What a piece! Ballsy pair getting on the wrong side of all the polarised scholars who write on all things Thailand. Well all things prodemocracy and anti establishment anyway. No one ever dare mention the problems of democracy in Thailand because that would make you a ‘yellow’ or a ‘monarchist’. How the hell is democracy possible in Thailand? It is not. Nope. I said it – so, go, attack me!
This author correctly identifies some ‘rhetorical flourishes’ in the maritime axis concept but she perhaps perceives a ‘strategic vision’ a little too readily.
One has only to look at the ministers whom Jokowi has appointed in the security portfolios to feel some scepticism about the ‘global maritime axis’ as a strategic concept, at least in terms of Indonesia’s defence. Has Coordinating Minister Tedjo Edhy Purdijanto ever given a speech about this axis?
When Defence Minister Ryamizard recently spoke at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, he identified the following threats that Indonesia faced:
тАвTerrorism and radicalism
тАвNatural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and forest fires
тАвPandemic disease; the outbreak of infectious disease such as Ebola
тАвPiracy, theft of natural resources
тАвIllicit incursion; poaching of natural resources
тАвSeparatism and insurgency
тАвCyber-attacks and information warfare
тАвSmuggling and abuse of narcotics/drugs
While two items on Ryamizard’s laundry list could arguably be linked to the maritime axis idea, one would like to know why he didn’t mention the term itself. It is hardly some sort of secret that the 60,000 foreign spies in Indonesia whom Ryamizard exposed a decade ago need to hunt down.
Nor, incidentally, did Ryamizard make a single reference in his address to China’s ambitions or activities in the South China Sea. What did Defense Secretary Ashton Carter make of that omission? Strategic myopia, perhaps, rather than strategic vision.
And then we have Jokowi’s nominee as TNI Commander, army chief of staff Gatot Nurmantyo. (I am informed that ‘Gatot’ has become a slang word for ‘gagal total’ (total failure) in the language of urban Indonesian youth.) Given the need that the author herself acknowledges for Indonesia’s navy and air force to be modernised, why has Jokowi decided to deny the air force its due turn at commanding TNI after General Moeldoko and instead elected to give the post, if parliament approves, to another army officer? Gatot has, to boot, only been in the chief of staff post for a year. Will General Ryamizard and General Gatot have the navy’s and air force’s best interests at heart? Shifting resources from one service to another service or, in this case, to two others is rarely an easy exercise.
In his many speeches throughout the country, Gatot has paid little or no attention to the defence implications of the maritime axis. Instead, he has waved a stern finger at unnamed foreign adversaries, abetted by wicked domestic NGOs, who are bent on corrupting Indonesia’s youth by seducing them onto the treadmill of addiction to drugs and free sex.
Maybe a fresh approach to the ‘strategic concept’ of the maritime axis will come from Jokowi’s septuagenarian nominee for head of the national intelligence agency, BIN, General Sutiyoso.
Inhumane as far as capital punishment is concerned, Jokowi redeems himself when confronted by two incompetent candidates for high office. He humanely selects the older one.
Well, Nick, I can see we are just going to have to agree to disagree because all the liberals at the time were calling Thaksin out for undermining the constitution, shutting down the free press, and ordering extrajudicial executions, among a host of other anti-democratic behaviors. For me the passage of time doesn’t really change that.
And because that is the only Thaksin government that has even come close to having a free rein (meaning operating without constantly having to check with the RTA), that is the one we need to look at clearly to understand what and who Thai voters are electing time and again. Notice I accept their right to choose the illiberal strongman they want to govern them; but to pretend they are choosing otherwise is disingenuous at best.
And everyone knows the oft-retailed story of “who is REALLY responsible” for the WoD. I have used it in exactly the same way many times. But I have come to realize that all that does is underline the absolutely undemocratic nature of TS governments.
If we work on the assumption that the first TS admin was a bit of a shockingly powerful injection of democratic spirit into the Thai political system, then we have to hold the PM responsible for his programs and policies.
If on the other hand we want to say it was the responsibility of the usual Amart suspects, then TS is being presented as yet another ineffectual puppet, and the state murders he ordered were not really his responsibility.
That kind of thinking will absolve not only Prayuth of whatever he ends up having to do to maintain the power of the Thai state, but also the ol’ Butcher of Bangkok himself of course. These guys are just following the instructions of the shadowy figures floating high above them.
Culture of impunity anyone?
And there is nothing “ivory tower” about the idea that what Thailand needs is an ideologically-based political party that presents democratic reform as its platform.
The time for top-down parodies like the process leading up to the 97 Constitution has passed; it’s either going to come from the people or it’s going to be yet another version of “Thai-style democracy”, whether Thaksin-style or “good people 97”-style.
It’s been 83 years, folks.
Wake up and smell the coffee. There is no slow build taking place, just a series of shifts and feints to silence critics and get the international community to calm down. As always.
The most recent coup did NOT destroy Thai democracy because it never existed in the first place. And as long as enough people are content to pretend otherwise, there never will be.
Thanks for your comment Nick – a lot I agree with.
What I find strange is that despite all their many faults, the “Thaksin” govts were far far far more democratic than this junta.
