I would say *developing* social liberalism, because not all parts of the PT/Red Shirts/UDD are social liberal.
Laying aside for a moment theoretical points in their discourse, such as the nature of their demands for structural changes, and just concentrating on their actions. For one, their consistent insistence of acceptance of elections regardless of the outcome has not just been stage talk, but it has been practiced – as seen in the elections in Don Mueang in particular, where the Democrats took the PT seat away in by-elections, and there were no protests other than the almost obligatory complaint to the EC, which was shot down and accepted. The last Bangkok governor elections were accepted as well.
Whenever a pro-Thaksin government was in power their security response against protesters were far more soft-handed than when the Democrat Party was in power. And yes – not just Red Shirts have shot at security forces, already in 2008 PAD protesters have used firearms against security forces, such as during the the October 7 protests. Also innocent bystanders were shot at, one killed and several injured. And in 2013/2014 on many occasions PDRC gunmen have used firearms against security forces and killed three police officers (as far as i can remember without looking into my files). There were even worse cases were police officers were captured and tortured.
If you compare the response to protests against the controversial amnesty bill and protests against the Abhisit government – you can see that the Yingluck government finally withdrew the bill (and yes – the way how it came to pass was not a high point of democracy) and dissolved parliament (and in the coming elections a PT win was not ensured i would guess), while the Abhisit government ignored calls for new elections, and as a result almost 100 people had to die (and that includes soldiers). The calls for Abhsit to dissolve parliament were IMO legitimate, given the questionable way how his government was formed without popular mandate, and proven by the 2011 election result which has shown that his government simply had no popular support.
That, just in brief, is where i see the liberal strain in the Red side of the conflict. But, as i said, it still is far from perfect. On the Yellow side though is see increased calls for authoritarianism, and this is reflected in their actions and behavior, especially towards critics.
The taking of jobs away from critical academics (e.g. Michael Nelson) and journalists, hate speech, general lack of transparency, knee-jerk nationalistic reactionism instead of using reason, all these things are despicable and amount to shooting your own country in the foot, and will hinder future progress of institutions such as universities and journalism, but are all the more reason for a more balanced academic approach to things on the part of western academics, rather than always leaning to the left in the analysis of the situation.
Section 44 is almost a joke, with everyday some vested interest, with probably legitimate complaints about mind-numbingly slow bureaucracy, begging for section 44 to be invoked to make things go faster. Six month delays moving funds from one government agency to another, is an example that comes to mind.
As for myself being “bothered by opposing views and opinions,” everyday I cover opposing sides in my section of the newspaper that I write for. A good example, is the return to the pre 300-baht minimum wage regime currently under consideration which really, really needs academic attention due to some of the dubious claims that are being made, such as 1. most of the workforce that are receiving benefits from the minimum wage reform are migrant workers and not Thais (nationalism at work here), and 2. the minimum wage reform caused the current decline in exports and export competitiveness (easy to say, difficult to prove).
Stopping protests, freedom of speech and voting for a period of time, all of which can cause things to spiral out of control, could actually lead to better long-run outcomes, and this possibility at least has to be considered (unless one worships at the church of democracy perhaps), and political theorists have actually addressed this in the past.
I have to ask, Nick… besides the admirable demand for the right to vote and have their vote respected, what is “liberal” about UDD and their PT political wing?
I have always respected your voice on here and have your books on my shelf, so please share where you see the liberal strain in the pro-democracy movement.
That is semantic ivory tower blather, especially given your often expressed disdain towards the Red Shirts. But yes, of course, without the emergence of the Yellow Alliance the Red Shirts would not have been born, this is a well known and often mentioned dialectic.
You may also have noticed that under dead and injured i have not in particular mentioned the Red Shirts.
However, both actions and the evolution (or devolution) of the discourse of each each side makes it quite clear which side develops more into liberal democratic ideals and which side doesn’t. Stopping people from voting is not the action of anyone who cherishes any democratic principle. Neither is the beating, hate campaigning and attempted abduction of a critical journalist to a point that his abilities of continuing to work in his profession are severely limited (yes, i gonna continue to milk that cow).
As to the military rule and their adherence to rule of law, yes, so far, they have kept more to the laws they have made, and we haven’t seen any extrajudicial killings. However, oppression of freedom of speech, intimidation, etc. does not make their rule particularly benevolent. But that is about as deep as dare to go at this point into that particular subject as we are still governed under section 44.
