate with the Burmese being impoverished and falling more and more behind every year, and no amount of ideological special sauce like Sharp’s is going to change that.
“Democracy activists from Burma are acting of their own free will, and to imply otherwise is pretty insulting.”
To question something is insulting? Implying no one should question you? Implying you’re more than a little undemocratic yourself.
Where the funding goes, little critters newly graduated from college, soon follow. Newton’s fourth law.
This is a silly debate anyway, you’re arguing apples and oranges. My post was also misleading, because Gene Sharp is not the one who does the training. The ones that do are not even American, and trainings are conducted at the request of activists themselves. There is a long history of non-violent struggle that is verifiable, and many that have been successful. Developing in a material sense does not preclude the work of indigenous political activists. Where would the US be if we all had thought that jobs-training would be better for African-Americans than civil rights? They are not mutually exclusive, but I’d hazard a guess that Martin Luther King and Bernard Lafayette would not have found economic development to mean anything in the absence of equality and basic human rights. You haven’t even read any of Sharp’s work, so you aren’t in a position to accuse it or him of being an ideologue.
Democracy activists from Burma are acting of their own free will, and to imply otherwise is pretty insulting. Neither of us is in a position to judge how much influence the work of Gene Sharp or those institutes has had on their ideas or actions to date. There is no reason to assume that he or others involved support any of the policies, such as sanctions, that you feel adversely affect development in Burma. I
These times are not only weird with regards to Asia. It seems as if the whole world is getting ever stranger. For me the most striking feature of these weird times is the focus on persons, or rather the personalization of politics and society, which is indeed rather weird. In Malaysia politics seem to circle around Anwar or Badawi. In Thailand we have Sonthi and Taksin etc. In development policy we have Bill Gates and Bob Geldorf and sometimes Paris Hilton (in the future I guess). This is an indicator that obviously their are no more programmes. (the Democrat Party in Thailand has thereby become the most modern). The structures seem to be dissolved. No more classes, no more interest groups, just persons.
But, perhaps, these are just ideologies that camouflage vested interests that direct the persons in the limelight.
Of course Lese majeste doesn’t just apply to the king, but the king’s family , too.
But have you noticed that while royalty is off limits in the Thai press so too, and perhaps more so, is criticism of another institution -the armed forces. Who has the faintest idea of what those guys are up to!
Just curious: has anyone ever read a critical, in depth discussion, of the military in any Thai newspaper? I haven’t.
“Gene Sharp and the respective institutions in the article do promote the idea of education/technology transfer, because the whole point of non-violent action is that the only sustainable change is change that comes from within. All they provide is training in skills, there’s no consultation or advice on strategy, and they also encourage groups to limit their involvement with foreign supporters, for exactly the reasons you mention in your earlier comment.”
Livelihood skills are the skills that people really need, not revolutionary skills. If Sharp actually devoted his life to teaching rural people how to locate and drill for a water supply like some Peace Corp people do for their two year stint (which should really be supported and extended as a lifetime avocation).
Who does Sharp think he is? He is a “foreign supporter.” If he was actually doing something other than ideological support like the hydrology example above, then his work would be falsifiable and we could verify whether he was actually doing them any good or not, a point made in a book that says it all about foreign ideologues and their mission:
Easterly, William. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press HC, The, 2006.
“And, personally, I would rather reclaim the word ‘democracy,’ for what it really means, rather than capitulating to the co-optation of it by people who use it to gloss over their alterior motives.”
Me too. You have to start somewhere. Conundrum: Need a strong leader (like Thaksin) who is not using the economy (telecom concession and authority as Prime Minister) to make himself invulnerably rich. Anand fit the bill. Surayud tried to get the chao baan motorcycle taxis off the sidewalks which they zoom along at expressway speeds and occasionally hit pedestrians who are using them the way they are supposed to be used but ao jai chao baan is the watchword.
Chao baan Klong Toey chicken market and vector for avian influenza (covered in chicken poop, occasionally flooding chicken poop) occupying the only sidewalk to Sirikit subway station in central business district. Ao jai, ao jai, ao jai….. (I’m just reflecting demographically vote-wise inferior middle class opinion here) Thailand has always accommodated poor people in every way possible. The myth is that Thaksin started this.