I’ve always found it incredibly bizarre that anyone would believe a military coup – when there was a clear democratic govt, who were more than willing to put their mandate to the test – would be seen a necessary step on the route to democracy but an elected government wouldn’t be!
As for the War on Drugs – it was widely supported by the many of same people who then wanted to remove Thaksin/Yingluck etc via anti-democratic means.
And, given the international context for a “War on Drugs” – has anyone looked at the USA’s activity in South and Central America using a “War on Drugs” as a rationale, supporting extreme rightwing militias and govts & leading to 1000s and 1000s of deaths – the Thai version, whilst it’s clear crimes were committed in its application, is relatively small-fry.
While some point you make here i can agree with, there are others i do not. Thaksin’s government was indeed a democratically elected authoritarian government. Nevertheless, some of the reasons cited here as evidence, such as the drug war, and the southern problem, have to be seen in a slightly expanded context than just Thaksin was PM and therefore he ordered all this.
Nobody dares to speak the truth about the drug war. I don’t either, other than stating that the drug war, including the killings, were based on an elite consensus in which Thaksin was but one part. Without this consensus the drug war could have never been done as it was. One should also not forget the situation before the drug war, how bad it really was, and that the Chuan 2 government has caused the situation to deteriorate so badly by not having done anything for the rural areas after the ’97 crises. I do not want to justify the killings here. I have photographed quite a bit of it at the time, and i was appalled. But i was equally appalled seeing entire communities getting destroyed by drugs, even my own family here.
The South is an equally complex problem, and cannot be simplified as Thaksin’s miserable treatment of Southern dissidents. First of all, they are not just “dissidents” – this is an extremely brutal insurgency. There is, as you are aware, i guess, a long and complex history involved. This did not start with Thaksin, and not just Thaksin has made major mistakes. As to the two most well known incidents – Kru Sue and Tak Bai, in both Thaksin may have made some not very nice comments (which he later apologized for, in the run up to the 2011 elections, most likely on the advice of his lobbyists), but the decisions were entirely local. In the Kru Sue the decision to storm was made against the order of Defense Minister Chavalit by local ISOC (i think it was Panlop, if i remember correctly). Tak Bai was entirely local security forces who decided to transport the arrested protesters on the lorries.
In both incidents the officers were later, under the Surayud and the Abhisit administration protected by the courts.
The next point – Samak. A lot of people, on both sides of the game were involved in the ’76 massacre (and what led up to it). Chamlong Srimuang, for example, played a far more pivotal (and hands-on) role in that era.
Politics necessitates compromise, and in a country like Thailand, these compromises are very uncomfortable at times.
However – coming back to the point of liberal democracy – i do see a clear trend of the Red side to evolve in that direction, especially under Red Shirts, and slower under the PT party. The Yingluck government was not the same as the Thaksin administration. Things have changed, and developed. This whole thing is a work in progress, and so is Democracy. The Red Shirts are not the same anymore as in 2010, they have evolved, and so has their internal discourse not least through their experiences, such as 2010, and such as the conflict over the amnesty bill, in which the majority Red Shirts were against their allied PT party (as singified by the Bueng Gum stage, and the followng conflict between Sud Soi and Grang Soi). The eventual withdrawal of the bill, faced by opposition by both PDRC and the Red Shirts, shows that the Yingluck government was not just about majoritism, less so that the Thaksin governments and the Abhisit government.
The Red Shirts in 2010 were also not the same Red Shirts as the anti-coup protesters in 2006, leading to the first UDD founded in 2007.
The development of these years are the reason why i judge the Red side as evolving into something we can call liberal democracy.
This “third option” of a “truly democratic party” is one of these academic pipe dreams, i am sorry to say. In the context of this conflict this idea has been floating around under progressive circles since the first PAD protests, then it was the “mai aow song” position. The only thing i can say to this is that Thailand’s structures have to develop further before this can be put in practice. And one day it will take place, naturally, and when the time is right. Now it simply isn’t.
I think in the Thai political situation it is important to make a distinction between ‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism/liberal democracy’.
I agree that UDD/TRT/PPP/PT have an admirable attitude toward elections as a method of choosing a government.
Nothing they have ever done or said, however, supports the notion that the democracy they support is anything other than majoritarianism, with absolutely no commitment to the ‘liberal’ side of liberal democracy, which is the only kind that I think deserves any respect.
Thaksin’s WoD, his savage treatment of southern dissidents, disappeared HR campaigners and his admittedly failed campaign to silence media in Thailand suggest a very anti-liberal bias to the first Thaksin administrations.
His “strategic” choice of Samak, the extreme right-wing royalist who was instrumental in provoking the Hok Tula massacre in 1976, to be his nominee PM in 2008 would seem to underline his willingness to go to any lengths to be admitted to the “bad” amart and give up all this “democracy” nonsense at any moment.
You refer to their “soft-handed” approach to security issues when in power. I put it to you that the only “soft-handedness” they demonstrated was due to their unwillingness/inability to mobilize violence against anyone known to be associated with the palace/RTA.
The young men murdered in the WoD and a rather large number of southern Thais would question the “soft-handed” label if they were alive to do so. Significantly, though, they are not.
