1. The political problems faced by Thailand are complex and resistant to any easy or single solution. In other words,the complexity and tenacity of the crisis call for a combination of factors and theories to explain and solve it. Many assumptions require a multidisciplinary approach. It is undeniable that Thailand’s problems have several root-causes. Experience and wisdom would not tell us to rule out the significance of culture, which is closely linked to soft and often indeterminable elements such as history, values, religions, traditions, as well as ideas such as nationalism. The role of culture of politics and the shaping of political systems is almost a school of thinking in itself. And the term ‘political culture’ does exist in the socio-political lexicon. If we think that there is only one exit out of the building, then we will lessen our own chance of finding more exits that may exit, no matter how small, hidden, or insignificant.

2. It is possible to perceive the differences between ‘East’ and ‘West’, and of course, there are differences between Eastern countries, too. There is a wide range of degree to which China, Japan, and South Korea differ in terms of culture and how that culture shapes their social and political thinking. The same goes for almost every language and nation. It is a matter of degree. To rule out the role of culture is almost like saying that 20% means nothing at all. Sometimes, when the patient is dying, a 20% chance of survival would justify the use of all treatments available.

3. It is quite dangerous to assume that the ‘people of Thailand’ are good and innocent. This does NOT mean that they are inferior to any other people, either. As much as it is true that the urban middle class/intellectual elite in Thailand is far from enlightened, it is equally false to assume that the poor Thai villagers are good, innocent, and virtuous. Of course, the fact that they lack social and economic opportunities means that they deserve special attention and understanding and should not be blamed for some of their negative attributes. But at the same time, everyone, rich or poor, urban or rural, elite or mass, should aspire to be self-critical, because self-criticism is the most effective means towards self-improvement.

4. Calling the attention to the observation that culture has at least a partial role to play in Thailand’s political crisis does not imply any efforts to legitimize the status quo. In fact, the status quo is quite illegitimate and certainly unjustifiable. The aim, rather, is to caution against the neglect of related factors and root-causes that, when taken together, constitute parts of the problem.

5. Countries in this world differ in the level of peace and prosperity largely through the actions of their governments and history. But governments, as well as other institutions in the society, are also the products of cultural evolution unique to those countries. The roles of ’soft’ factors like cultures, values, and traditions are hard to quantify as they fall into the murky territory of the indeterminable. Hence, they are often ignored in political analysis.

6. Westerners often shy away from criticizing Thailand’s culture because they simply feel bad to do so. No good-hearted westerners would want to sound righteous, holier-than-thou, or be seen having the air of superiority. Besides, criticizing the Thai culture will surely provoke the anger of nationalism on the part of the Thais. But by seeking to improve its own culture, all countries, Thai and Western, only have something to gain. Being self-critical is the necessary first step towards successful reforms of any kind. If we think carefully about it, those government officials and politicians are also Thai individuals with real families and children. Some of their older family members, say, their grandmothers or grandfathers or uncles may even be those poor Thai villagers themselves. So, drawing the line between bureaucratic/political elite/middle class and the poor Thai people can be misleading. Thai people are certainly one of the nicest people in the world. And they are certainly binded through the Thai culture. As much as the Thai language is unique in many ways, the Thai culture also has its uniqueness. And it is this very uniqueness that manifests itself in the conditioning of politics. However, this does not mean that culture is the only factor. Far from it. Institutions and establishments need to be revamped, too, of course.
End.

It seems to me that Bangkok Thais have a significant weakness in that many of them think that being Thai confers a privilege above other nationalities, and that they are genetically superior (yes, yes, I know, foreigners don’t understand Thais and all of that bullshit, but I can support this view from Thai news and academic sources).

This concept seems to me to flow directly from the top of the totem pole, from whom Thais have been encouraged for years to draw their whole sense of spiritual, personal and national identity. As far as snow-jobs go it is one of the best, aided by the policy of successive governments, of keeping rural folk ill-educated and poor so they provide a ready source of cheap labour and sex workers. Over the years in Thailand, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened and not narrowed, which is again, not accidental and the inevitable consequence of the polices of successive governments, assisted by a cradle-tp-the-grave propaganda exercise of which Josef Goebbels himself would have been justifiably proud.