“…forgets his encroachment of the Khao Yai Tieng’s forest reserves for his own house. ”
Unfortunately, everyone does this because there is literally no land near forest areas with deeds. All of it is forestry department land. There are vaste swathes of land being farmed around Chiang Rai on this sort of land. Go ask any tuk tuk driver to show you some land for sale and then start inquiring into the deed status. For a smilar area try Khun Kawn waterfall on the old Chiang Mai highway out of Chiang Rai. Once you get to the beautiful point all the houses are luxury villas for the elite. Chao Ban also benefit from these “flexible” rules. Take the new road in back of Mae Sai which was dirt a couple of years ago with a formal government sign saying no squatting. Locals bought plots there for pennies and sold for millions. Welcome to Wild West Thailand.
The global economy is not structured to provide equality, nor empower those who are at the bottom. The current situation in the US should be a testament to that. China may be different than 20 years ago, but human rights abuses are still rife, and there are plenty who still want change. The notion that economics can improve social problems seems misguided considering that those in power have been using this same tool to maintain their position, and create the current global situation characterized by gross inequities and lack of respect for basic human dignity, for how many generations?
Surely there are options between your two choices, John – economic growth vs. ideological imposition? Gene Sharp and the respective institutions in the article do promote the idea of education/technology transfer, because the whole point of non-violent action is that the only sustainable change is change that comes from within. All they provide is training in skills, there’s no consultation or advice on strategy, and they also encourage groups to limit their involvement with foreign supporters, for exactly the reasons you mention in your earlier comment.
And, personally, I would rather reclaim the word ‘democracy,’ for what it really means, rather than capitulating to the co-optation of it by people who use it to gloss over their alterior motives. (Frequently economic motives, by the way.)
I have to agree with Saroj’s statement that the results show that: “Thai people in general prefer democracy than any other forms of government. I think this is highly significant.”
This is important research, and while one might question its positivism and so on, these results deserve to go into the mix when thinking about the future of the Thai political system.
No problem. Since you are from Arunachal Pradesh, do you have any latest updates about the international search team who were retrieving crashed WW2 planes there.
That seminar looks promising. Wish you every success.
PC Surayud: “if voters could make informed judgements when casting votes, then national and local governments would be run by good and just politicians”
Did a google search on “informed voters” , clicked around a bit, and found surprising information about the Americans. It appears that even American voters are “abysmally uninformed”!
Perhaps, the way towards the solution is for the assumption to be that voters are very likely to make uninformed choices at elections, and how to limit the negative consequences/impacts of such uninformed choices.
About success of coup. After the coup we have faces like Chalerm and Chaiya on cabinet seats! There’s even rumor as reported in the papers about Chalerm getting the justice minister portfolio in the upcoming cabinet!! The cabinet during TRT was certainly not as “ugly” as under PPP and was more competent. So no more coups please!!!
Name one country where democracy bring “good and just” leader.
And whose standard is “good and just”, does forest encroaching meet the bar?
Theoretically, since judges are suppose to be “good and just”.
Do we see anyone hail Somchai (former judge)?
If you want “good and just” goes Judiocracy, Democracy bring “popular” leader. It is not the best, but it allow those elected to be replace through ballot box. But Judiocracy, or any appointed MP, will have to be replace by blood on the street…
The article is an excellent example of Monkeo’s, and the editing journalist’s, words being constrained by the ‘development speak’ that they mistake for English because it is the predominant language used by the international community in Laos that the government and its newspaper are seeking to cater for.
As a finite vocabulary in their own right, the MDGs are so broad and non-committal and rather ‘good-sounding’ that it would not be hard at all to attach just about any project to them with the right wording.
There are plenty of state-building, regional-economic, and even ‘poverty related’ reasons for expanding television coverage in Laos and it is interesting that, while Monkeo does make the nationalist case for watching specifically “Lao” television in his quote, the article seems to be more about connectivity and signal coverage. Anyone who has driven through a rural area with electricity will note that one of the first things people want to buy is a satellite receiver for their television. In many cases this takes precidence over things that one might assume to be more urgent, like a good quality housing structure or a toilet.