The “refusal” of Yingluck’s administration to use violence against the fascist street theater of Suthep et al is often enough invoked as a measure of her “soft-handedness” that you have to wonder how it is that it is equally often rationalized by her lack of control over the RTA.
On one hand, pro-democracy folks want to give her credit for being perhaps the world’s first elected leader to indulge in Gandhian ahimsa while abandoning her country to a military-judicial coup.
On the other, when confronted with her absolute failure to even attempt to maintain her democratically legitimate position and defend the notion of popular sovereignty against military/royalist/fascist insurrection, her apologists cite her lack of control over the military.
One way or the other, it highlights the non-democratic nature of her government, if by ‘democratic’ we refer to liberal democracy and to the various details that that state of affairs necessarily involves beyond the “elected” label.
I spent days among the Redshirts in 2010 and I have to say I grew to love those people and supported them 100% in their demand to have their votes counted and Abhisit removed from his illegitimate seat in government. But I don’t fool myself that any but a tiny percentage of those people would be adequately labeled ‘liberal’ in their politics.
On the few occasions when I went and mingled with the Yellow Hordes during Suthep’s highly successful insurrection, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt which group of non-liberal protesters I would rather eat with, dance with and shout support for from any rooftop. I remain as “red” as they come in my emotional self.
But my rational self knows equally surely that this is not a movement that will ever develop into a drive for liberal democracy.
For that, a democratic party needs to be formed and supported in Thailand.
Until there is a political struggle that takes on the real issue of democracy, liberal democracy, as an ideological issue, there can only be the oxygen-starved brains of nose-holding liberals indulging in self-deception and propagandistic distortion in defense of CEO Thaksin, who would sell his grandma to get admitted to non-democratically determined power in Thailand.
And that, gentlemen, has run its course as a useful strategy in this struggle.
This is good criticism of the West, Tyn, and, I think, of what Thaksin has to offer. The little people of Thailand are probably voting mainly with their pockets when they shift their loyalty from the Monarchy to Thaksin. Bourgeois values everywhere destroy feudalism, and Thailand will be no exception. The death of feudalism is clearly a good thing, but is not the only thing bourgeois values destroy. Western culture is being hollowed out as people fall increasingly under the control of piles of money, and growing them becomes the only value worth having. Xenophobia is so profitable that capitalism inevitably leads to war. The next major one of these will probably be between the west and capitalist Russia. The atmosphere will probably be damaged less by that conflict than if capitalism survives it undiminished.
“The Global Barometer Survey was conducted nationally in Myanmar in 2014 with interviews with 1,620 people from every state and division in the country.”
A statement I and my ilk absolutely find hard and refuse to believe.
The number of people, if true, is statistically absolutely not valid to draw the kind of sweeping conclusion.
To be frank, I was underwhelmed with “Finding Their Voice”. Its historical overview of the Isan region reinforced misperceptions that the region is united in its Lao identity and heritage. This is quite surprising given Keyes’ supervision of Paitoon’s thesis on the Forest Khmer. Huge errors regarding the Lao Issara and the Seri Thai also raise doubts about Keyes’ awareness of political undercurrents in Isan and the Mekong region. Surely, the PG studies of Thongin Phuriphat and Fong Sithitham impact on Isan social justice and political thought demand greater reflection with respect to the evolution of Isan as a cultural entity. Keyes analysis of the revolutionary movements in Isan fails to recognize that Communist influence has always been fragmented between different groups. For me, it seems the Isan stereotype remains firmly fixed in Keyes’ writing and recognition of key provincial/regional/national players with Isan roots remains lacking. How can such a text claim to illuminate our understanding of Isan society when it fails to include a reference to Newin Chitchob? Sorry to be so critical, but Isan remains poorly ‘voiced’ for the time being.
So, Tyn, in short, you don’t like the west, and you came here and don’t want to bothered with it all because you don’t like the west. Very enlightening, indeed.
The main difference is that in Thailand the concept of ‘one person one vote’ hasn’t even been agreed upon yet, while in the west ‘global big biz’ seems to at least give us that dignity.
Lets hope Thailand is still behind the west on this matter, and not a leader in it.
Spell out where the hate lies Nick. I am probably less prone than you to labelling people either as friend or foe.
You are surely NOT asking me to believe that say the UK Cameron government is really based on principles of social inclusion and fairness for all. I might live here, but it is definitely now a much better idea for me to become re-involved with UK politics – even if I am sort of slightly out-of-the-harness. I prefer to think of myself as being alert to the sad fact that government everywhere has been hugely subverted by the terrorist forces of short-term get-rich-quick opportunism. If you choose to ignore the almost entirely negative trends in your own backyard, there isn’t the faintest chance you are going to understand the forces at work in another country. We might shift our attention to living abroad because we can no longer stomach the erosion of any real values in our own countries, and for the sake of a few extra sunny days and lower prices, but we then have absolutely nothing to hold up as an ideal. We never really did have much to offer the rest of the world, because colonialism was always exploitative, at home and abroad. And there is now nothing in the slightest bit more egalitarian in the West than elsewhere – if there ever really was. If anyone can find any real evidence that the West has achieved anything in the field of egalitarianism in the last few decades, I might be prepared to offer it up very tentatively as a possible very long-term solution. (Although I’m not sure offering is such a good idea. Let’s just say that some might begin to see its merits, from afar.) But then I really doubt anyone here can really produce such evidence – either because they wouldn’t entirely feel comfortable with the fact that the left-field has done almost nothing significant in decades, or because their own right-field is exactly how things already pan out here.
