Thailand Disrupted: The Death of Thai-Style Democracy (End)
To better understand Thailand you need to know its history. You can dive into the books for that, among other things. One of the books that should not be missed is Federico Ferrara's “Thailand Unhinged: The Death of Thai-Style Democracy”. Ferrara is a lecturer in Asian Politics at the University of Hong Kong. In his book, Ferrara discusses the turmoil surrounding the deposition of former Prime Minister Thaksin and the political turmoil in the decades that preceded it, and I summarize the most important chapters in this diptych.
Democracy dies again
Every time a new clique of soldiers is about to seize power, we read in the media that the cogs of the democratic system are unstable and not working properly. Each time, the blame is placed on the great split between the city and the province (rural). The great differences in interests, aspirations and values: the educated middle class versus the uneducated peasants. The farmers who choose not with heart or mind but only on politicians who give them promises such as new jobs or new infrastructure, they sell their souls to the highest bidder. And because of the large numbers of citizens in the province, there will be a parliament with members who will have to rely on the farmers' supporters. This is obviously against the sore leg of the townspeople, who, with the help of the army, intervene to rid parliament of corruption and immoral behavior…
Yes, of course there are differences in prosperity, income, education, among other things. And of course different types of politicians will be popular among the (also internally varied) groups of voters. But the explanation above as an explanation of why Thailand again and again vacillates between democracy and dictatorship is inadequate. For example, it is important to know that until recently politics had hardly any interest from the rural people. Parties did not draw up a clear election program that appealed to the farmers. When elections were held, they preferred to appeal to the loyalty of voters to local notables and the commitment to the farmers to tackle certain urgent matters. A well-summarized long-term perspective was lacking due to both a lack of supply and demand.
It was Thaksin who, with his deep pockets and unprecedentedly elaborated election program for his time, outdid his competitors. Provincial voters supported him massively, his party comfortably winning the 2001, 2005 and 2007 elections. Thaksin pushed his plans aggressively and the “doing nothing” lawmakers were left behind. People who criticized Thaksin were accused of "harming the country". People who investigated the violence of the war on drugs by police and army led by Thaksin, for example, were labeled as "a threat to Thai independence". Thai democracy died again, this time to the cheers of the provincial people.
The importance of the middle class and the elite
It is the urban middle class that is the decisive factor in the pendulum swinging between democracy and dictatorship. With their support, a democratically elected parliament can be unconstitutionally brought to its knees. But the massive demonstrations can only be mobilized with the resources available to Bangkok's elite. They are the founders of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), also known as the Yellow Shirts. The PAD formed the opposition to Thaksin and his stooges. But contrary to what the name implies, the PAD cares little about democracy or the people. For the rich, the military and the nobility, democracy is only acceptable as long as the parliament is weak, ineffective and easily manipulated. As soon as this threatens to come into question, you can hear the footsteps of the soldiers from afar. If possible, intervene with the excuse that democracy is recovering with words, that card cannot be played, then it is explained that Thailand is not yet ready for democracy as long as the backward people continue to vote for criminals.
Time and time again, the elite undermines the people and the development of a true democracy. Thaksin did not have to disappear because he committed fraud, lined his pockets, played politics or had the blood of many hundreds of people on his hands. No, he simply had to disappear because he was a threat to the elite.
Why has Thaksin not been prosecuted for crimes against humanity committed under his rule? It wasn't Thaksin himself who fired the shots, it wasn't Thaksin who piled civilians into army trucks and killed them. Thaksin could never be prosecuted without there being consequences for the military involved. “I was only following orders” is not an excuse from a legal point of view, as we know from the post-war Nuremberg tribunal. And the Thai judiciary or the senior military would never allow senior officers to stand trial.
Thailand's democracy has not been slowly developing for decades, democracy has been thwarted, undermined and manipulated all these years. The big boys make sure that democracy works so badly that people simply won't ask for more democracy.
