Elites in Thailand (Part 3): Decadence

“The junta's crusade is an illusion. Decadence is rampant.” With these two sentences my previous article about the elites in Thailand closed. What exactly is decadence and what does it indicate?

Decadence (I just looked it up) is the perceived decline in values, morals, beliefs, or ability to govern in members of an elite or of a state/nation as a whole. Historians always use the term decadence as a warning because decadence inevitably leads to the downfall of an elite or nation, as happened, for example, with the downfall of the Roman Empire.

Theory

The sociologist Vilfredo Pareto wrote a theoretical treatise in 1901 on the rise and fall of elites. He made a distinction between the elite in a society (people with universally recognized high qualities) and 'the rest'. Within the elites, according to Pareto, there was a distinction between the governing (ministers, politicians, heads of state) and the non-governing elite (businessmen, intellectuals). In addition, according to Pareto, there was a difference between open and closed elites. He didn't care much for closed elites. These were inevitably doomed by internal divisions. The new elite then had to come from outside. With the so-called open elites, the emergence of a new elite is a more natural and gradual process. He mentioned as characteristics of elites:

• The idea of ​​elite is universal, which means that elites are actually everywhere;
• The elite influence politics openly and also behind closed doors;
• The elite have the capabilities to enforce their superiority over others;
• The elite will always try to exclude 'the rest';
• The rest of the population will only respect those in the elite who are liberal and open-minded.

According to Pareto, the elites are able to control and manipulate the masses by trickery or by power. The 'foxes' prefer material over idealistic goals and are thus able to manipulate the masses. The 'lions' are much more conservative and ideologically oriented and exert their influence with power if necessary. Changes (rise and fall of elites, more 'fox elites' or 'lion' elites) are mainly explained by Pareto by psychological changes of the members of the elites. When one is no longer able to stay in power (by manipulating or oppressing the masses), elements of the middle class are taken over to restore the vitality of the elite. Or there will be a violent takeover, a revolution.

Practice in Thailand

Do you recognize any of the above in today's Thailand? Well, I do, but there are also clear differences with what Pareto describes. And that is not surprising because we are more than 100 years later, and Pareto wrote his theory for explaining elites in a Western society:

1. In Thailand we don't have two (ruling and non-ruling) but – I think – 6 different elites. I described them in my first article. These are more or less open elites. The entertainment/sports elite are probably the most open. By performing well (whether in singing, acting or in some sport) you can also rise socially in Thailand and become rich. While there is no denying that there are artistic and sports families in Thailand as well, becoming part of this elite is a personal achievement. The most closed elite is without a doubt the Thai nobility, including the royal family. But here too, some openness may emerge because at the moment no member of the family is officially married and there are some princesses of marriageable age. Who they (eventually) marry says something about the future power (or powerlessness) of the Thai elites. Not an easy situation for the (marriageable) princesses to choose a suitable partner because it is not only about personal preferences and love.
2. The influence of the Thai elites on government policy is obvious as the various political and business clans are no secret. During the process of allocating ministerial seats, there is open talk of honoring different clans within one and the same party with certain (influential) posts. In the last two decades, a dichotomy has grown in political Thailand between the so-called reds and the yellows. The reds, whose main electorate strongholds are the relatively poor north and northeast of Thailand (but also certain working-class neighborhoods in Bangkok) are large in number but small in power. The red elite is mainly formed by the new rich led by some super rich. The yellows are mainly found in Bangkok and in the relatively richer south of Thailand. They pride themselves on being the old, loyal elite. In numbers they appear to be fewer than the reds who win the elections in Thailand time and time again. Because there is a culture in Thai politics that can be characterized as 'the winner takes it all', there are constant tensions between the government and the opposition that often run high. After all, it is not only about power, but also about economic, social and cultural contradictions.
3. In Thailand, there are certainly elites with "fox" and "lion" behavior. This distinction, I think, is largely parallel to the division between the red and yellow elites. The yellow elites are supported by the army, are more conservative and more often resort to the means of oppression and the word of power. The red elites are not averse to that either, but package it better. The poor are appeased in particular through populist measures. Pragmatics dominates. Example: making primary school children happy with a tablet but doing little or nothing to promote critical and independent thinking by introducing a different school system (which is practiced at a few schools in Isaan). The question is whether these are not more sweeteners and whether the red elites enrich themselves more than they make the poor (a little) richer and happier.
4. Pareto believed that an elite that was losing credibility and power would adopt elements (of behavior) of the emerging middle class. In Thailand I see something completely different. The new middle class is taking over business from the elite, probably because they themselves want to belong to the elite. Looking around In my own environment, the following elitist things are worth pursuing: having a new, expensive car, buying (preferably genuine) branded goods (shoes, bags, shirts, watches), drinking wine, cocktails and more expensive whiskey and cognac , dining out in luxury restaurants, vacations to Japan, Singapore and South Korea, the latest technological gadgets (including mobile phones), not having to work anymore (ie: retire as soon as possible and play golf), owning one or more real estate and shopping in the mega malls.