There is now a huge mass of evidence that the West has got it completely wrong (for the vast majority of its denizens)in the last few decades. Ever widening gaps in western societies suggest that the West is entirely unreasonable in expecting other entities to follow its supposed good example.
I have long given up bothering to comment on how society could be made more equal here, because I know all too well how repressive most western societies now are. (And because my ideals are unworkable here when they have so obviously failed to materialize at home.) There isn’t much point in being utopian here, when one’s own hometown is now almost entirely dystopian.
Thailand will perhaps sort these things out in its own time, with no thanks at all to forums such as this. I feel no real need to come here as a means to justify my ideals, because I am fortunate enough never to have adopted political scientist or economist as my elected profession title. 😉 My reputation does not hang on a continual need to impress people with my (so obviously absent)erudition. I wonder how many folks here are just going through the motions of being professional, in full knowledge that no one will ever really pay them any practical attention – it makes career sense, but ultimately achieves nothing.
Are you appalled by an article that goes against the grain of your opinion? Good on young people, like this intern, to be interested in issues like this and to share their opinions. Don’t shut down debate, embrace debate. Also good to see the conversation has improved as the comments go along. The first half are appalling! Yes – there is an over appreciation of democracy and a lack of understanding in how to get there.
I am appalled by this article, especially by an intern in an institution promoting labor rights. What cult are they talking about? Democracy is an ongoing process toward a freer society. The fact that it will take Thailand a long time to achieve the same level of freedom in the western world does not justify calling the current movement a “cult”. By no means Thaksin is not regarded as a divine person making a connecting to God. I think this authors is trying too hard to get attention by using a dramatic term like “cult”. What do you expect people to do? Do you expect people to just get on with lives as if the coup did not happen???
I agree. Typically they would describe themselves as Boddha batha Bama lu-myo (Buddhist religion Burmese race) in the same breath.
Chauvinism is inherent to an extent in a people that dominated the region in a land empire but this reached its zenith with the post-88 military elite which became an very exclusive club.
The recent phenomenon of virulent religious chauvinism represented by Wirathu/969/MaBaTha however can be traced right back to the top, not only brought into existence for a purpose but nurtured as both a counterweight and a wrecking ball against political opposition in order to further entrench their power. An almost impossible feat in view of what they did to the Sangha in 2007, but such visceral primeval instincts can by nature overwhelm and undermine any rational thinking and political consciousness.
Never seen a farang pundit yet who really came anywhere near understanding or being able to analyse local politics. But then again, you only have to read the local pundits (and their farang apologists) to realise no one (least of all the main protagonists) has a * clue why this country/region is so utterly dysfunctional in almost any respect other than cuisine. Most have so completely overcomplicated the argument, that they have confused themselves in the process – constantly seeking get-rich quick-fix solutions to hugely intractable problems that have been fermenting for centuries.
But in fairness, the West probably sets the agenda on this issue, and there really can be no greater mess in the World right now than that created by the monetarist free-market mafia that has terrorised the supposedly developed World for the last three plus decades. Why should anyone wish to emulate so-called western democracy, when it has so obviously & completely capitulated to global big biz? If they can continually get away with hugely widening the income gap in the West, there is no obvious reason why local feudalists shouldn’t continue doing what they have always done best here.
How was this question about self-identity presented and posed to the respondents (and how in Burmese or local languages)? Identity is a context-specific concept, and so to ask “How do you identify?” – and in the constructed encounter of a surveyor asking a respondent – itself perhaps risks confusing things. Moreover, making people choose one identify as primary is also quite strange: many Burmese people I have spoken with would not, it seems to me, ever separate their Burman-ness and their Buddhist-ness, for instance – such the common statement “Bama Boddha Batha” when people are describing themselves. In issues this complicated, it might be better to spend extended periods of time studying the concepts – how they change and morph given the different contexts that people come to encounter and exist within.
Only last year Gaza, Jordan and Kuwait were in the limelight for cruelty. The reaction to Indonesia’s treatment of animals was not a different perception due to the country involved. The political response is thanks to a different PM.
Just the last sentence – i believe that stopping protests, freedom of speech and voting for a period of time here will only result in delaying the inevitable and will increase the risk for things to really spiral out of control.
And additionally – while the pretense has been to initiate “real” and “stable” democracy, the actions so far show that the aim is the return of a bureaucratic polity trying to de-politicize Thailand.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Democracy worship in Thailand
What a piece! Ballsy pair getting on the wrong side of all the polarised scholars who write on all things Thailand. Well all things prodemocracy and anti establishment anyway. No one ever dare mention the problems of democracy in Thailand because that would make you a ‘yellow’ or a ‘monarchist’. How the hell is democracy possible in Thailand? It is not. Nope. I said it – so, go, attack me!
