A serious question for New Year. Does anyone here actually believe that the discussion of Thai politics is ever likely to be a productive activity? Look out the window this evening and you will see millions of people joyously engaged in the business of getting hammered. Their chances of achieving a more equitable system, even by their own standards, are basically about zero. Why bother to sweat what the majority of Thais (including HM & Thaksin) cannot be bothered to sweat for themselves? If some want meritocracy, they’re probably better off going to live somewhere else.
Oh yeah: Ian: if you don’t like our “pseudo-intellectual claptrap” and are simply impressed by flourishes of the dead language of Rome, you can buzz off to http://www.latinblog.org, where they have a talk about “Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum”.
Repub:
You consistently argue that the palace is the key factor, the key barrier to democratization; that the military is split, almost completely lost the respect of the people, politically impotent as shown by the PPP victory, and is a mere tool of the royalist alliance.
So, no, I don’t stand corrected.
But lets get on: Prem is not powerful because he is the privy council president. His power is the same as it was when he was prime minister: it comes from (1) a superior handling (clumsy as it has been) of military and bureaucratic powers and staffing, and (2) his personal relationship with Bhumibol. I think that the basis for (2) is (1), and not the other way around.
So the difference between our views — your erroneous one and my correct one!! 😉 — can be seen clearly in a reconstruction of your own sentence:
You say: ” The palace is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic ‘royalist alliance’, or using McCargo’s terms, ‘network monarchy’.”
I say: “The military is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic ‘royalist alliance’, or using McCargo’s terms, ‘network monarchy’. ”
I would add that the military sees the palace as its tool, too (like Sarit and Suchinda saw it), and in that sense, the loyalty issue is not easily managed by Prem.
Your points are reasonable to point out that there is no monolithic power in Thailand today and things are very precarious — to which I would add, because the “balance of power” is not governed by any rule of law.
But your key conclusion — that in the absence of Prem, “The military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the elected government” — is a howler.
Does that that mean that you think Democratisation and rule of law have progressed so far in Thailand to never be turned back? Does that mean you think that the pressure from Washington and Canberra is enough to prevent another military takeover? I heard those arguments in Thailand in 1990. Good joke. Funny in Manila too.
“Just remove that one key element – Bhumipol – and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it becomes supreme.”
Rama IX has been no force for democratization, but as I’ve argued before, the real obtacle to Thailand’s democratization has always been, and will continue to be after Rama IX’s passing, the military.
Interesting take on the argument with a ‘lesser of two evils’ argument, which is perfectly embodied by the seizure of power of FM Pibulsonggram from the civilians–namely Pridi–within the People’s Party.
However, I personally think this argument falls apart in the period of time in between 1973 and 1976, where there was a sizable leftist movement and heightened awareness of democracy from the populace itself, rather than any from an elite. This force was, of course, put out with the 1976 massacre, and it was the monarchy who played the biggest role in legitimizing the massacre. If it was only military action, there would only be a repeat of October 1973 and in that instance, the military was forced back into the barracks.
Keep in mind that within the military itself, there are progressive commanders, ambitious generals, and what not. The military would fall apart if it were not for the palace. Remember how Pridi attempted a coup against Pibulsonggram or the Manhattan rebellion against Pibul. The one thing that has allowed the military to act effectively is the monarchy.
Therefore, “just remove that one key element – Bhumipol – and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it fractures and becomes ineffective against the forces of democracy and against its own ranks.”
After Rama IX’s (and Prem’s) passing, the power of the throne will greatly diminish, and be at risk of being pushed aside by ambitious generals. The survival of the throne may be under greater threat under military dictatorship than under a parliamentary system (which would be very ironic for Republican ).
Post Prem and his cabal of coutier-generals, who’s to say the next generation of generals have any particular allegience to the throne (particularly if held by Vachiralongkorn)? Does Rama X fear the emergence of a new Jormpol Por.?… At least under a parliamentary system with elected governments, its hard to see a political party winning votes campaigning on a platform of abolishing the monarchy, lest majeste or not.