The attitude that ‘Thais have to solve this and Thais alone’ is of course insular, xenophobic and not very smart, but it flows directly from this attitude. Most people know that it is not especially smart to eschew the knowledge and experience of those who have greater quantities of both, whatever their nationality, but Thai ‘pooyays’ seem to think that everyone except Thais are stupid (as the outrageous events of recent weeks adequately demonstrate). They have, in short, come to believe their own propaganda.

[...5 SENTENCES REDACTED...]

With any luck the rural Thai, who is broadly speaking an entirely different person from the unpleasant Bangkok Thai, is on the verge of enjoying real enfranchisement. I know many Thais from Isaan and the North and I like most of those whom I have met. The sooner they are allowed to learn about democracy, and progress beyond subsistence farming, the sooner Thailand can actually become what it has tried to pretend they are when looking for the tourist dollar – the Land of [genuine] smiles’. Sure both areas have their share of arrogant shits but they mercifully appear to be in much more of a minority than in the country than in Bangkok.

Roll on the day.

Tom

I am a foreigner working at a Thai institution. I do not openly or normally discuss Thai politics with my Thai colleagues but on a couple of occasions, I have been “invited” to comment.

One of my colleagues told me, “This problem must be solved by Thais & Thais alone.”
This person said this after I suggested that Thailand may benefit from the intervention of certain international bodies i.e. those that are used by many countries to monitor elections. I also stated that these “bodies” do not, in any way, tamper with the internal affairs of the country being monitored. They merely “report” upon the electoral process. Nonetheless, the person made the comment that I stated above.

It appears to me that “culture” & “nationalism” does affect the current Thai political situation, from the bottom up. Sadly, I do feel that “national pride” is a detriment to this “could be” great country. But the “elite” have it all worked out…as long as they can keep up the morning “indoctrination” at schools, there will be no problem with people (future generations) blindly following “the code of conduct”.

There is only one thing that could change this situation & so far, this “thing” has kept quiet.

Thailand will be a lot better if people can get access to information & if they can be free of “moral” guilt placed upon them. Where can this freedom come from? That “thing” that I spoke of is the answer but since it is quiet, one can only assume that this “thing” endorses the way things are now in Thailand.

A democratic Thailand will clearly be a struggle against the rich & the poor & all the while, the thing called “Thainess” will be used as a tool to control the masses. Not only that, many will be in a quandary about “Thainess” & democracy. Change is a most difficult thing for humans…particularly for those that have been indoctrinated for a long time, as they have no real grasp of “responsibility”.

Another aspect I find particularly disturbing in Thai politics is the virtual absence of the focus on ‘ideas’ and ‘policy debates’. I guess this is a characteristic of a young democracy that should be pardonned. But again, the absence of focus on policy ideas and the generally low quality of policy discourse and debates does not bode well for citizen empowerment. I think this, again, boils down to the issue of education and citizen awareness. But it also prompts me to wonder if ‘culture’; that is, the Thai culture, norms, values, and traditions, contributes to the very emergence and strenght of the civil-military elitist institutions, to the weakness of the country’s elected bodies,and to the relatively insignificant role that intellectual debates and policy ideas have in democratic elections and policy-making.

In other words, the temptation to blame it all on culture is rather strong, although I try not to go down that convenient path. For example, most high-quality debates about Thai politics are those that are in English, like this admirable blog. I’ve read Thai-language blogs before, but most of them don’t present high-quality discussion but rather are mostly vulgar and superficial in the use of concepts and arguments. I do not wish to sound elitist here, but that’s what I sadly discovered. However, I think I should remain optimistic that the Thai people will soon have more awareness and knowledge to choose what is best for them and their posterity. I know that it’s through no fault of their own that they have been ‘brainwashed’ to have certain undemocratic values and traditions, but now that we have better access to knowledge and ideas, I hope Thai people will learn how to think for themselves and aspire for nobler ideals and objectives. Again, I very much appreciate your comments, KJF.

You have asked some very difficult questions, for which I don’t presume to have an especially good answer. What I can do is provide some interpretation of the situation, in the hope it may be of some use to you.

In your comments, you state that:

“Thailand is facing a huge and stubborn dilemma because its elected officials, who are supposed to progress democratic development, have not shown enough accountability to prevent elitist interference. Although the elites should not have impunity from usurping political power through coups and movements like PAD, we still need to address the problems of corrupt elected officials who continue to be voted in election after election.”