Making waves
This author correctly identifies some ‘rhetorical flourishes’ in the maritime axis concept but she perhaps perceives a ‘strategic vision’ a little too readily.
One has only to look at the ministers whom Jokowi has appointed in the security portfolios to feel some scepticism about the ‘global maritime axis’ as a strategic concept, at least in terms of Indonesia’s defence. Has Coordinating Minister Tedjo Edhy Purdijanto ever given a speech about this axis?
When Defence Minister Ryamizard recently spoke at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, he identified the following threats that Indonesia faced:
тАвTerrorism and radicalism
тАвNatural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions and forest fires
тАвPandemic disease; the outbreak of infectious disease such as Ebola
тАвPiracy, theft of natural resources
тАвIllicit incursion; poaching of natural resources
тАвSeparatism and insurgency
тАвCyber-attacks and information warfare
тАвSmuggling and abuse of narcotics/drugs
While two items on Ryamizard’s laundry list could arguably be linked to the maritime axis idea, one would like to know why he didn’t mention the term itself. It is hardly some sort of secret that the 60,000 foreign spies in Indonesia whom Ryamizard exposed a decade ago need to hunt down.
Nor, incidentally, did Ryamizard make a single reference in his address to China’s ambitions or activities in the South China Sea. What did Defense Secretary Ashton Carter make of that omission? Strategic myopia, perhaps, rather than strategic vision.
And then we have Jokowi’s nominee as TNI Commander, army chief of staff Gatot Nurmantyo. (I am informed that ‘Gatot’ has become a slang word for ‘gagal total’ (total failure) in the language of urban Indonesian youth.) Given the need that the author herself acknowledges for Indonesia’s navy and air force to be modernised, why has Jokowi decided to deny the air force its due turn at commanding TNI after General Moeldoko and instead elected to give the post, if parliament approves, to another army officer? Gatot has, to boot, only been in the chief of staff post for a year. Will General Ryamizard and General Gatot have the navy’s and air force’s best interests at heart? Shifting resources from one service to another service or, in this case, to two others is rarely an easy exercise.
In his many speeches throughout the country, Gatot has paid little or no attention to the defence implications of the maritime axis. Instead, he has waved a stern finger at unnamed foreign adversaries, abetted by wicked domestic NGOs, who are bent on corrupting Indonesia’s youth by seducing them onto the treadmill of addiction to drugs and free sex.
Maybe a fresh approach to the ‘strategic concept’ of the maritime axis will come from Jokowi’s septuagenarian nominee for head of the national intelligence agency, BIN, General Sutiyoso.
Inhumane as far as capital punishment is concerned, Jokowi redeems himself when confronted by two incompetent candidates for high office. He humanely selects the older one.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Well, Nick, I can see we are just going to have to agree to disagree because all the liberals at the time were calling Thaksin out for undermining the constitution, shutting down the free press, and ordering extrajudicial executions, among a host of other anti-democratic behaviors. For me the passage of time doesn’t really change that.
And because that is the only Thaksin government that has even come close to having a free rein (meaning operating without constantly having to check with the RTA), that is the one we need to look at clearly to understand what and who Thai voters are electing time and again. Notice I accept their right to choose the illiberal strongman they want to govern them; but to pretend they are choosing otherwise is disingenuous at best.
And everyone knows the oft-retailed story of “who is REALLY responsible” for the WoD. I have used it in exactly the same way many times. But I have come to realize that all that does is underline the absolutely undemocratic nature of TS governments.
If we work on the assumption that the first TS admin was a bit of a shockingly powerful injection of democratic spirit into the Thai political system, then we have to hold the PM responsible for his programs and policies.
If on the other hand we want to say it was the responsibility of the usual Amart suspects, then TS is being presented as yet another ineffectual puppet, and the state murders he ordered were not really his responsibility.
That kind of thinking will absolve not only Prayuth of whatever he ends up having to do to maintain the power of the Thai state, but also the ol’ Butcher of Bangkok himself of course. These guys are just following the instructions of the shadowy figures floating high above them.
Culture of impunity anyone?
And there is nothing “ivory tower” about the idea that what Thailand needs is an ideologically-based political party that presents democratic reform as its platform.
The time for top-down parodies like the process leading up to the 97 Constitution has passed; it’s either going to come from the people or it’s going to be yet another version of “Thai-style democracy”, whether Thaksin-style or “good people 97”-style.
It’s been 83 years, folks.
Wake up and smell the coffee. There is no slow build taking place, just a series of shifts and feints to silence critics and get the international community to calm down. As always.
The most recent coup did NOT destroy Thai democracy because it never existed in the first place. And as long as enough people are content to pretend otherwise, there never will be.
And that would be a shame.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Thanks for your comment Nick – a lot I agree with.
What I find strange is that despite all their many faults, the “Thaksin” govts were far far far more democratic than this junta.
I’ve always found it incredibly bizarre that anyone would believe a military coup – when there was a clear democratic govt, who were more than willing to put their mandate to the test – would be seen a necessary step on the route to democracy but an elected government wouldn’t be!
As for the War on Drugs – it was widely supported by the many of same people who then wanted to remove Thaksin/Yingluck etc via anti-democratic means.