There is a higher likelihood that a Sarit will arise out of the situation than there is for a Franco. But then again, in this day and age, what is the possibility of the military ruling Thailand ever again? Very little. If they try, they will be driven out not only by international pressure, but by public opinion and by those within their own ranks. The chances of Thailand turning into Burma are very slim.
P.S. For your information, Ian, these comment boards are regulated.
I think the change in the monarchy is slow but ongoing , and like the NST writer I see more chance for positive change with the monarchy in place than under politicians like Thaksin.
I disagree. Because with politicians like Thaksin, there can be protests, criticism, and Constitutional scrutiny of him. Eroded, but still possible and vastly more democratic than any monarch. Now, if you were to base your judgment on your perceived character of these two individuals, then there is nothing I can argue, because neither of us knows them personally. But for me, the record speaks for itself–they are both oddly and intriguingly similar.
I also think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the electorate was more discerning.
How about I think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the monarch was more virtuous? That statement would be just as valid as yours, wouldn’t it?
It is unfair to blame the populace when there is one manipulative and misleading figure (with ample education) trying to control their minds rather than educating or promoting critical thinking.
Republican, I argue that the military was able to defy the authority of the elected government in Sept-06 because the ‘millions in yellow’ was on its side, not because the King was on its side.
Without the yellow protests leading up to Sept-06, a coup would have been impossible even if it had the blessing of the King (and I doubt the King would have dared support a coup if the yellow people weren’t in the streets). What the military fears most is a repeat of May-92, its most humiliating defeat.
Furthermore, as I posted earlier, after Rama 9, the king’s blessing may even become unnecessary.
Ladyboy: I only posted the link as an example of a different view to the Jakarta Post editorial posted by Andrew – I didn’t realize you actually wanted a reply from me.
Do you honestly think the king is going to change his spots now?
I think the change in the monarchy is slow but ongoing , and like the NST writer I see more chance for positive change with the monarchy in place than under politicians like Thaksin.
I also think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the electorate was more discerning.
I look forward to Handley’s paper at the ICTS, on the Privy Council. By the way, the Bangkok Post advertises the conference as an academic conference and an “event to celebrate the 80th birthday of His Majesty the King.”
It seems pretty clear that the conservative elite is now going to overturn the result – or at least try to make a Democrat-led coalition of the also-rans possible. Bad time of the year, I know, but I’d like to hear comments on these shenanigans.
Thompson, the author of the article in the New Straits Times, is a long-time US “agent” in SE Asia; i.e. his role has long been to promote a particular and conservative US position in the region. To suggest that the king is likely to promote a merit-based system in Thailand is laughable. Even the king wouldn’t suggest he’s doing that! Goodness, this king has promoted a hierarchal system that has fashioned a royalist elite. But maybe the article suggests that the US, which did so much to promote the king in the Cold War days, is showing its cards in the event that the palace-led elite can, by hook or by crook, overturn the PPP’s election victory.
The new ambassador is arriving in interesting times.
Grasshopper. My point was about the KING NOT promoting liberalism and a merit based society as per Ngan’s link.( Ngan was too overwhelmed by my argument to reply) I am not interested in your definitions of these which just gave you a chance to bignote yourself. Being a ladyboy I am quite aware of the meaning of a merit based society and the lack thereof.
Reply to Polo: please don’t misrepresent what I wrote – for your own sake, as anyone can go back and read my posts and see for themselves.
I never said or argued that the monarchy was “standing on its own without the military”. And I never said that the military did not have any power of its own.
The point that we are arguing is who is ultimately “in control”. I reject the argument that is continually repeated in the media and academia that it is the military that is “in control”. In THIS era there is nothing the military can do “unilaterally” (to use david w’s words); it needs the approval of the Palace – through Prem (since the king has to keep up the pretence that he’s a constitutional monarch and not be seen to directly interfere in politics). The power that Prem wields today is not based on any official position in the military (there are dozens of former army commanders running around who have no power over the military), but on his position as Chairman of the Privy Council. That is, his real power today comes from the king. That power is exercised through the military and other bodies and institutions.