A conversation that shreds up the language of development speak might focus on what people in rural areas actually want – and it would be surprising if they did not want to be connected and did not closely associated being ‘disconnected’ with other more materially urgent forms of poverty. But then, it always depends on who one speaks with.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Education and dissent
Now that the list of papers to be presented at next month’s Burma studies conference is out, there looks to be one along the lines of the The Christian Science Monitor article entitled “At the Intersection of Education & Politics: How Teachers Negotiate Civic Education in Burma” by Brooke Treadwell with the following abstract:
East Asia’s Samak disease!
The relationship between politicians and TV shows are nothing new. In fact, theater politics are much more developed in western nations than Asian counterparts. I won’t be surprised to see Kevin Ruud on one of those cooking shows someday since a rock star has already made a minister. Mr. Walker, I think your own back yard is rife with the “disease”.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
aiontay: “The economic sanctions came AFTER the militiary killed unarmed pro-democracy demonstrations untainted by money from Soros, after the military put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, and…..”
Much like Tianamen Square, which the Chinese have officially forgotten about, much to their economic benefit. True believers who continue to repeat these mantras in a religious fashion , 20 years after the events happened, and not thinking first and foremost about the economic advancement of the country, are engaging in the same sort of anti-intellectualism that Jeffrey Sachs decried in his op-ed piece today: “In recent years, the United States has been more a source of global instability than a source of global problem-solving. “ (http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=154008&bolum=109)
aiontay: “it is hard to see how ASSK would be serving as prime minister if only there hadn’t been sanctions.”
Significant participation by an emergent middle class (Korea, Thailand) creating more stakeholders in the economy empowered by a strong economy is a force bringing about democratic change. The Thai middle class has very little tolerance for a military coup nowadays, thus there has been none. It’s not hard to imagine a counterfactual world similar to China in which Burma had put the election failure behind them, flourished economically, and already advanced democratically too.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
It does seem like the dichotomy of indigenous/legitimate vs. foreign/illegitimate is overly simplistic. This is very much the argument of the SPDC which dismisses any indigenous criticism of its rule as coming from the “minion axe-handles” of “foreign masters”. But how does the indigenous appropriation of foreign ideas weigh in? For example, Gene Sharp was greatly influenced by Gandhi’s Satyagraha movement which was also an influence on the Burmese independence movement through Burmese activists U Ottama and U Wisara, both Buddhist monks, and Aung San (see Myanmar’s Nationalist Movement (1906-1948) and India, by Rajshekhar, South Asia Publishers, New Delhi, 2006). If foreign ideas were necessarily illegitimate and inappropriate, then Buddhism would have stayed in a small corner of northern India.
However, I do think that Jon’s point about the dangers of “outsiders, not fully engaged with their livelihoods in the place they pontificate about from their outside well-funded positions of power” is very important for external actors to keep in mind in all discussions on the situation in contemporary Burma. Nevertheless, this does not mean that such individuals should not consider Burma’s current political context when discussing possibilities for positive engagement. Even The White Man’s Burder which Jon recommended appears to suggest that there are possibilities for accountable forms of external support for indigenous efforts to address locally-perceived needs. And, furthermore, that much of the problem of conventional external support for poverty-reduction has been a negligence of domestic political obstacles. The key is thus to get more local, especially non-elite (whether SPDC, NLD, KNU or other), voices into ongoing discussions and debates about engagement with contemporary Burma and without dismissing indigenous initiatives just because they have political implications (which may very well, for that matter, not even be revolutionary in their intent but simply efforts to resist, mitigate, or wholly evade to local-level implementation of abusive State policies).
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
“Ideological special sauce”. I like that. Still, you’ve never read Sharp’s work, so it’s hard for me to accept that as an informed judgment. He doesn’t even study Burma. Personally, I do find their rhetoric a little cheesy, but I see their non-violent strategy being used far more effectively by the evil-doers in power in the US and certain other countries than Burmese activists.
“To question something is insulting? Implying no one should question you? Implying you’re more than a little undemocratic yourself.”
No, to imply that (Burmese) people are incapable of thinking for themselves, is insulting, though perhaps ‘patronizing’ would have been a better choice of word. I was not trying to imply anything other than what I wrote, I thought my statement was pretty straightforward. You are free to question whatever you want, and I am free to point out the patronizing implications of your question. Surely democracy does not preclude us hurling insults and judgments at each other, does it?