And, given the international context for a “War on Drugs” – has anyone looked at the USA’s activity in South and Central America using a “War on Drugs” as a rationale, supporting extreme rightwing militias and govts & leading to 1000s and 1000s of deaths – the Thai version, whilst it’s clear crimes were committed in its application, is relatively small-fry.
Democracy worship in Thailand
While some point you make here i can agree with, there are others i do not. Thaksin’s government was indeed a democratically elected authoritarian government. Nevertheless, some of the reasons cited here as evidence, such as the drug war, and the southern problem, have to be seen in a slightly expanded context than just Thaksin was PM and therefore he ordered all this.
Nobody dares to speak the truth about the drug war. I don’t either, other than stating that the drug war, including the killings, were based on an elite consensus in which Thaksin was but one part. Without this consensus the drug war could have never been done as it was. One should also not forget the situation before the drug war, how bad it really was, and that the Chuan 2 government has caused the situation to deteriorate so badly by not having done anything for the rural areas after the ’97 crises. I do not want to justify the killings here. I have photographed quite a bit of it at the time, and i was appalled. But i was equally appalled seeing entire communities getting destroyed by drugs, even my own family here.
The South is an equally complex problem, and cannot be simplified as Thaksin’s miserable treatment of Southern dissidents. First of all, they are not just “dissidents” – this is an extremely brutal insurgency. There is, as you are aware, i guess, a long and complex history involved. This did not start with Thaksin, and not just Thaksin has made major mistakes. As to the two most well known incidents – Kru Sue and Tak Bai, in both Thaksin may have made some not very nice comments (which he later apologized for, in the run up to the 2011 elections, most likely on the advice of his lobbyists), but the decisions were entirely local. In the Kru Sue the decision to storm was made against the order of Defense Minister Chavalit by local ISOC (i think it was Panlop, if i remember correctly). Tak Bai was entirely local security forces who decided to transport the arrested protesters on the lorries.
In both incidents the officers were later, under the Surayud and the Abhisit administration protected by the courts.
The next point – Samak. A lot of people, on both sides of the game were involved in the ’76 massacre (and what led up to it). Chamlong Srimuang, for example, played a far more pivotal (and hands-on) role in that era.
Politics necessitates compromise, and in a country like Thailand, these compromises are very uncomfortable at times.
However – coming back to the point of liberal democracy – i do see a clear trend of the Red side to evolve in that direction, especially under Red Shirts, and slower under the PT party. The Yingluck government was not the same as the Thaksin administration. Things have changed, and developed. This whole thing is a work in progress, and so is Democracy. The Red Shirts are not the same anymore as in 2010, they have evolved, and so has their internal discourse not least through their experiences, such as 2010, and such as the conflict over the amnesty bill, in which the majority Red Shirts were against their allied PT party (as singified by the Bueng Gum stage, and the followng conflict between Sud Soi and Grang Soi). The eventual withdrawal of the bill, faced by opposition by both PDRC and the Red Shirts, shows that the Yingluck government was not just about majoritism, less so that the Thaksin governments and the Abhisit government.
The Red Shirts in 2010 were also not the same Red Shirts as the anti-coup protesters in 2006, leading to the first UDD founded in 2007.
The development of these years are the reason why i judge the Red side as evolving into something we can call liberal democracy.
This “third option” of a “truly democratic party” is one of these academic pipe dreams, i am sorry to say. In the context of this conflict this idea has been floating around under progressive circles since the first PAD protests, then it was the “mai aow song” position. The only thing i can say to this is that Thailand’s structures have to develop further before this can be put in practice. And one day it will take place, naturally, and when the time is right. Now it simply isn’t.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Thanks Nick for the quick reply.
I think in the Thai political situation it is important to make a distinction between ‘democracy’ and ‘liberalism/liberal democracy’.
I agree that UDD/TRT/PPP/PT have an admirable attitude toward elections as a method of choosing a government.
Nothing they have ever done or said, however, supports the notion that the democracy they support is anything other than majoritarianism, with absolutely no commitment to the ‘liberal’ side of liberal democracy, which is the only kind that I think deserves any respect.
Thaksin’s WoD, his savage treatment of southern dissidents, disappeared HR campaigners and his admittedly failed campaign to silence media in Thailand suggest a very anti-liberal bias to the first Thaksin administrations.
His “strategic” choice of Samak, the extreme right-wing royalist who was instrumental in provoking the Hok Tula massacre in 1976, to be his nominee PM in 2008 would seem to underline his willingness to go to any lengths to be admitted to the “bad” amart and give up all this “democracy” nonsense at any moment.
You refer to their “soft-handed” approach to security issues when in power. I put it to you that the only “soft-handedness” they demonstrated was due to their unwillingness/inability to mobilize violence against anyone known to be associated with the palace/RTA.
The young men murdered in the WoD and a rather large number of southern Thais would question the “soft-handed” label if they were alive to do so. Significantly, though, they are not.
The “refusal” of Yingluck’s administration to use violence against the fascist street theater of Suthep et al is often enough invoked as a measure of her “soft-handedness” that you have to wonder how it is that it is equally often rationalized by her lack of control over the RTA.