That is why so many non-military people (including the royalist-oriented parties like the Democrats, Chat Thai, Phuea Phaendin) are trying so hard to defend Prem. If Prem were removed it would be a crippling blow to the royalist alliance AND to the military element within that alliance. The military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the elected government. The only way it is able today to defy the authority of the elected government is by calling on the legitimacy of the monarchy, which it relied upon so heavily in the September 19 coup and after. So if Prem were removed it would certainly not be a case of “nothing changes” to military power, as you argued.
The palace is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic “royalist alliance”, or using McCargo’s terms, “network monarchy”. This system of governance is sui generis and rendered partially invisible by lese majeste, which is why it is so misunderstood. Thailand is not like Myanmar or Pakistan or Indonesia during the New Order where there is nothing above the military (better comparisons would be with Iran before 1979, or Nepal today, although in these cases there are obvious differences as well).
In my opinion it is very important that we analyse the situation correctly, which means recognizing that it is not the military that is the obstacle to democracy in Thailand, but the monarchy.
nganadeeleg, the postscript on my last post was intended to be humorous.
Ian, I too was expecting a pompous and hypocritical response of the kind you exhibit in #224. Indeed, as of three posts by you in this thread, you have yet to provide any on-topic commentary or criticism of Handley’s book; rather, you and nganadeeleg seem content to act like sophmoric schoolboys, sitting in the back of the classroom and sniggering at their instructor because he wrote the Latin phrase taper cum anus on the blackboard.
Furthermore, just what was is your “point” you claim I prove, anyway? You enter the discussion (and this online community) with an admonishment not to engage in “abuse and point scoring,” and then, unprovked, you attempt to abuse and point score off of me with a snide remark concerning my contribution to a discussion, of which, you weren’t originally even involved .
So again, I ask you, why don’t you provide “a reasonable critique of Handley’s work”? Or have you, like Lucifer Lightbringer, have fallen with us into this wretched fallen state of only providing “abuse and point scoring,” which you describe as “such a waste of energy and time”.
Once you are able to overcome your urge to respond to my comments without engaging in abuse or point scoring, I will look forward to your thoughts on Handley’s biography.
Just as an aside, I believe the answer to nganadeeleg’s query in #87 might be something similar to “Homo ineptus imitator vel affectator.” In my defense, I applied such soraismus in my diction for a particular rhetorical effect, i.e. to highlight Sidh’s ignorance of Western history; however, I see no such artifice behind Ian’s and nganadeeleg’s constant employment of aschematiston.
screwtheuselesselection, Yes! Maybe I could get the King and Thaksin to resume a relationship in order to fight against a common enemy, myself! I picture a Transformers(TM) like battle. 😉
LSS, In reference to my use of both meanings of meritocracy, I was referring to Mill’s requirements of a liberal for what merit should be if there was to be a compatible system, but in the pejorative sense, I was just conveying confusingly that liberal values are often not what those with power determine merit to be.
Furthermore, if one wants a society with a conception of merit that reflects whatever value of work that the society has been directed towards, then I argue classical liberalism (proper liberalism) is impossible because you are only free to do what the society cultures you to do or react against doing. However, it can be argued that society gives the individual options to be free and grow, even if the individual (in, for instance, a meritocracy) is not actually conscious of a freedom that they may be lacking.
But I would say that a meritocracy only allows for a narrow and limited freedom, extending only to the paradigms of those judging merit, which prunes ones growth — especially if the judgment of merit is limited to the views of only one person (and extending perhaps to a Privy Council). Therefore, a meritocracy is not capable of supporting liberalism because merit is only objective to those judging, but subjective to those being judged. Subjective because the judgment comes from another human and I would argue that it is still relative irrespective of persons believing that something greater than humankind has divinely directed the judgment.
I am being facetious about this suggestion of comparative ‘levels’ of liberalism that a lot of seemingly impatient pseudo Western people have because it is not like that those of us in the West are anymore free in merit based judgments, it is only that instead of the judgment being spawned from one person and then carried down through society, over the last hundred years we Westerners have seen public servicemen (and women!) determining what is acceptable and free. This view is dependent on a nation being run by people and not corporate monsters of course. So when I read “not developing liberalism like they should” (should being the Western values that this New Straits Times journalist espouses) arguments, I believe that this very notion stifles Thailand’s ability to expediently evolve it’s own democracy which is ironically what the article is trying to elucidate.
