Comments

This reply is not in order of replies to my comments.

Nick – History aside, the point is that “bureaucrats and military leaders used monarchy to cement their hold on power.”

Roy – Please refer to pt2 #33 & 34. I’m not part of any machine. I’m getting confused with my cross postings on this and another ‘blog’ about “Kings”. Some clarifcations could be found there. And you give too much credit to ‘the military and elites.” In citing those many democracies, I had replied to your comments that democracy was better than ‘whatever’ and hoped to show you that democracy is not as vaulted and a cure-all as you make it seem.

laoguy – Just doing this as something interesting, to avoid alzeimers, since Cod invited me to check out New Mandala. Just because others have done it before thaksin doesn’t forgive what thaksin had done subsequently. No finger pointing; really don’t focus on past deeds of people and persons dead, but on recent deeds of those living and have an impact on the future. Open-minded analysis of what thaksin and through his pt, are doing should see the roadmap to democratic and parliamentary tyranny. I did say “…envision a situation where a democratic tyranny or a tyranny of the masses can or is occurring.” Comment on that.

Marcus – Don’t be lazy-tongued like most Thais. It’s faRang not faLang. No social engineering was had by myself. But irrespective of your love for Thailand, what cutural baggages do you carry from your own culture that you can’t respect the culture or beliefs of others just because it goes against your own personal beliefs?

“The bureaucrats and military at the time were afraid of losing prestige and power. Thus the coup. Subsequently bureaucrats and military leaders used monarchy to cement their hold on power – thus, “Nation, Religion and Royalty”. Even now we live with a debilitating patronage system.”

The three pillar ideology of “Nation- Religion-Monarchy” was first introduced by King Vajiravudh – Rama IV – in order to bolster Thai nationalism.

Sorry, history…

I wonder if I may say, as a falang of the west who has lived in the kingdom for some 20 years, something to notdisappointed and other likeminded Thais who may be frustrated as to why falangs like myself can’t seem to ‘get’ and accept the fact that Thais simply love their monarch. Why should any falang feel so inclined to cynically question this relationship and the institution itself? Now here, notdisappointed, I must speak for myself : we could begin with the worn-out lexical markers monotonously relied upon by those like yourself when describing the ‘institution’ – ie, ‘unselfish dedication’, ‘selfless devotion’. Really? No, I mean REALLY? Or is it merely a conditioned impulse to say this? In my own western way, I too am bound to use my own conditioned responses to describe this issue, such as ‘sinister’ and ‘Orwellian’. My dear Khun notdisappointed, for my part, I love Thailand and its people but do wonder(with good reason and much evidence to do so) at what level of social engineering has brought you all to this unhappy pass. ‘Social Engineering’

Speaking of Rama VII and democracy, here’s a good read (pdf):
http://khikwai.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/Prajadhipok.pdf

I totally agreed!

So would you say that demogogery and mass marketing make for a better judge of character and suitability?

Democracy is described as providing incentive towards irresponsible and predatory behavior among both the political class and the general population. Democratic rulers, come to power largely on the basis of selling themselves to voters. To be effective at this, a successful politician must be, for the most part, an unscrupulous demagogue. Democratic politicians typically acquire a following for themselves by making promises and creating divisiveness through demagoguery.

A Democratic Dictatorship is a form of government where each individuals role and actions, and benefits, are dictated to him, as in a dictatorship. Presently this is being done by an outside entity residing in Dubai.

This is forgivable because his sister and his party was elected democratically? And that’s democracy?

Here’s your democracy – Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe or Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus; Adolf Hitler, dictator of Nazi Germany or Benito Mussolini, dictator of Italy; Pinochet and Fujimori of Chile; Peron of Argentina; Papa and Baby Doc of Haiti; Iran; Nigeria; Sudan; Ivory Coast; Chavez’s Venezuela; Gadhafi’s Libya; Saddam’s Iraq; Assad’s Syria; Mubarrak’s Egypt; Bahrain; Saudi Arabia; Myanmar; and Hun Sen’s Kamphuchea to name a few democratic countries present and past.

Many of the above countries with ‘majority’ democracy saw said majorities kill, maim, commit atrocities against the minority.

It’s not about monarchy or republic but about a system where the individual is protected from the majority.