On one hand, pro-democracy folks want to give her credit for being perhaps the world’s first elected leader to indulge in Gandhian ahimsa while abandoning her country to a military-judicial coup.
On the other, when confronted with her absolute failure to even attempt to maintain her democratically legitimate position and defend the notion of popular sovereignty against military/royalist/fascist insurrection, her apologists cite her lack of control over the military.
One way or the other, it highlights the non-democratic nature of her government, if by ‘democratic’ we refer to liberal democracy and to the various details that that state of affairs necessarily involves beyond the “elected” label.
I spent days among the Redshirts in 2010 and I have to say I grew to love those people and supported them 100% in their demand to have their votes counted and Abhisit removed from his illegitimate seat in government. But I don’t fool myself that any but a tiny percentage of those people would be adequately labeled ‘liberal’ in their politics.
On the few occasions when I went and mingled with the Yellow Hordes during Suthep’s highly successful insurrection, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt which group of non-liberal protesters I would rather eat with, dance with and shout support for from any rooftop. I remain as “red” as they come in my emotional self.
But my rational self knows equally surely that this is not a movement that will ever develop into a drive for liberal democracy.
For that, a democratic party needs to be formed and supported in Thailand.
Until there is a political struggle that takes on the real issue of democracy, liberal democracy, as an ideological issue, there can only be the oxygen-starved brains of nose-holding liberals indulging in self-deception and propagandistic distortion in defense of CEO Thaksin, who would sell his grandma to get admitted to non-democratically determined power in Thailand.
And that, gentlemen, has run its course as a useful strategy in this struggle.
Democracy worship in Thailand
This is good criticism of the West, Tyn, and, I think, of what Thaksin has to offer. The little people of Thailand are probably voting mainly with their pockets when they shift their loyalty from the Monarchy to Thaksin. Bourgeois values everywhere destroy feudalism, and Thailand will be no exception. The death of feudalism is clearly a good thing, but is not the only thing bourgeois values destroy. Western culture is being hollowed out as people fall increasingly under the control of piles of money, and growing them becomes the only value worth having. Xenophobia is so profitable that capitalism inevitably leads to war. The next major one of these will probably be between the west and capitalist Russia. The atmosphere will probably be damaged less by that conflict than if capitalism survives it undiminished.
Is Myanmar divided?
“The Global Barometer Survey was conducted nationally in Myanmar in 2014 with interviews with 1,620 people from every state and division in the country.”
A statement I and my ilk absolutely find hard and refuse to believe.
The number of people, if true, is statistically absolutely not valid to draw the kind of sweeping conclusion.
What next?
Buddhist has smaller brain !?
Review of Finding Their Voice
To be frank, I was underwhelmed with “Finding Their Voice”. Its historical overview of the Isan region reinforced misperceptions that the region is united in its Lao identity and heritage. This is quite surprising given Keyes’ supervision of Paitoon’s thesis on the Forest Khmer. Huge errors regarding the Lao Issara and the Seri Thai also raise doubts about Keyes’ awareness of political undercurrents in Isan and the Mekong region. Surely, the PG studies of Thongin Phuriphat and Fong Sithitham impact on Isan social justice and political thought demand greater reflection with respect to the evolution of Isan as a cultural entity. Keyes analysis of the revolutionary movements in Isan fails to recognize that Communist influence has always been fragmented between different groups. For me, it seems the Isan stereotype remains firmly fixed in Keyes’ writing and recognition of key provincial/regional/national players with Isan roots remains lacking. How can such a text claim to illuminate our understanding of Isan society when it fails to include a reference to Newin Chitchob? Sorry to be so critical, but Isan remains poorly ‘voiced’ for the time being.
Democracy worship in Thailand
So, Tyn, in short, you don’t like the west, and you came here and don’t want to bothered with it all because you don’t like the west. Very enlightening, indeed.
Democracy worship in Thailand
The main difference is that in Thailand the concept of ‘one person one vote’ hasn’t even been agreed upon yet, while in the west ‘global big biz’ seems to at least give us that dignity.
Lets hope Thailand is still behind the west on this matter, and not a leader in it.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Spell out where the hate lies Nick. I am probably less prone than you to labelling people either as friend or foe.
You are surely NOT asking me to believe that say the UK Cameron government is really based on principles of social inclusion and fairness for all. I might live here, but it is definitely now a much better idea for me to become re-involved with UK politics – even if I am sort of slightly out-of-the-harness. I prefer to think of myself as being alert to the sad fact that government everywhere has been hugely subverted by the terrorist forces of short-term get-rich-quick opportunism. If you choose to ignore the almost entirely negative trends in your own backyard, there isn’t the faintest chance you are going to understand the forces at work in another country. We might shift our attention to living abroad because we can no longer stomach the erosion of any real values in our own countries, and for the sake of a few extra sunny days and lower prices, but we then have absolutely nothing to hold up as an ideal. We never really did have much to offer the rest of the world, because colonialism was always exploitative, at home and abroad. And there is now nothing in the slightest bit more egalitarian in the West than elsewhere – if there ever really was. If anyone can find any real evidence that the West has achieved anything in the field of egalitarianism in the last few decades, I might be prepared to offer it up very tentatively as a possible very long-term solution. (Although I’m not sure offering is such a good idea. Let’s just say that some might begin to see its merits, from afar.) But then I really doubt anyone here can really produce such evidence – either because they wouldn’t entirely feel comfortable with the fact that the left-field has done almost nothing significant in decades, or because their own right-field is exactly how things already pan out here.