(All this isn’t really relevant in the Rocky Mountains where there is trade amongst communities of 50 enough for ample cider to have merit judged merrily, and friendly vibes as long as there is a new thatched roof from Jim the thatcher for winter and plenty of redwood on the fire from Ted the lumberjack to keep the gosh darn, paralysing and un-free, cold out.)
“Just remove that one key element – Bhumipol – and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it becomes supreme.”
Rama IX has been no force for democratization, but as I’ve argued before, the real obtacle to Thailand’s democratization has always been, and will continue to be after Rama IX’s passing, the military.
After Rama IX’s (and Prem’s) passing, the power of the throne will greatly diminish, and be at risk of being pushed aside by ambitious generals. The survival of the throne may be under greater threat under military dictatorship than under a parliamentary system (which would be very ironic for Republican 🙂 ). Post Prem and his cabal of coutier-generals, who’s to say the next generation of generals have any particular allegience to the throne (particularly if held by Vachiralongkorn)? Does Rama X fear the emergence of a new Jormpol Por.?… At least under a parliamentary system with elected governments, its hard to see a political party winning votes campaigning on a platform of abolishing the monarchy, lest majeste or not.
In your reply to Ladyboy, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term “meritocracy” in both its original pejorative sense and its current positive sense. In either sense, I find it a bit too sweeping to say that meritocracy is mutally exclusive to liberalism. I mean, what form of liberalism are you talking about? Economic “classical” liberalism or Social “progressive” liberalism. I would agree with you concerning the latter, but, as for the former, didn’t most of Ayn Rand’s wet dreams revolve around a laissez-faire capitalist meritocracy (nestled in between the beautiful Rocky Mountains, of course)?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Using wisdom to see reality
Is blogging really a
A serious question for New Year. Does anyone here actually believe that the discussion of Thai politics is ever likely to be a productive activity? Look out the window this evening and you will see millions of people joyously engaged in the business of getting hammered. Their chances of achieving a more equitable system, even by their own standards, are basically about zero. Why bother to sweat what the majority of Thais (including HM & Thaksin) cannot be bothered to sweat for themselves? If some want meritocracy, they’re probably better off going to live somewhere else.
The King Never Smiles?
Oh yeah: Ian: if you don’t like our “pseudo-intellectual claptrap” and are simply impressed by flourishes of the dead language of Rome, you can buzz off to http://www.latinblog.org, where they have a talk about “Harrius Potter et Camera Secretorum”.
The King Never Smiles?
Repub:
You consistently argue that the palace is the key factor, the key barrier to democratization; that the military is split, almost completely lost the respect of the people, politically impotent as shown by the PPP victory, and is a mere tool of the royalist alliance.
So, no, I don’t stand corrected.
But lets get on: Prem is not powerful because he is the privy council president. His power is the same as it was when he was prime minister: it comes from (1) a superior handling (clumsy as it has been) of military and bureaucratic powers and staffing, and (2) his personal relationship with Bhumibol. I think that the basis for (2) is (1), and not the other way around.
So the difference between our views — your erroneous one and my correct one!! 😉 — can be seen clearly in a reconstruction of your own sentence:
You say: ” The palace is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic ‘royalist alliance’, or using McCargo’s terms, ‘network monarchy’.”
I say: “The military is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic ‘royalist alliance’, or using McCargo’s terms, ‘network monarchy’. ”
I would add that the military sees the palace as its tool, too (like Sarit and Suchinda saw it), and in that sense, the loyalty issue is not easily managed by Prem.
Your points are reasonable to point out that there is no monolithic power in Thailand today and things are very precarious — to which I would add, because the “balance of power” is not governed by any rule of law.
But your key conclusion — that in the absence of Prem, “The military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the elected government” — is a howler.
Does that that mean that you think Democratisation and rule of law have progressed so far in Thailand to never be turned back? Does that mean you think that the pressure from Washington and Canberra is enough to prevent another military takeover? I heard those arguments in Thailand in 1990. Good joke. Funny in Manila too.