Worship of democracy? Hardly. It is just that the other alternative, as we see now, is far more distasteful. Maybe not to you as you are not anymore that much bothered by opposing views and opinions.
The “long history of struggle” is that there is no right side in this struggle (as implied above), rather a continuous evolution and dialectic with each side influencing and changing each other, mostly for the better is seems.
The military run government now does not behave the same as military run governments of the past, for example, with more respect for the rule of law.
To posit one right “democratic” side and some linear evolution towards an ideal of “democracy” in itself constitutes “democracy worship” and a certain emplotment or interpretation of history, that will likely prove false in the long-run.
On the other hand the Lady’s Chinese overture could backfire in her relations both with the public over the hated laobans and with the military elite that holds a trump card in the form of Section 59(f) perhaps a quid pro quo in readiness for further negotiations in the coming months with an eye on Western support. Her chances of getting past the VP office to make it to the top remain zero even if they revoke the offending section.
Peter are you talking about Khan, or that other well known cricketer now signing up to the Rohingya cause, JR.Horta? He was never a Communist you know, he was only attracted to the Swedish model. How many Swedish models he doesn’t say.
Isn’t the timing interesting. The boats just happen to be pushed out in the weeks leading up to the Rohingya’s International lobbying season – the Conference in Oslo, UN Security Council sitting and the OIC meet in Kuwait? What serendipity. Enough to make a Swedish model blush.
I think you are on to something. I always wondered why there has been no terror attack in Brunei and Malaysia.
Thanks.
“…ISIS or Al-Queda, I suspect could already be ‘extorting’ protection money from the royals of Brunei, which Greg Lopez inadvertently omitted from the purported ISIS target list in Asia…”
Nick, I salute you. You are a sane voice in a world of sometimes useless discussions. Let the people speak! р╕Бр╕╣р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕З I have come by myself! So true.
I have a few problems with this article. Limiting the discussion to what a few academics post on social media dies not reflect what takes place in Thai society, and has taken place over the past ten years, in particular. It also builds several straw men. First, network politics and related issues mentioned in the article has been addressed for years on stages and in debates and discussions up to grass roots level – as reflected in the term ‘Amart’ as a definition of the system of opponents of democracy, and the self definition of “Prai” – both terms include a universe of meaning. The role of the military and the need to bring it under civilian control has been major topic since the start of this round of the crisis back in 2006. I wonder if the authors have taken time to discuss these subjects with a wide range of ordinary Thais, or just scanned social media and academic articles?
As to the so called “cult of democracy” – people do remember the quite recent times of ‘more democracy than we have today’ (the are quite aware that this was not exactly yet what they would be content with). For them it meant, in simple terms, that the economy was better, and that they did not need to be as scared as they are now in expressing their views, opinions and aspirations of participation.
Altogether, the tone of this article is rather patronizing, and disrespects the long history of struggle and the very real sacrifices so many people have made in order to achieve greater participation – or *democracy* – in their own country and society, going to prison, being injured, or losing their lives. They did not do this because a group of academics told them so, but because they decided this for themselves – as expressed very well in the chant that came up on the memorable day of September, 19, 2010: “gu ma eng!” – i have come by myself!
Irrespective of the extent to which he has gained the backing of Indonesia’s oligarchs, Jokowi at least deserves the staunch support of older Indonesian voters. This is because of his resolute if discreet campaign against ageism in government appointments.
The latest milestone in this campaign is his nomination to the DPR of Sutiyoso for the post of chief of the national intelligence agency, BIN. Sutiyoso, like Jokowi a former governor of Jakarta, weighs in at seventy and a half years, and may be Jokowi’s oldest candidate for appointment so far. Vice-president Kalla, who is two years older than Sutiyoso, is a different case.
Sutiyoso’s nomination follows Jokowi’s appointment of Tedjo, now almost 63, Ryamizard Ryacudu, 65, and Prasetyo, 68. This trio, soon perhaps to become a quartet if the DPR approves Sutiyoso’s appointment, points to Jokowi’s apparent preference for placing some of the security and law portfolios in the safe hands of veterans, no matter what their level of competence may be. Beyond his rather advanced age, however, Sutiyoso has few other qualifications for the post of head of BIN. The party he leads doesn’t have any parliamentary seats.