There is now a huge mass of evidence that the West has got it completely wrong (for the vast majority of its denizens)in the last few decades. Ever widening gaps in western societies suggest that the West is entirely unreasonable in expecting other entities to follow its supposed good example.
I have long given up bothering to comment on how society could be made more equal here, because I know all too well how repressive most western societies now are. (And because my ideals are unworkable here when they have so obviously failed to materialize at home.) There isn’t much point in being utopian here, when one’s own hometown is now almost entirely dystopian.
Thailand will perhaps sort these things out in its own time, with no thanks at all to forums such as this. I feel no real need to come here as a means to justify my ideals, because I am fortunate enough never to have adopted political scientist or economist as my elected profession title. 😉 My reputation does not hang on a continual need to impress people with my (so obviously absent)erudition. I wonder how many folks here are just going through the motions of being professional, in full knowledge that no one will ever really pay them any practical attention – it makes career sense, but ultimately achieves nothing.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Are you appalled by an article that goes against the grain of your opinion? Good on young people, like this intern, to be interested in issues like this and to share their opinions. Don’t shut down debate, embrace debate. Also good to see the conversation has improved as the comments go along. The first half are appalling! Yes – there is an over appreciation of democracy and a lack of understanding in how to get there.
Democracy worship in Thailand
I am appalled by this article, especially by an intern in an institution promoting labor rights. What cult are they talking about? Democracy is an ongoing process toward a freer society. The fact that it will take Thailand a long time to achieve the same level of freedom in the western world does not justify calling the current movement a “cult”. By no means Thaksin is not regarded as a divine person making a connecting to God. I think this authors is trying too hard to get attention by using a dramatic term like “cult”. What do you expect people to do? Do you expect people to just get on with lives as if the coup did not happen???
Is Myanmar divided?
I agree. Typically they would describe themselves as Boddha batha Bama lu-myo (Buddhist religion Burmese race) in the same breath.
Chauvinism is inherent to an extent in a people that dominated the region in a land empire but this reached its zenith with the post-88 military elite which became an very exclusive club.
The recent phenomenon of virulent religious chauvinism represented by Wirathu/969/MaBaTha however can be traced right back to the top, not only brought into existence for a purpose but nurtured as both a counterweight and a wrecking ball against political opposition in order to further entrench their power. An almost impossible feat in view of what they did to the Sangha in 2007, but such visceral primeval instincts can by nature overwhelm and undermine any rational thinking and political consciousness.
Democracy worship in Thailand
“Never seen a farang pundit yet who really came anywhere near understanding or being able to analyse local politics.”
Well, Tyn, then enlighten us, please. I am afraid that you will have to do a bit better than with such a I-hate-all rant.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Never seen a farang pundit yet who really came anywhere near understanding or being able to analyse local politics. But then again, you only have to read the local pundits (and their farang apologists) to realise no one (least of all the main protagonists) has a * clue why this country/region is so utterly dysfunctional in almost any respect other than cuisine. Most have so completely overcomplicated the argument, that they have confused themselves in the process – constantly seeking get-rich quick-fix solutions to hugely intractable problems that have been fermenting for centuries.
But in fairness, the West probably sets the agenda on this issue, and there really can be no greater mess in the World right now than that created by the monetarist free-market mafia that has terrorised the supposedly developed World for the last three plus decades. Why should anyone wish to emulate so-called western democracy, when it has so obviously & completely capitulated to global big biz? If they can continually get away with hugely widening the income gap in the West, there is no obvious reason why local feudalists shouldn’t continue doing what they have always done best here.
Is Myanmar divided?
How was this question about self-identity presented and posed to the respondents (and how in Burmese or local languages)? Identity is a context-specific concept, and so to ask “How do you identify?” – and in the constructed encounter of a surveyor asking a respondent – itself perhaps risks confusing things. Moreover, making people choose one identify as primary is also quite strange: many Burmese people I have spoken with would not, it seems to me, ever separate their Burman-ness and their Buddhist-ness, for instance – such the common statement “Bama Boddha Batha” when people are describing themselves. In issues this complicated, it might be better to spend extended periods of time studying the concepts – how they change and morph given the different contexts that people come to encounter and exist within.
Beef and prejudice
Only last year Gaza, Jordan and Kuwait were in the limelight for cruelty. The reaction to Indonesia’s treatment of animals was not a different perception due to the country involved. The political response is thanks to a different PM.
Democracy worship in Thailand
There is a lot i can’t disagree with.
Just the last sentence – i believe that stopping protests, freedom of speech and voting for a period of time here will only result in delaying the inevitable and will increase the risk for things to really spiral out of control.
And additionally – while the pretense has been to initiate “real” and “stable” democracy, the actions so far show that the aim is the return of a bureaucratic polity trying to de-politicize Thailand.