A wise person I knew once said, “Nations don’t have friends, they have interests.” I would say the same applies to ideology. I understand where you are coming from, Jon, I really do. But I think it is a mistake to think that the US government and affiliated QuaNGOs are acting out of ideology and not practical national interests. The ‘freedom and democracy’ thing is a ruse, but that should not devalue the reality of those concepts as practiced or advocated for by people who truly value the right of all human beings to have control over their own fate. Of course, neither they, me, you, nor many others hanging around NM, are as aware as we could be about how our position of privilege affects our actions and relationships with those around us, but we shouldn’t assume everyone is an ivory-tower ideologue with blinders on. After all, Jon, we are both White Westerners having a fruitless debate online about what we think is best for Burma, and no amount of our personal experience is going to change that fundamental fact.
A new front in the fight against poverty
Another recent Vientiane Times article (Sept. 16) states that the MoIC is keen to get Lao National TV onto the Thaicom 5 satellite. This is because most Lao people with a satellite dish point it toward Thaicom to get Lao Star TV (and doubtless all that Thai entertainment content). It could be that the Lao government wants a piece of the market action, development-speak aside! Interestingly (but perhaps not surprisingly), the article said Vietnam had stepped in to give Lao National Television the satellite time for free. Although Thailand’s cultural influence is still a big issue, that is less the headline these days (look at Ananda Everingham proudly proclaiming his part-Lao heritage when “Sabaydii Luang Phrabang came out, and he is one of the most popular actors in Thai films–this is quite a big step). The big issue is how China, Vietnam, Thailand, and the international donors are jostling for influence in Laos, all for their own particular ends. The interesting issue is the Lao response to all of this–the use of “development English” being just one example.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
Jon,
The economic sanctions came AFTER the militiary killed unarmed pro-democracy demonstrations untainted by money from Soros, after the military put Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, and after they refused to concede elections that they unsuccessfully tried to rig. And despite opening up the country to foreign businesses, including American ones, they did not change the basic economic tenets of Ne Win’s Burmese Way to Socialism; the state still owns the land, as Stephen pointed out in a previous post. In light of this, it is hard to see how ASSK would be serving as prime minister if only there hadn’t been sanctions.
I’d say that, “outsiders, not fully engaged with their livelihoods in the place they pontificate about from their outside well-funded positions of power” could apply just as easily to an employee of the Bangkok Post as it does to some academic in the US. It’s not like either of them are busy planting mustard right now for the winter crop with the Kachin villagers at Ho Nawng Kaji.
Voranai Vanijaka takes aim at the context
I suggest you look at his latest utterances before getting too excited…check Pundit’s blog
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
tara: “Where would the US be if we all had thought that jobs-training would be better for African-Americans than civil rights?”
Open Thailand is basically besieged by critical thought and has basically become the a plaything for academics, a professor toy, unlike, for instance, Singapore which keeps this under control.
Critical works on Thai culture and politics coming out of Singapore where no such inward looking criticism is legal is probably the most extreme example of how Thailand has become basically, an intellectual punching bag.
Burma is off the richter scale. Virtually no aspect of this state (history, language, culture) gets studied unless it is directed towards the ongoing 20 year political conflict. This is unhealthy.
If the West had taken a more productive attitude, less ideologically centered position towards Burma 20 years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi would probably already be running for her second term as Prime Minister (China – officially – forgot about Tianmamen years ago). As it stands, what we have is an unproductive stalemate with the Burmese being impoverished and falling more and more behind every year, and no amount of ideological special sauce like Sharp’s is going to change that.
“Democracy activists from Burma are acting of their own free will, and to imply otherwise is pretty insulting.”
To question something is insulting? Implying no one should question you? Implying you’re more than a little undemocratic yourself.
Where the funding goes, little critters newly graduated from college, soon follow. Newton’s fourth law.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
This is a silly debate anyway, you’re arguing apples and oranges. My post was also misleading, because Gene Sharp is not the one who does the training. The ones that do are not even American, and trainings are conducted at the request of activists themselves. There is a long history of non-violent struggle that is verifiable, and many that have been successful. Developing in a material sense does not preclude the work of indigenous political activists. Where would the US be if we all had thought that jobs-training would be better for African-Americans than civil rights? They are not mutually exclusive, but I’d hazard a guess that Martin Luther King and Bernard Lafayette would not have found economic development to mean anything in the absence of equality and basic human rights. You haven’t even read any of Sharp’s work, so you aren’t in a position to accuse it or him of being an ideologue.