Thai-style democracy
Dictators regularly fall back on it: the excuse of using “culture” as a smoke screen that undermines democratic reforms. National norms and values must remain free of foreign blemishes. Even in the west it resonates, the idea that those backward third world countries are too barbaric to deal with democracy.
The word 'democracy' has also had an important place in Thailand since 1932. But since Sarit in the late 50s, authoritarian rulers have been using the concept of 'Thai-style democracy' as the better alternative. It means curtailing citizens' freedoms and the autonomy of elected representatives. Under Sarit, freedom of speech and assembly were scrapped in favor of a system where a paternal leader (Pho Khun) listened to his children in the country, interpreted it correctly, and then acted upon it. That vision continues to this day. Once elected representatives fail to play the elite game, they are dismissed as “corrupt” and “immoral.”
But “Thai-style democracy” has even less to do with Thai culture than it has to do with democracy. There is nothing Thai about putting people against a temple wall and mowing them down with a machine gun, there is nothing Thai about the blatant hypocrisy of military dictators who enrich themselves with millions while accusing others of corruption. There is nothing Thai about turning religion into a political tool, there is nothing Thai about propaganda in schools and the mass media, there is nothing Thai about oppressing the poor in favor of the rich. Those are not the characteristics of Thai culture. These are simply characteristics of authoritarian rule.
No country is naturally suitable or unsuitable for democracy, even in Europe it has cost a lot of struggle, time and blood to establish democracy. A “Thai-style democracy” is nothing but your average European-style dictatorship.
The elite as an obstacle
The real obstacle to democracy in Thailand is not Thai culture but the elite and its interests. An elite who were happy to import ideas from outside as long as it benefited them. Rejecting democracy has nothing to do with protecting Thai democracy. Supporting a “Thai-style democracy” simply means acknowledging that the big boys decide what is in keeping with tradition and what is not. Whether Thailand benefits from democracy remains a personal opinion, but there is certainly nothing un-Thai about the freedom to choose your own future, to express your own opinion, to form or join political parties, to read other matters than the regime's propaganda, or to hold the government accountable for its actions. The many hundreds who died because they had the guts to demand more political rights did not allow themselves to be grieved. And I myself would rather be on their side than on the side of their executioners. – Federico Ferrara 2011.
Nice piece Rob, and that is precisely why I don't understand that there are so many people who glorify Thailand as it is with those rose-colored glasses on.
The "ordinary" Thai are lovely people who do their best to keep their heads above water and to take care of their families, but unfortunately due to the poor education and the very one-sided news supply, these people are kept stupid and many think that this is normal in the world.
Only when you show these people what else is happening in the world and how a real democracy works do their eyes slowly open.
I can see that now from my wife who lives in the Netherlands and is really surprised about everything, that you can discuss with civil servants, politician, police officer, but also with your employer, your doctor, and so on and so forth.
And here too things are sometimes crooked, but in general you know where you stand and also that rules are enforced.
I think it was Churchill who sees: 'democracy is a bad system, but I know nothing better'.
Look at the origin of the taxes and where they are spent in Thailand: a huge drain of money from 'the province' to Bangkok. I can well imagine the anger of the rural population. The elite, in almost every 3rd world country, abuses its power in a huge way with shameless grabbing of the treasury, including in Thailand. The insufficiently literate are closing their eyes en masse. But also here in the Developed West people follow too many demagogues.
One percent of the population owns 60% of all wealth. As long as that remains the case, nothing will change.
Inequality in the country is high, both in terms of income and even more so in terms of wealth. There is clearly an oligarchy: a select group at the top has a lot of money, possessions and power. The 20% richest have 80-90% of all savings. The bottom 40% of the population has nothing or is in debt. The top 10% hold 61% of all country titles. The poorest 10% own 0,07%.
This oligarchy with its elite was very flexible (adaptability to changes in wealth and power in society) new rich people were taken in, Thaksin was also welcome. But when Thaksin grew above them and became a threat to the elite, he had to step down.
