An Orange Revolution?
It has been too long since the people of Thailand last faced any good option. Today as they have for much of the past eight decades, if perhaps in terms that have never been more stark, the Thai people confront a choice that offers no real alternative. Before them stand two factions, divided more by competing private agendas than they are by alternative visions for the future of the country. On one side, in yellow, safely ensconced behind their tanks, their guns, and a frenzied, yah bah- powered army of street thugs, are the poo yai drawn from the country’s bureaucracy, the army, and parts of Bangkok’s rapacious business community. These are the people who have ruled Thailand for much of the past 75 years, under the pretense of protecting the country’s most sacred symbols. But they have never met, much less served, a cause greater than their own aggrandizement. To them, the people are mere beasts of burden, the producers of wealth they can plunder with impunity, the breeders of daughters they can sell into prostitution. For decades, the poo yai have told the people that they are too stupid, ignorant, and lazy to be entrusted with the destiny of the country — that they have no business demanding the right to drive the entire country into the ground. For decades, they have branded anyone who dared challenge their right to use the state as personal property a traitor, a communist, a republican, or an agent of shadowy international conspiracies. And, for decades, they have smothered the people’s aspirations in the blood of their bravest young men and women. Now they stand before the people, pressing a knife to their throat. It’s their way or chaos, economic catastrophe, and civil war. Prostrate and crawl, you subhuman fuck. Obey. Or else.
On the other side, in red, stand the poo yai of a different kind — provincial gangsters, corrupt upcountry politicians, and (former) Bangkok-based businessmen who have fallen from the grace of the military and bureaucratic elites. They too want the whole pie for themselves. They too have used public office to line their pockets, reward their cronies, and silence their critics. They too have have labeled their opponents foreign agents and threats to society. They too have ruled with the crassest disregard for human rights and democratic freedoms. They too have exploited the people’s fear of “the other” — supposed deviants, presumed insurgents, and purported foreign invaders — to bolster their credentials as the strenuous defenders of Thailand’s social cohesion, independence, and tradition. They too have raped, tortured, and killed. The difference? Instead of viewing them as a threat, those in the red shirts see the people as an opportunity. Instead of telling them, to their face, that they have no right to a government that works for them, they seek to ride the people’s long-frustrated aspirations all the way back into executive office. What they offer in return is a chewed-up, leftover bone — mere scraps of the spoils of power they once again seek to hoard for themselves and their henchmen.
It is often the case that of the deepest, darkest crises are borne the most spectacular of possibilities. Thailand is in a rut, but its current predicament is no different. It is at this painful juncture, after the tragic setbacks that followed the triumph of the 1997 People’s Constitution, that the Thai people have an unprecedented opportunity to take charge of their own destiny, to reach for what they have long been denied. As Thaksin’s influence continues to wane, those committed to real social and political change have the opportunity to channel the unity of purpose that the provincial masses achieved — for the first time in their history — under the leadership of Thai Rak Thai into a genuinely democratic movement. One that seeks the people’s empowerment but rejects the corruption, the cronyism, the violence, and the contempt for the rule of law of the old TRT regime.
At the same time, the corruption scandals that have hit Abhisit’s government, the atrocities it has desperately sought to cover up, and the wave of paranoid repression it has unleashed have exposed the yellow shirts for all their hypocrisy. It is now painfully obvious that the military-backed elites who have paralyzed the country and pissed all over Thailand’s international image have gone to such extremes only just so they could substitute the will of the people for their own, superior wisdom. Only just so they could replace corrupt politicians inimical to their agenda for equally crooked but more malleable ones. Only just so they could establish their own dictatorship masqueraded in the most meaningless trappings of democracy. Should Bangkok’s students, professionals, and middle-income, white-collar workers rise up — just as they did when they caught on to a similar fraud in 1992 — they would not only deprive the new regime of a constituency whose tacit support it needs to survive, much like Suchinda’s regime did 17 years ago. This time, urban middle-income voters have a chance to parlay a potentially invincible alliance with the once-dormant rural populace into sweeping, long-awaited social change.