You are quite right that Thai elected officials have not shown themselves to be particularly good stewards of democracy. However, the point I have made repeatedly on this blog is that it is partly by design that this has happened. More specifically, there seems to be a recursive relationship between the power of bureaucratic elites and the military on the one hand and the scarce cohesiveness, the fractionalization, and the reliance on patronage and corruption by virtually all of Thailand’s political parties on the other. Because a political system with these characteristics makes it easier for unelected institutions to exercise power behind the scenes, such institutions have sought to undermine any attempt to organize more cohesive, stronger parties that could counterbalance their influence. This was Thaksin’s great crime; as the events of the past few weeks demonstrate, these people don’t give a rat’s ass about something as trivial as human rights abuses. Having themselves hindered any progress in this direction – by staging coups (2006), by spreading disorder (PAD), by undermining the elected government’s ability to function (Samak, Somchai), by using the courts to dissolve political parties (PPP), and by seeking to buy off some of their components (Friends of Newin) – they have in turn reinforced, in part of the public’s mind, the notion that democracy is too chaotic and unstable to dispense with their influence.

The question that’s relevant to Thailand’s political development now is how this cycle can be broken. I am quite convinced that Thailand will find it hard to develop the kind of minimally responsible, accountable parties that rely on ideas more than they do on patronage so long as: 1) People like Prem call the shots behind the scenes; and 2) The military is not brought firmly after civilian control. To be sure, as you noted, to minimize “elite interference” will not solve Thailand’s problems over night. But it will at least eliminate a big contributing factor to the problem, giving democracy in Thailand a chance to develop on its own. On this issue, we should not forget that many of today’s most successful democracies once had very similar problems with corruption and patronage. If you get a chance, it might be worth your while to read parts of Richard Bensel’s book “The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” which portrays American elections back then in terms that are in some aspects quite reminiscent of the way they work in Thailand today. Besides, it’s not like the Bangkok elites and the military have proven any more competent or honest than elected politicians have. In fact, lack of accountability goes pretty well with corruption. Many of them even profess nostalgia for Sarit Thanarat, someone who was perhaps the most corrupt (not to mention brutal) Thai politician of the 20th century. They will tell you something along the lines of “the trains ran on time,” but then again so did they under Thaksin (with the added bonus of comparatively lower levels of graft and repression). And they didn’t like Thaksin very much.

This is the reason why this blog may appear to be “pro-Thaksin” at times, whereas in reality I don’t really harbor any sympathy or admiration for the man. To me, at least, he represented a comparatively smaller threat to the development of democratic institutions in Thailand than does the constant “elite interference” of which you speak.

Moving on to the most difficult issue you have raised (what’s the way forward?), I am afraid it is above my pay grade to offer a satisfactory answer. Generally speaking, the best I can do is to say it’s largely in hands of the Thai people. The fact that unelected institutions have proven reluctant lately to exercise power directly still gives the Thai people enormous room to shape their own future. It is with their vote that they can both soundly reject elite interference (the latest by-elections do not bode well in this regard) and demand of their elected officials greater levels of responsibility. As such, I think, the solution lies in their empowerment – intended both as economic empowerment (the kind that allows them to move beyond the most primary material needs that make vote buying such a cheap and easy way to mobilize voters) as well as the political empowerment that comes with their leaders and mass media treating them less as children in need of the poo yai’s guidance and more as citizens with a real stake and a real voice in the country’s politics. Allowing the open discussion and free exchange of political ideas is crucial in this regard. Judging from the recent crackdown on dissent, this is precisely what has the elites scared shitless.

Finally, I want to comment briefly on the institution of the monarchy. Some of the world’s most prosperous, most egalitarian, most “democratic” societies are constitutional monarchies. As wonderful a country as it is, there is no reason why Thailand should aspire to anything less while still honoring its traditions and its most beloved institutions. The way I see it, the obstacle to the country’s democratic development is NOT the form of government, but rather the use that the military and elite organizations like the PAD have made of powerful symbolism to repress dissent, silence opponents, and generally stifle political debate such as to render it the mere purview of the poo yai.

Once again, sorry if this doesn’t go terribly far towards answering your questions.