Excess (harms?)

A contemporary of Pareto, the sociologist Thorstein Veblen, published a book in 1902 entitled “The theory of the leisure class”. In it he introduced the concept of 'conspicuous consumption' or 'consuming to stand out'. In modern Dutch perhaps best translated as 'show-off'. In it he describes how the aristocracy of that time derived its reputation (also among themselves) from conspicuous idleness, the so-called rich people's life. Consumption is showing how rich you are. It is the time of the rise of tourism to the Mediterranean and tanned skin was a sign of standing, of wealth, of not having to work. (In Thailand, tanned skin is a sign of poverty, of having to work in the sun) This aristocracy had class and it had to be cherished. Knowledge of things was therefore required: of cooking, of painting, of music, of history, of wine, etc. Superficiality was taboo.

A second-generation aristocracy, the well-to-do middle class, formed around it. The men worked in companies or as senior civil servants and it was precisely the women who were involved in 'consuming to stand out': coffee and tea parties, shopping, fashion, lunches outside the door and charitable institutions.

show off

This show-off culture can certainly be found in present-day Thailand, perhaps more in the cities than in the countryside. Much is bought and done to stand out, to count or to have more than the others. And to be the same as today's Thai upper class. Money counts because money equals power. Classes other than rich and poor hardly seem to exist. And if you're not rich, you have to make sure you look rich: consume to stand out. Unlike the time-honored European aristocracy – which also had the time to study and therefore to recognize quality – there is not much knowledge about the products and services that people now consume. Few can tell the difference between a genuine branded product and the fake version. You know the price difference. In view of the purchases, the Thais sometimes make irrational decisions in Western eyes:

• Give more importance to luxury goods and save on fixed costs: an expensive car but living in a small house and having problems paying the monthly rent;
• Incurring relatively large debts to finance conspicuous consumption and buying on installments;
• Buying real estate but not being financially able to furnish it (Thais generally have few household goods, but they want a large house);
• Gambling in order to pay off debts or make a big financial blow when in practice the debts only increase;
• Performing activities that can be considered unethical or even illegal, such as organizing a casino at home, fraud (borrowing money and then disappearing with the northern sun or extorting money from foreign men), acting as a mistress of a wealthy Thai man, taking on of money for 'contacts', paid help of students with assignments, papers and/or dissertations or all kinds of scams. It is an extremely creative mère-á-boire.

This 'consuming to stand out' can be observed not only among the emerging middle class, but also among the elite. And that's where it takes decadent forms: not 1 but a collection of expensive, special or vintage cars (I know a man with 50 Mini Coopers in the garage), watches, jewelry, extremely expensive vacations and weekend trips, use of private jets , expensive clothes, expensive restaurants and bars. Sometimes it seems like the money is running out. And it also seems that they are not concerned about money at all. What I have gradually found out is that in Thailand the relationship between 'having money' and 'working for that money' is very diffuse. Maybe I'll do a separate post on that in the future.

Finally

While at the same time as the publications of Pareto and Veblen (early twentieth century) class contradictions in Europe became more apparent and the different classes began to organize themselves to secure their interests (for example through trade unions and political parties), in Thailand only little to notice. Both the reds and the yellows can programmatically be characterized as liberal, VVD-like parties: for free enterprise, fewer government rules, not too much taxation. Socialism and especially communism have a negative connotation in Thailand, which is perhaps not surprising given the history of this country and its neighboring countries.

Political parties are mainly governed by the personal charisma of the leader and much less by the political ideas of the leaders. It is typical of the situation that during election time there is not a single political debate on TV between the party leaders. In my opinion, organizing the different interests of the different groups and interests in this country (small traders, farmers, employees, young people, the elderly, the environment, the animals, Buddhism) is the key to the development of a Thai form of its own. of (pluriform) democracy. And so for an improvement in the lives of all Thais. A continuation of the 'fox or lion behavior' of the current Thai elites is, in my opinion, a dead end, without a U-turn.