As Jakarta commander, Sutiyoso notoriously earned his late New Order spurs by arranging the attack on PDI-P headquarters in 1996 in which many Megawati followers were killed or injured. Megawati surprisingly didn’t bear any long-lasting grudge against him for this performance, notably backing Sutiyoso’s bid for re-election as governor when she was president. This suggests that Megawati may not have opposed his nomination for the BIN post, assuming that she knew of it.
On another front, Jokowi has also nominated General Gatot Nurmantyo, army chief of staff, to replace TNI Commander General Moeldoko. Gatot is just 55, so his nomination doesn’t form part of the anti-ageism campaign mentioned above.
By nominating Gatot, Jokowi has broken with the tradition that developed in the democratic era of rotating the TNI command among the three services. The air force was due to have its turn upon Moeldoko’s retirement.
By backing Gatot, Jokowi may be signalling his support for this officer’s combat against ‘proxy war’, of which he has made himself Indonesia’s leading theorist by devoting a series of speeches to this theme over the past twelve months.
Proxy war, according to Gatot, is being carried out by Indonesia’s external and internal enemies to help the expropriation of the country’s natural resources, to debilitate Indonesia’s youth by getting them hooked on drugs, to promote foreign products over Indonesian ones and in various other ways to weaken the fibre of the nation and society. In other words, it is an ultra-nationalist discourse which has deep roots in Indonesia’s post-independence history. Jokowi presumably finds this discourse to his taste.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Democracy worship in Thailand
I would say *developing* social liberalism, because not all parts of the PT/Red Shirts/UDD are social liberal.
Laying aside for a moment theoretical points in their discourse, such as the nature of their demands for structural changes, and just concentrating on their actions. For one, their consistent insistence of acceptance of elections regardless of the outcome has not just been stage talk, but it has been practiced – as seen in the elections in Don Mueang in particular, where the Democrats took the PT seat away in by-elections, and there were no protests other than the almost obligatory complaint to the EC, which was shot down and accepted. The last Bangkok governor elections were accepted as well.
Whenever a pro-Thaksin government was in power their security response against protesters were far more soft-handed than when the Democrat Party was in power. And yes – not just Red Shirts have shot at security forces, already in 2008 PAD protesters have used firearms against security forces, such as during the the October 7 protests. Also innocent bystanders were shot at, one killed and several injured. And in 2013/2014 on many occasions PDRC gunmen have used firearms against security forces and killed three police officers (as far as i can remember without looking into my files). There were even worse cases were police officers were captured and tortured.
If you compare the response to protests against the controversial amnesty bill and protests against the Abhisit government – you can see that the Yingluck government finally withdrew the bill (and yes – the way how it came to pass was not a high point of democracy) and dissolved parliament (and in the coming elections a PT win was not ensured i would guess), while the Abhisit government ignored calls for new elections, and as a result almost 100 people had to die (and that includes soldiers). The calls for Abhsit to dissolve parliament were IMO legitimate, given the questionable way how his government was formed without popular mandate, and proven by the 2011 election result which has shown that his government simply had no popular support.
That, just in brief, is where i see the liberal strain in the Red side of the conflict. But, as i said, it still is far from perfect. On the Yellow side though is see increased calls for authoritarianism, and this is reflected in their actions and behavior, especially towards critics.
Democracy worship in Thailand
The taking of jobs away from critical academics (e.g. Michael Nelson) and journalists, hate speech, general lack of transparency, knee-jerk nationalistic reactionism instead of using reason, all these things are despicable and amount to shooting your own country in the foot, and will hinder future progress of institutions such as universities and journalism, but are all the more reason for a more balanced academic approach to things on the part of western academics, rather than always leaning to the left in the analysis of the situation.
Section 44 is almost a joke, with everyday some vested interest, with probably legitimate complaints about mind-numbingly slow bureaucracy, begging for section 44 to be invoked to make things go faster. Six month delays moving funds from one government agency to another, is an example that comes to mind.
As for myself being “bothered by opposing views and opinions,” everyday I cover opposing sides in my section of the newspaper that I write for. A good example, is the return to the pre 300-baht minimum wage regime currently under consideration which really, really needs academic attention due to some of the dubious claims that are being made, such as 1. most of the workforce that are receiving benefits from the minimum wage reform are migrant workers and not Thais (nationalism at work here), and 2. the minimum wage reform caused the current decline in exports and export competitiveness (easy to say, difficult to prove).