Democracy activists from Burma are acting of their own free will, and to imply otherwise is pretty insulting. Neither of us is in a position to judge how much influence the work of Gene Sharp or those institutes has had on their ideas or actions to date. There is no reason to assume that he or others involved support any of the policies, such as sanctions, that you feel adversely affect development in Burma. I
Weird times
These times are not only weird with regards to Asia. It seems as if the whole world is getting ever stranger. For me the most striking feature of these weird times is the focus on persons, or rather the personalization of politics and society, which is indeed rather weird. In Malaysia politics seem to circle around Anwar or Badawi. In Thailand we have Sonthi and Taksin etc. In development policy we have Bill Gates and Bob Geldorf and sometimes Paris Hilton (in the future I guess). This is an indicator that obviously their are no more programmes. (the Democrat Party in Thailand has thereby become the most modern). The structures seem to be dissolved. No more classes, no more interest groups, just persons.
But, perhaps, these are just ideologies that camouflage vested interests that direct the persons in the limelight.
Thailand’s crown prince
Of course Lese majeste doesn’t just apply to the king, but the king’s family , too.
But have you noticed that while royalty is off limits in the Thai press so too, and perhaps more so, is criticism of another institution -the armed forces. Who has the faintest idea of what those guys are up to!
Just curious: has anyone ever read a critical, in depth discussion, of the military in any Thai newspaper? I haven’t.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
“Gene Sharp and the respective institutions in the article do promote the idea of education/technology transfer, because the whole point of non-violent action is that the only sustainable change is change that comes from within. All they provide is training in skills, there’s no consultation or advice on strategy, and they also encourage groups to limit their involvement with foreign supporters, for exactly the reasons you mention in your earlier comment.”
Livelihood skills are the skills that people really need, not revolutionary skills. If Sharp actually devoted his life to teaching rural people how to locate and drill for a water supply like some Peace Corp people do for their two year stint (which should really be supported and extended as a lifetime avocation).
Who does Sharp think he is? He is a “foreign supporter.” If he was actually doing something other than ideological support like the hydrology example above, then his work would be falsifiable and we could verify whether he was actually doing them any good or not, a point made in a book that says it all about foreign ideologues and their mission:
Easterly, William. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. Penguin Press HC, The, 2006.
“And, personally, I would rather reclaim the word ‘democracy,’ for what it really means, rather than capitulating to the co-optation of it by people who use it to gloss over their alterior motives.”
Too long on the privy
“I agree with Surayud”
Me too. You have to start somewhere. Conundrum: Need a strong leader (like Thaksin) who is not using the economy (telecom concession and authority as Prime Minister) to make himself invulnerably rich. Anand fit the bill. Surayud tried to get the chao baan motorcycle taxis off the sidewalks which they zoom along at expressway speeds and occasionally hit pedestrians who are using them the way they are supposed to be used but ao jai chao baan is the watchword.
Chao baan Klong Toey chicken market and vector for avian influenza (covered in chicken poop, occasionally flooding chicken poop) occupying the only sidewalk to Sirikit subway station in central business district. Ao jai, ao jai, ao jai….. (I’m just reflecting demographically vote-wise inferior middle class opinion here) Thailand has always accommodated poor people in every way possible. The myth is that Thaksin started this.
“…forgets his encroachment of the Khao Yai Tieng’s forest reserves for his own house. ”
Unfortunately, everyone does this because there is literally no land near forest areas with deeds. All of it is forestry department land. There are vaste swathes of land being farmed around Chiang Rai on this sort of land. Go ask any tuk tuk driver to show you some land for sale and then start inquiring into the deed status. For a smilar area try Khun Kawn waterfall on the old Chiang Mai highway out of Chiang Rai. Once you get to the beautiful point all the houses are luxury villas for the elite. Chao Ban also benefit from these “flexible” rules. Take the new road in back of Mae Sai which was dirt a couple of years ago with a formal government sign saying no squatting. Locals bought plots there for pennies and sold for millions. Welcome to Wild West Thailand.