Several neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Japan have addressed this inequality through various laws. In terms of democracy and the like, those countries are also doing better. But if the Thai rulers do not go along with this and stand their ground… then you will only get rid of that elite if all ordinary citizens, from the simple farmer to the simple office worker, take to the streets in large numbers. You can arrest 100 people, but you can't arrest a million people.
It is clear that the people have discovered that political power, if you look at the elections you saw that in 2001, 2005 and 2011 the north (west to east) and also significant parts of Bangkok turned red.
Source:
1. Unequal Thailand (by Pasuk Phongpaichit & Chris Baker, 2016).
2. A History of Thailand, 3rd edition (by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit, 2014)
RobV, thank you for your two summaries of the book. Gives a good insight into why things are always so difficult in Thailand. Was so struck by this synopsis that I'm toying with the idea of reading the original. I saw about 300 pages. But undoubtedly quite solid food and the price is not for the cat! In terms of content , I do not think it wise to comment . People are rather touchy . Before you know it, at least an attitude adjustment will be forced upon you, if not worse.
Dear John, Rob,
As a result of the post, I started reading the original book. Easy to read, but chapeau for the summary in two short messages. The original book obviously contains many interesting passages that didn't make it into the summary, and is therefore recommended for those who want to read more. The book is not expensive: the Kindle edition costs less than 9 euros. The paper book is not for sale in Thailand as far as I know for understandable reasons.
Nice to hear. Enthusing each other -to get to know Thailand better-, that's what we do it for. 🙂
Wonderful summary of this power struggle. Fortunately everything changed in life and hopefully too good for Thailand.
The key question is whether a parliamentary dictatorship such as Thaksin advocated is better for the country and its people than a military one.
Allow me to doubt that.
look to Zimbabwe or Venezuela to name just 2.
Thaksin also belongs to the elite. only to the new ones, and his interest in the poor farmers of Isaan is only motivated by the fact that the Thai electoral system allows more seats to be won in Isaan than elsewhere. And that to put it mildly, the people there are very gullible. Quite strikingly, no Thaksin-controlled government or electoral propaganda has ever paid any attention to education.
Personally, I don't like Thaksin or juntas. There is also plenty to criticize on Abhisit. I would like all those people to be able to answer for themselves (the deaths, the corruption, etc.) before a court, but that will never happen… but I do believe that the country will become a mature democracy one day, the people are willing and one day the time for them to succeed.
henry,
If 9 judges vote on a verdict, and 5 vote in favor and 4 against, are you also talking about a judicial dictatorship? That often happens.
The time when we had to drag Thaksin into everything is far behind us. This posting is also, and more, about the time before Thaksin (1932-2000).
Democracy means freedom of speech, demonstration and information, a state under the rule of law (equality before the law) and citizen participation. All of this is now largely lacking, and is at the expense of the citizen.
What you say about the people of Isan ('very gullible') is simply not true. On the contrary, they see with taa sawaang, a clear view, better than the elite who are now in power.
Tino, with all due respect, you are comparing apples to lemons. A population whose daily life is led by superstitions and animistic practices can I find nothing but credulous.
After 2000, Thaksin's power really came to fruition.
If, in the middle of the night, parliament is convened to the exclusion of the opposition, and then laws are passed, amnestying its own leaders for imprisonments committed and sentenced, and sweeping the sponge over all other charges. And if the opposition is prevented from speaking and thereby sidelined, one can speak of a parliamentary dictatorship. Hitler through Herman Goring did just the same in 1932 with the Reichstag, establishing the first parliamentary dictatorship. Fortunately, the internet now exists, and Netizens are the 4th power in Thailand, which even the current junta has to take into account.
No attention paid to education by Thaksin? That strikes me as incorrect, and a gullible copying of the anti-Thaksin propaganda. Thaksin's biggest reform was school decentralization (from the central bureaucracy to the tambons). In addition, the substantive education reform through decentralization of the curriculum (more holistic than the usual stamping work). Third: making universities accessible to lower incomes through the law on student loans (to be repaid only when income exceeds a certain limit); he made thai banks give loans to poor students for the first time (1 percent interest). In addition, he introduced the “One District, One Dream School” project to improve school quality, to ensure that every district would receive a minimum of high quality school. Thaksin also changed the university admission policy (school results prevail over private entrance exams). And so forth. A well-known example is also the fact that he made Thailand one of the first supporters of Negroponte's One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project, in which the Ministry of Education would purchase 600,000 devices. The military junta canceled this project.