Stopping protests, freedom of speech and voting for a period of time, all of which can cause things to spiral out of control, could actually lead to better long-run outcomes, and this possibility at least has to be considered (unless one worships at the church of democracy perhaps), and political theorists have actually addressed this in the past.
Democracy worship in Thailand
I have to ask, Nick… besides the admirable demand for the right to vote and have their vote respected, what is “liberal” about UDD and their PT political wing?
I have always respected your voice on here and have your books on my shelf, so please share where you see the liberal strain in the pro-democracy movement.
Democracy worship in Thailand
The authors might be more credible if they didn’t adapt talking points of some of the partisans of this conflict.
Democracy worship in Thailand
That is semantic ivory tower blather, especially given your often expressed disdain towards the Red Shirts. But yes, of course, without the emergence of the Yellow Alliance the Red Shirts would not have been born, this is a well known and often mentioned dialectic.
You may also have noticed that under dead and injured i have not in particular mentioned the Red Shirts.
However, both actions and the evolution (or devolution) of the discourse of each each side makes it quite clear which side develops more into liberal democratic ideals and which side doesn’t. Stopping people from voting is not the action of anyone who cherishes any democratic principle. Neither is the beating, hate campaigning and attempted abduction of a critical journalist to a point that his abilities of continuing to work in his profession are severely limited (yes, i gonna continue to milk that cow).
As to the military rule and their adherence to rule of law, yes, so far, they have kept more to the laws they have made, and we haven’t seen any extrajudicial killings. However, oppression of freedom of speech, intimidation, etc. does not make their rule particularly benevolent. But that is about as deep as dare to go at this point into that particular subject as we are still governed under section 44.
Worship of democracy? Hardly. It is just that the other alternative, as we see now, is far more distasteful. Maybe not to you as you are not anymore that much bothered by opposing views and opinions.
Democracy worship in Thailand
The PM, a certain senior policeman and a captain of industry together in a car. Which one is really driving? …..
Democracy worship in Thailand
The “long history of struggle” is that there is no right side in this struggle (as implied above), rather a continuous evolution and dialectic with each side influencing and changing each other, mostly for the better is seems.
The military run government now does not behave the same as military run governments of the past, for example, with more respect for the rule of law.
To posit one right “democratic” side and some linear evolution towards an ideal of “democracy” in itself constitutes “democracy worship” and a certain emplotment or interpretation of history, that will likely prove false in the long-run.
On the border, spite is no answer
The Chinese population in places like Australia and Canada is also not shrinking!
Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to China
Kokang already is a warning to the military government.
Superficially seem to endorse DASSK as official opposition.
By the physical stance in the photo plus Chinese ever chauvinism:
The Lady has just been lecture about Chinese expectation.
Win Win for Xi. The proof will be DASSK continue to tow the line of Thein Sien.
On the border, spite is no answer
Chinese population in China is NOT shrinking !
On the border, spite is no answer
Because Chinese population is shrinking while
Bangladesh population is exploding.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to China
Xi to Thein Sein getting a message across through cosying up to the Lady. A coincidence perhaps then a unilateral ceasefire declaration by the Kokang.
On the other hand the Lady’s Chinese overture could backfire in her relations both with the public over the hated laobans and with the military elite that holds a trump card in the form of Section 59(f) perhaps a quid pro quo in readiness for further negotiations in the coming months with an eye on Western support. Her chances of getting past the VP office to make it to the top remain zero even if they revoke the offending section.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to China
China has no interest in the Rohingya, who themselves have no influence on Rakhine State’s economic development or Chinese involvement there.
‘The perfect storm’
Peter are you talking about Khan, or that other well known cricketer now signing up to the Rohingya cause, JR.Horta? He was never a Communist you know, he was only attracted to the Swedish model. How many Swedish models he doesn’t say.
Isn’t the timing interesting. The boats just happen to be pushed out in the weeks leading up to the Rohingya’s International lobbying season – the Conference in Oslo, UN Security Council sitting and the OIC meet in Kuwait? What serendipity. Enough to make a Swedish model blush.
The Thai junta’s doublespeak
Korn #3.2.2.1.2,
I think you are on to something. I always wondered why there has been no terror attack in Brunei and Malaysia.
Thanks.
“…ISIS or Al-Queda, I suspect could already be ‘extorting’ protection money from the royals of Brunei, which Greg Lopez inadvertently omitted from the purported ISIS target list in Asia…”
3R: race, religion and royalty in Malaysia
Malaysian government ruins its own image by prohibiting Leung Kwok Hung and Joshua Wong from entering Malaysia.