Hi Roy,pt2. I’m glad you brought up the multi-cultural palette of the Kingdom of Thailand. It was because of this and as the Kingdom of the period, prior to 1932 and throughout WWII, was feudal and under a patronage system. The majority of the population were uneducated, na├пve, and did not understand and could not take full ownership of democratic values and principals. Democracy cannot be given and expect everyone to how to use it overnight. Rama VII’s plan was to give democracy and have the system and process accepted and understood over time. The bureaucrats and military at the time were afraid of losing prestige and power. Thus the coup. Subsequently bureaucrats and military leaders used monarchy to cement their hold on power – thus, “Nation, Religion and Royalty”. Even now we live with a debilitating patronage system.

Here’s my problem with your pure ideal of democracy. In Thailand it’s a form of government where the candidate is elected by popular vote but rarely or never actually enacts any policies that reflect the actual wishes of the constituency. The elected representative can either use subtle diplomacy to deflect criticism, arrange for various forms of distraction to divert public attention, or be brazen in publicly declaring and marketing that policy will be different to popular opinion “for the benefit of the majority”.

Democracy is described as providing incentive towards irresponsible and predatory behavior among both the political class and the general population. Democratic rulers, come to power largely on the basis of selling themselves to voters. To be effective at this, a successful politician must be, for the most part, an unscrupulous demagogue. Democratic politicians typically acquire a following for themselves by making promises and creating divisiveness through demagoguery.

bernd weber and laoguy, I’ll try not to be contrite, witty or glib in my reply to you since you seem to not be open-minded enough to envision a situation where a democratic tyranny or a tyranny of the masses can or is occurring. The phrase “tyranny of the masses”), used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule envisions a scenario which decisions made by a majority place its interests so far above those of an individual or minority group as to constitute active oppression, comparable to that of tyrants and despots. In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious, class, color or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process. This then becomes a democratic dictatorship. See my reply to Roy below.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by majorities, as through supermajority rules, constitutional limits on the powers of a legislative body, or the introduction of a Bill of Rights, have been used to counter the problem. A separation of power has also been implemented to limit the force of the majority in a single legislative chamber. Without any checks and balances to the majority working through its majority in the legislature there will occur a “parliamentary dictatorship or “parliamentary tyranny”.
Finally, individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities

Andrew

Yes, it’s pretty clear you aren’t trying to engineer “balance” or even a proper debate.

Although you’ll invoke that when you need to hide behind it.

As for your claim that I am calling for a debate along these lines – “one-dimensional royalist versus republican” – you at NM have set up one side of that with Cod’s piece knowing, full well, that any proper counter won’t be published. Your claim that you’ll “consider submissions” is a cop out and you know it.

You then make deceitful, mealy-mouthed excuses and resort to ad hom on those who critique you. No amount of little green thumbs up is going to change that.

And as much as you’d like to de-historicise, de-contextualise this discussion, you can’t.

Pro-royalist sentiment can be spoken of, written about, distributed and explored at great length, with the author’s name attached and protected from proper, thorough analysis and debate by draconian laws.

You’re waiting for “submissions” from anonymous sources, from people who know, if their name gets out, face hate campaigns, death threats, abuse and the full weight of the Thai law, which you’ll then “consider” for publication, to put forward an anti-royal position.

So you’re absolutely right – no balance is possible. In fact no proper discussion is even possible. No thorough analysis is possible and no genuine nuance is on the cards.

It’s also interesting – very very interesting – that you couch being a “republican” as an extremist position. Is it? Is saying that a democratic, fully accountable republic, with an elected head of state ,is some kind of mad extremist view that can only live, on New Mandala, at some far end of a dichotomous discussion? Really? Are you sure? You don’t even seem to realise how much you’ve succumbed to the context this discussion is taking place in.

At the moment the real, lived, on-the-ground situation is this – one side has guns, prisons, law and the state. The other has allusion, metaphor and anonymity.

Now that’s a dichotomy that should be discussed.

New Mandala readers may be interested in:

Barney, K. (2012). ‘Locating Green Neoliberalism and Other Forms of Environmental Governance in Southeast Asia.’
Kyoto University Centre for Southeast Asian Studies Newsletter. 66/Autumn 2012: 25-28.

http://www.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/edit/back-issues/