For some more background, Tino has written some very good blogs:
Pridi's vision of a democratic Thailand (1932 revolution):
https://www.thailandblog.nl/achtergrond/pridi-banomyong-vader-van-de-echte-thaise-democratie-en-hoe-zijn-visie-teloor-ging/
The cruel Sarit (1958-1963) who came up with the slogan “Thai-style democracy”: https://www.thailandblog.nl/geschiedenis/veldmaarschalk-sarit-thanarat-democratie-thailand/
The shooting of demonstrators in 1973:
https://www.thailandblog.nl/geschiedenis/de-opstand-van-14-oktober-1973-een-documentaire/
The 1976 Thammasat lynch party:
https://www.thailandblog.nl/achtergrond/6-oktober-1976-massamoord-thammasaat-universiteit/
The battle of the Isan:
https://www.thailandblog.nl/isaan/strijd-van-isaan/
Forgive me, but this posting contains more simplistic nonsense about the Thai situation than actual facts and backgrounds. Unless you are an ardent and blind supporter of the red shirts… and then you swallow all this nonsense for sweet cake but the level of analysis of the situation is deplorable.
May I invite you to write a post that appoints this dear Chris?
I too am very interested in Chris's posting in which he lists the actual facts.
Frederico is an authority in this field, although I don't agree with his analysis on all points. Unfortunately, an article in the constitution prevents me from giving any further explanation.
You expect a scientist who doesn't live in Thailand to dare to write things down that a Thai scientist doesn't dare. That is not the case with Ferrara as far as I can see. I think he self-censored because he likes coming to Thailand. I have not read his books, but the summaries here do not invite me to, I must say.
A scientist who attempts to explain historical matters would do well to choose his explanatory concepts well. And the concepts of democracy and dictatorship are absolutely not for Thailand; if there is democracy-Thai-style, there is certainly also dictatorship-Thai-style. The interpretation is a Western one and it just doesn't fit Thailand. It is like a Chinese scientist measuring/assessing the Western economy by the way the Chinese run their economy.
The current government has a completely different composition than the previous government (technocrats) that came to power through a coup. And there is really no question in Thailand of a dictator to the caliber of Franco, Sukarno, Idi Amin, Stalin. If only because there is also a head of state who can assert his power. And there are more reasons. Would be curious how Ferrara explains that after adoption by the current 'parliament' and a popular referendum, the king could have some articles in the adopted constitution changed without any resistance. Is that dictatorship? Franco would turn in his grave.
I am not going to rewrite Ferrara's books, but I would certainly use the following concepts to describe the historical developments of Thailand: the transition from a feudal to a more equal society, sakdina, the power of different elite clans, the role of political parties and the role of the head of state. All these five elements are overlooked by Ferrara. There is not 1 elite that is thwarting democracy all the time. There are not even two groups of elites (red and yellow; new and old, royalist and less royalist). Thaksin has therefore not been deposed because he would pose a threat to the yellow elite. That's a myth and I don't believe in myths anymore. There is no pendulum swinging between democracy and dictatorship and the urban middle class (I think Ferrara means Bangkok and conveniently forgets the urban middle classes in Chiang Mai, Phuket, Khon Kaen, Udon, Ubon) is also not the deciding factor.
It took Western countries centuries to replace the feudal system with a society in which the people were more represented. Countries like Thailand don't have that much time these days. One of the main reasons is the speed of communication around the world. Everything is magnified all over the world in 1 second. Also feudalism.
I have omitted Ferrara's remarks about the king. In his preface he writes that he had applied self-censorship in the first edition, but in the new edition he no longer minced words.