The King Never Smiles?
Interesting take on the argument with a ‘lesser of two evils’ argument, which is perfectly embodied by the seizure of power of FM Pibulsonggram from the civilians–namely Pridi–within the People’s Party.
However, I personally think this argument falls apart in the period of time in between 1973 and 1976, where there was a sizable leftist movement and heightened awareness of democracy from the populace itself, rather than any from an elite. This force was, of course, put out with the 1976 massacre, and it was the monarchy who played the biggest role in legitimizing the massacre. If it was only military action, there would only be a repeat of October 1973 and in that instance, the military was forced back into the barracks.
Keep in mind that within the military itself, there are progressive commanders, ambitious generals, and what not. The military would fall apart if it were not for the palace. Remember how Pridi attempted a coup against Pibulsonggram or the Manhattan rebellion against Pibul. The one thing that has allowed the military to act effectively is the monarchy.
Therefore, “just remove that one key element – Bhumipol – and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it fractures and becomes ineffective against the forces of democracy and against its own ranks.”
There is a higher likelihood that a Sarit will arise out of the situation than there is for a Franco. But then again, in this day and age, what is the possibility of the military ruling Thailand ever again? Very little. If they try, they will be driven out not only by international pressure, but by public opinion and by those within their own ranks. The chances of Thailand turning into Burma are very slim.
P.S. For your information, Ian, these comment boards are regulated.
Using wisdom to see reality
I disagree. Because with politicians like Thaksin, there can be protests, criticism, and Constitutional scrutiny of him. Eroded, but still possible and vastly more democratic than any monarch. Now, if you were to base your judgment on your perceived character of these two individuals, then there is nothing I can argue, because neither of us knows them personally. But for me, the record speaks for itself–they are both oddly and intriguingly similar.
How about I think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the monarch was more virtuous? That statement would be just as valid as yours, wouldn’t it?
It is unfair to blame the populace when there is one manipulative and misleading figure (with ample education) trying to control their minds rather than educating or promoting critical thinking.
The King Never Smiles?
Republican, I argue that the military was able to defy the authority of the elected government in Sept-06 because the ‘millions in yellow’ was on its side, not because the King was on its side.
Without the yellow protests leading up to Sept-06, a coup would have been impossible even if it had the blessing of the King (and I doubt the King would have dared support a coup if the yellow people weren’t in the streets). What the military fears most is a repeat of May-92, its most humiliating defeat.
Furthermore, as I posted earlier, after Rama 9, the king’s blessing may even become unnecessary.
Using wisdom to see reality
Ladyboy: I only posted the link as an example of a different view to the Jakarta Post editorial posted by Andrew – I didn’t realize you actually wanted a reply from me.
Do you honestly think the king is going to change his spots now?
I think the change in the monarchy is slow but ongoing , and like the NST writer I see more chance for positive change with the monarchy in place than under politicians like Thaksin.
I also think the change in the monarchy would have been much quicker if the electorate was more discerning.
The King Never Smiles?
I look forward to Handley’s paper at the ICTS, on the Privy Council. By the way, the Bangkok Post advertises the conference as an academic conference and an “event to celebrate the 80th birthday of His Majesty the King.”
Analysis
It seems pretty clear that the conservative elite is now going to overturn the result – or at least try to make a Democrat-led coalition of the also-rans possible. Bad time of the year, I know, but I’d like to hear comments on these shenanigans.
Using wisdom to see reality
Thompson, the author of the article in the New Straits Times, is a long-time US “agent” in SE Asia; i.e. his role has long been to promote a particular and conservative US position in the region. To suggest that the king is likely to promote a merit-based system in Thailand is laughable. Even the king wouldn’t suggest he’s doing that! Goodness, this king has promoted a hierarchal system that has fashioned a royalist elite. But maybe the article suggests that the US, which did so much to promote the king in the Cold War days, is showing its cards in the event that the palace-led elite can, by hook or by crook, overturn the PPP’s election victory.
The new ambassador is arriving in interesting times.
The King Never Smiles?
LSS: Lets not go over old ground.