“From Dictatorship to Democracy”, Burma and all the rest
The global economy is not structured to provide equality, nor empower those who are at the bottom. The current situation in the US should be a testament to that. China may be different than 20 years ago, but human rights abuses are still rife, and there are plenty who still want change. The notion that economics can improve social problems seems misguided considering that those in power have been using this same tool to maintain their position, and create the current global situation characterized by gross inequities and lack of respect for basic human dignity, for how many generations?
Surely there are options between your two choices, John – economic growth vs. ideological imposition? Gene Sharp and the respective institutions in the article do promote the idea of education/technology transfer, because the whole point of non-violent action is that the only sustainable change is change that comes from within. All they provide is training in skills, there’s no consultation or advice on strategy, and they also encourage groups to limit their involvement with foreign supporters, for exactly the reasons you mention in your earlier comment.
And, personally, I would rather reclaim the word ‘democracy,’ for what it really means, rather than capitulating to the co-optation of it by people who use it to gloss over their alterior motives. (Frequently economic motives, by the way.)
Is Thai democracy really so bad?
Why not look at the survey that goes with the results to see what “democracy” means for the participants? Look at it at: http://www.jdsurvey.net/bdasepjds/easiabarometer/eab.jsp
I have to agree with Saroj’s statement that the results show that: “Thai people in general prefer democracy than any other forms of government. I think this is highly significant.”
This is important research, and while one might question its positivism and so on, these results deserve to go into the mix when thinking about the future of the Thai political system.
The Stilwell Road
No problem. Since you are from Arunachal Pradesh, do you have any latest updates about the international search team who were retrieving crashed WW2 planes there.
That seminar looks promising. Wish you every success.
Btw the link to the blog is good.
Too long on the privy
PC Surayud: “if voters could make informed judgements when casting votes, then national and local governments would be run by good and just politicians”
Did a google search on “informed voters” , clicked around a bit, and found surprising information about the Americans. It appears that even American voters are “abysmally uninformed”!
“5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666.html
Academic type material:
“When Ignorance Isn’t Bliss. How Political Ignorance Threatens Democracy”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa525.pdf
Perhaps, the way towards the solution is for the assumption to be that voters are very likely to make uninformed choices at elections, and how to limit the negative consequences/impacts of such uninformed choices.
About success of coup. After the coup we have faces like Chalerm and Chaiya on cabinet seats! There’s even rumor as reported in the papers about Chalerm getting the justice minister portfolio in the upcoming cabinet!! The cabinet during TRT was certainly not as “ugly” as under PPP and was more competent. So no more coups please!!!
Too long on the privy
Name one country where democracy bring “good and just” leader.
And whose standard is “good and just”, does forest encroaching meet the bar?
Theoretically, since judges are suppose to be “good and just”.
Do we see anyone hail Somchai (former judge)?
If you want “good and just” goes Judiocracy, Democracy bring “popular” leader. It is not the best, but it allow those elected to be replace through ballot box. But Judiocracy, or any appointed MP, will have to be replace by blood on the street…
A new front in the fight against poverty
The article is an excellent example of Monkeo’s, and the editing journalist’s, words being constrained by the ‘development speak’ that they mistake for English because it is the predominant language used by the international community in Laos that the government and its newspaper are seeking to cater for.
As a finite vocabulary in their own right, the MDGs are so broad and non-committal and rather ‘good-sounding’ that it would not be hard at all to attach just about any project to them with the right wording.
There are plenty of state-building, regional-economic, and even ‘poverty related’ reasons for expanding television coverage in Laos and it is interesting that, while Monkeo does make the nationalist case for watching specifically “Lao” television in his quote, the article seems to be more about connectivity and signal coverage. Anyone who has driven through a rural area with electricity will note that one of the first things people want to buy is a satellite receiver for their television. In many cases this takes precidence over things that one might assume to be more urgent, like a good quality housing structure or a toilet.
A conversation that shreds up the language of development speak might focus on what people in rural areas actually want – and it would be surprising if they did not want to be connected and did not closely associated being ‘disconnected’ with other more materially urgent forms of poverty. But then, it always depends on who one speaks with.