There is no such thing as a democracy or a Thai-style dictatorship. Not every dictatorship or democracy has to look exactly the same. We don't talk about Democracy in English / Dutch / French vs ... style, do we? We call them democracies even though there are important differences in the electoral system, for example.
It also does not appear from Ferrara's book that the elite is 1 large unanimous group of friends. But that there is a certain balance between the various people at the top (and also the royal family). If part of that elite becomes too threatening to the power, influence and wealth of other elites, you will get into trouble. The oligarchy must be preserved and everyone at the elute table demands their 'fair' share. Sometimes a new elite joins, sometimes 1 leaves, but the oligarchy of army, tycoons and people with colored blood must be maintained according to those people. Father knows what is best for the people says the junta leader of the day. Rama 9 was also of the paternalistic approach. But even he as head of state did not have the ultimate power. After the revolution, it was built up in fits and starts, with the royal family and the army* needing each other. However, the king has acquired more power and respect the longer he has been on the throne.
*and no of course the army is not 1 unanimous entity either. There are also groups there, for example people from a certain class (for example class 5 of the Chulachomklao Royal Military Academy) who formed a network together.
Ferrara argues that time and again democracy has been suppressed. A few attempts have been made, but every time a correction follows from above and a junta or other dictatorial leadership comes to nip the emergence and development in the bud. But since Thaksin, the provincial people have seen the factor of importance to them. See, for example, the election results since 2000. But the center of power, Bangkok, also plays an important role. Will they tolerate a coup or not? Whose side are these people on when they take to the streets?
Dear Chris,
As for your second paragraph, about the concepts of democracy, dictatorship and Thai-style democracy, which you call a "western" interpretation. That is not true. It has been described in large part by real, pure Thai scientists using Thai and Thai-language terms, as in the work below.
Quote:
' Ferrara overlooks all these five elements.'
That is not true. Ferrara is definitely talking about that.
Thak Chaloemtiarana, Thailand, The Politics of Despotic Paternalism, Silkworm Books, 2007.
Do you mean an article in the Criminal Code?
No. in the adopted constitution.
Yes of course. Writing error
It is always about power, individual interests and big money. The wealthy will not want to compromise on all this. The corruption and the impressionable, this is the daily reality. You often don't find committed people in places where it actually matters. For example in politics, parliament and other authorities. It is mopping with the tap open, especially here in Thailand. Know your past and behold the future. It doesn't make me happier. Poverty will continue for a long time I'm afraid.
The negative influence of MPs is a determining factor.
Just look at America. where a lot of senators of republican origin, as well as the current president, are partakers of the elite, including the booze, alcohol and weapons industry. Together they keep their portfolios well filled and democracy has no significance there either.
By the way, a good story Rob.V and thanks for sharing.
Thaksin's main misstep was vigilantism in the War on Drugs. Of course assisted by the police and army. it is significant that he has not been convicted of that, and that he has been convicted of a few limited 'corruption' cases. Incidentally, his merits are clear: economically he lifted Thailand out of the mire of the crisis to a balanced budget (despite major infrastructure measures) and a strong reduction of the national debt, in health care he introduced a 'health fund' for everyone and combated HIV. epidemic with free generic medication, he broke down major barriers in education (decentralization, lowering thresholds for schools and universities, student loans), and he lifted state supervision of the media. Of course, he himself belonged to the elite. But not to the old elite who built their wealth on the exploitation of cheap labor (keep the poor poor), but to the new elite who built their wealth on profiting from consumer spending (make sure people have money to buy things, in his case as a mobile tycoon, mainly calling minutes). This clash of old and new economics irreversibly turns feudal serfs at the bottom into empowered consumers, and demands authoritarian proprietors at the top to evolve into interactive entrepreneurs and communicative leaders.
A few quotes from the great leader.
Democracy is not my goal
The UN is not my mother
He fired a Bangkok Post reporter who exposed corruption in the construction of Suvanaphumi.
These are the (few) corruption cases against him that are still pending. No wonder he ran away.
http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30328653