FWIW, my review of the book is at post #33 above – I’ll stick to aschematiston and and leave the periergia to you.
Using wisdom to see reality
Grasshopper. My point was about the KING NOT promoting liberalism and a merit based society as per Ngan’s link.( Ngan was too overwhelmed by my argument to reply) I am not interested in your definitions of these which just gave you a chance to bignote yourself. Being a ladyboy I am quite aware of the meaning of a merit based society and the lack thereof.
The King Never Smiles?
Reply to Polo: please don’t misrepresent what I wrote – for your own sake, as anyone can go back and read my posts and see for themselves.
I never said or argued that the monarchy was “standing on its own without the military”. And I never said that the military did not have any power of its own.
The point that we are arguing is who is ultimately “in control”. I reject the argument that is continually repeated in the media and academia that it is the military that is “in control”. In THIS era there is nothing the military can do “unilaterally” (to use david w’s words); it needs the approval of the Palace – through Prem (since the king has to keep up the pretence that he’s a constitutional monarch and not be seen to directly interfere in politics). The power that Prem wields today is not based on any official position in the military (there are dozens of former army commanders running around who have no power over the military), but on his position as Chairman of the Privy Council. That is, his real power today comes from the king. That power is exercised through the military and other bodies and institutions.
That is why so many non-military people (including the royalist-oriented parties like the Democrats, Chat Thai, Phuea Phaendin) are trying so hard to defend Prem. If Prem were removed it would be a crippling blow to the royalist alliance AND to the military element within that alliance. The military would have no choice but to submit to the authority of the elected government. The only way it is able today to defy the authority of the elected government is by calling on the legitimacy of the monarchy, which it relied upon so heavily in the September 19 coup and after. So if Prem were removed it would certainly not be a case of “nothing changes” to military power, as you argued.
The palace is the lynchpin in an anti-democratic “royalist alliance”, or using McCargo’s terms, “network monarchy”. This system of governance is sui generis and rendered partially invisible by lese majeste, which is why it is so misunderstood. Thailand is not like Myanmar or Pakistan or Indonesia during the New Order where there is nothing above the military (better comparisons would be with Iran before 1979, or Nepal today, although in these cases there are obvious differences as well).
In my opinion it is very important that we analyse the situation correctly, which means recognizing that it is not the military that is the obstacle to democracy in Thailand, but the monarchy.
The King Never Smiles?
Ian, some think the book is a bit shifty. Others think that the book should trigger the end of the monarchy. There you go.
Why start participating in petty soap box intellectualising if you are above it? Booyakasha!
The King Never Smiles?
re: Ian & nganadeeleg:
nganadeeleg, the postscript on my last post was intended to be humorous.
Ian, I too was expecting a pompous and hypocritical response of the kind you exhibit in #224. Indeed, as of three posts by you in this thread, you have yet to provide any on-topic commentary or criticism of Handley’s book; rather, you and nganadeeleg seem content to act like sophmoric schoolboys, sitting in the back of the classroom and sniggering at their instructor because he wrote the Latin phrase taper cum anus on the blackboard.
Furthermore, just what was is your “point” you claim I prove, anyway? You enter the discussion (and this online community) with an admonishment not to engage in “abuse and point scoring,” and then, unprovked, you attempt to abuse and point score off of me with a snide remark concerning my contribution to a discussion, of which, you weren’t originally even involved .
So again, I ask you, why don’t you provide “a reasonable critique of Handley’s work”? Or have you, like Lucifer Lightbringer, have fallen with us into this wretched fallen state of only providing “abuse and point scoring,” which you describe as “such a waste of energy and time”.
Once you are able to overcome your urge to respond to my comments without engaging in abuse or point scoring, I will look forward to your thoughts on Handley’s biography.
Just as an aside, I believe the answer to nganadeeleg’s query in #87 might be something similar to “Homo ineptus imitator vel affectator.” In my defense, I applied such soraismus in my diction for a particular rhetorical effect, i.e. to highlight Sidh’s ignorance of Western history; however, I see no such artifice behind Ian’s and nganadeeleg’s constant employment of aschematiston.