Democracy worship in Thailand
Nick, I salute you. You are a sane voice in a world of sometimes useless discussions. Let the people speak! р╕Бр╕╣р╕бр╕▓р╣Ар╕нр╕З I have come by myself! So true.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s visit to China
The railway has been deferred
Trevor Wilson
Democracy worship in Thailand
I have a few problems with this article. Limiting the discussion to what a few academics post on social media dies not reflect what takes place in Thai society, and has taken place over the past ten years, in particular. It also builds several straw men. First, network politics and related issues mentioned in the article has been addressed for years on stages and in debates and discussions up to grass roots level – as reflected in the term ‘Amart’ as a definition of the system of opponents of democracy, and the self definition of “Prai” – both terms include a universe of meaning. The role of the military and the need to bring it under civilian control has been major topic since the start of this round of the crisis back in 2006. I wonder if the authors have taken time to discuss these subjects with a wide range of ordinary Thais, or just scanned social media and academic articles?
As to the so called “cult of democracy” – people do remember the quite recent times of ‘more democracy than we have today’ (the are quite aware that this was not exactly yet what they would be content with). For them it meant, in simple terms, that the economy was better, and that they did not need to be as scared as they are now in expressing their views, opinions and aspirations of participation.
Altogether, the tone of this article is rather patronizing, and disrespects the long history of struggle and the very real sacrifices so many people have made in order to achieve greater participation – or *democracy* – in their own country and society, going to prison, being injured, or losing their lives. They did not do this because a group of academics told them so, but because they decided this for themselves – as expressed very well in the chant that came up on the memorable day of September, 19, 2010: “gu ma eng!” – i have come by myself!
The empire strikes back
Irrespective of the extent to which he has gained the backing of Indonesia’s oligarchs, Jokowi at least deserves the staunch support of older Indonesian voters. This is because of his resolute if discreet campaign against ageism in government appointments.
The latest milestone in this campaign is his nomination to the DPR of Sutiyoso for the post of chief of the national intelligence agency, BIN. Sutiyoso, like Jokowi a former governor of Jakarta, weighs in at seventy and a half years, and may be Jokowi’s oldest candidate for appointment so far. Vice-president Kalla, who is two years older than Sutiyoso, is a different case.
Sutiyoso’s nomination follows Jokowi’s appointment of Tedjo, now almost 63, Ryamizard Ryacudu, 65, and Prasetyo, 68. This trio, soon perhaps to become a quartet if the DPR approves Sutiyoso’s appointment, points to Jokowi’s apparent preference for placing some of the security and law portfolios in the safe hands of veterans, no matter what their level of competence may be. Beyond his rather advanced age, however, Sutiyoso has few other qualifications for the post of head of BIN. The party he leads doesn’t have any parliamentary seats.
As Jakarta commander, Sutiyoso notoriously earned his late New Order spurs by arranging the attack on PDI-P headquarters in 1996 in which many Megawati followers were killed or injured. Megawati surprisingly didn’t bear any long-lasting grudge against him for this performance, notably backing Sutiyoso’s bid for re-election as governor when she was president. This suggests that Megawati may not have opposed his nomination for the BIN post, assuming that she knew of it.
On another front, Jokowi has also nominated General Gatot Nurmantyo, army chief of staff, to replace TNI Commander General Moeldoko. Gatot is just 55, so his nomination doesn’t form part of the anti-ageism campaign mentioned above.
By nominating Gatot, Jokowi has broken with the tradition that developed in the democratic era of rotating the TNI command among the three services. The air force was due to have its turn upon Moeldoko’s retirement.
By backing Gatot, Jokowi may be signalling his support for this officer’s combat against ‘proxy war’, of which he has made himself Indonesia’s leading theorist by devoting a series of speeches to this theme over the past twelve months.
Proxy war, according to Gatot, is being carried out by Indonesia’s external and internal enemies to help the expropriation of the country’s natural resources, to debilitate Indonesia’s youth by getting them hooked on drugs, to promote foreign products over Indonesian ones and in various other ways to weaken the fibre of the nation and society. In other words, it is an ultra-nationalist discourse which has deep roots in Indonesia’s post-independence history. Jokowi presumably finds this discourse to his taste.