Sincerely,
Lleij Samuel Schwartz
Using wisdom to see reality
screwtheuselesselection, Yes! Maybe I could get the King and Thaksin to resume a relationship in order to fight against a common enemy, myself! I picture a Transformers(TM) like battle. 😉
LSS, In reference to my use of both meanings of meritocracy, I was referring to Mill’s requirements of a liberal for what merit should be if there was to be a compatible system, but in the pejorative sense, I was just conveying confusingly that liberal values are often not what those with power determine merit to be.
Furthermore, if one wants a society with a conception of merit that reflects whatever value of work that the society has been directed towards, then I argue classical liberalism (proper liberalism) is impossible because you are only free to do what the society cultures you to do or react against doing. However, it can be argued that society gives the individual options to be free and grow, even if the individual (in, for instance, a meritocracy) is not actually conscious of a freedom that they may be lacking.
But I would say that a meritocracy only allows for a narrow and limited freedom, extending only to the paradigms of those judging merit, which prunes ones growth — especially if the judgment of merit is limited to the views of only one person (and extending perhaps to a Privy Council). Therefore, a meritocracy is not capable of supporting liberalism because merit is only objective to those judging, but subjective to those being judged. Subjective because the judgment comes from another human and I would argue that it is still relative irrespective of persons believing that something greater than humankind has divinely directed the judgment.
I am being facetious about this suggestion of comparative ‘levels’ of liberalism that a lot of seemingly impatient pseudo Western people have because it is not like that those of us in the West are anymore free in merit based judgments, it is only that instead of the judgment being spawned from one person and then carried down through society, over the last hundred years we Westerners have seen public servicemen (and women!) determining what is acceptable and free. This view is dependent on a nation being run by people and not corporate monsters of course. So when I read “not developing liberalism like they should” (should being the Western values that this New Straits Times journalist espouses) arguments, I believe that this very notion stifles Thailand’s ability to expediently evolve it’s own democracy which is ironically what the article is trying to elucidate.
(All this isn’t really relevant in the Rocky Mountains where there is trade amongst communities of 50 enough for ample cider to have merit judged merrily, and friendly vibes as long as there is a new thatched roof from Jim the thatcher for winter and plenty of redwood on the fire from Ted the lumberjack to keep the gosh darn, paralysing and un-free, cold out.)
The King Never Smiles?
To paraphrase and augment Polo’s #217, if I may:
“Just remove that one key element – Bhumipol – and what happens to royal power, and what happens to military power? For the former, it evaporates. To the latter, it becomes supreme.”
Rama IX has been no force for democratization, but as I’ve argued before, the real obtacle to Thailand’s democratization has always been, and will continue to be after Rama IX’s passing, the military.
After Rama IX’s (and Prem’s) passing, the power of the throne will greatly diminish, and be at risk of being pushed aside by ambitious generals. The survival of the throne may be under greater threat under military dictatorship than under a parliamentary system (which would be very ironic for Republican 🙂 ). Post Prem and his cabal of coutier-generals, who’s to say the next generation of generals have any particular allegience to the throne (particularly if held by Vachiralongkorn)? Does Rama X fear the emergence of a new Jormpol Por.?… At least under a parliamentary system with elected governments, its hard to see a political party winning votes campaigning on a platform of abolishing the monarchy, lest majeste or not.
The King Never Smiles?
LSS: Andrew or Nich should be able to address your conspiracy theory
(a denial by me would be pointless)
Using wisdom to see reality
re: Grasshopper
In your reply to Ladyboy, I find it interesting that you seem to be using the term “meritocracy” in both its original pejorative sense and its current positive sense. In either sense, I find it a bit too sweeping to say that meritocracy is mutally exclusive to liberalism. I mean, what form of liberalism are you talking about? Economic “classical” liberalism or Social “progressive” liberalism. I would agree with you concerning the latter, but, as for the former, didn’t most of Ayn Rand’s wet dreams revolve around a laissez-faire capitalist meritocracy (nestled in between the beautiful Rocky Mountains, of course)?
The King Never Smiles?
Re: LLS
I was expecting a response of the kind you exhibit in #223. Proves my point. And no, there is no conspiracy, so you can think again.