What will it take to marry the aspirations of the provincial masses with those of the urban middle classes? It will take meeting half way, to join hands in a movement that is neither red nor yellow, but rather embodies the noblest sentiments of each. It will take for the provincial masses to recognize that the gangsters they have often called their representatives are as much an obstacle to their empowerment as the poo yai in Bangkok. It will take for them to throw Thaksin under the bus, embracing the urban electorate’s desire for a cleaner, more transparent, more honest, more responsive government. It will take for the urban middle classes to acknowledge that the Bangkok-based poo yai are as much an impediment to the country’s progress as the provincial politicians they viscerally despise. And it will take for those among them who share with the PAD rank-and-file a sincere reverence for Thailand’s most sacred institutions to openly reject their PAD’s elitism, its contempt for democracy, and its fascist fantasies.
This is the people’s chance. A chance to substitute Thai-style dictatorship with a real, Thai-style democracy. A chance to honor king, nation, religion, and each of the distinctive traditions that make Thailand a unique, special place without subjecting dissenting views to censorship, legal harassment, or violence. A chance to reject the simplistic, vulgar reduction of “Thai culture” to the mere requirement that the most desperate must always grovel before the most fortunate. A chance to recognize, as Prince Damrong did, that tolerance, freedom, and non-violence are as much an integral part of Thai culture as sakdina-based social hierarchy. A chance to elevate, as King Mongkut demanded, the pluralistic traditions of Sukhothai on par with the more conservative legacy of Ayutthaya. A chance to restore Buddhism to more than just the legitimation of social inequalities. A chance to bring the military under civilian control. A chance to come clean about recent history. A chance to acknowledge that the story of the last 75 years is not the “development” of democratic institutions, but rather the elites’ increasingly frantic attempt to deny the people real democracy. A chance to pay homage to the sacrifice of those who died for democracy by telling the truth about their executioners. A chance to stop exchanging human rights abusers for statesmen, heros for troublemakers, and novelists for criminals. A chance to put the elites back in their place. A chance to make government work. A chance to empower the people through equitable development, education, rights, and participation. A chance to lead Thailand into the developed world not through the back door of repression and exploitation, but as the nation of laws, freedom, justice, and opportunity it has always aspired to be.
(10 votes, average: 4.40 out of 5)
Loading ...
Well said and uplifting. However, what do you think are the chances for this to happen?
It appears that the economic “miracle” that infected Thailand in recent boom years has brought to the forefront the “vulgar” aspects of an otherwise supplicant society, with analogies to Italy’s WW2 fascist era mob culture and suppression of dissent on all fronts.
A very well projected scenario, KJF, scary indeed.
How?
http://bravellir.com/gallery/d/7052-1/bow.gif
good article… a heartfelt plea
but I feel you are a bit unaware of the difficulties faced by Thaksin and the TRT and the red shirts now in facing up to the entrenched powers
and at the same time successfully bringing Thailand forward into the world
for example, when you talk of human rights abuses, please think carefully of all the players and spin doctors involved at the time and since…
do you believe that Thaksin had control over the military, border patrol police (also under military command) and the police involved in Drug Suppression, down south, etc?
to help give context to this, do you also think that Thaksins “nominee” prime ministers Samak and Somchai had control over the military, border patrol police (also under military command) and the police involved in the PAD occupation of government house and the take over of the airports?
why did the army move against Thaksin in the 2006 coup? because they wanted to stop corruption or return it to themselves? or because Thaksin was trying to bring the military under government control by putting people sympathetic to democracy in charge?
do you really think its fair to blame a prime minister without the means to control these agencies except in some peripheral ways, for the crimes that these agencies commit?
face the realities, because these realities are still with us and will need desperate efforts to overcome!
best of luck!
Thanks for the comments. I am aware of the difficulties in accomplishing the agenda I sketched out above (basically all of my previous posts on this blog deal with precisely how entrenched elite power is in Thailand). I am not saying this is something either particularly easy or particularly likely. What I am saying is that given the way the stars are currently aligned (metaphorically, not in an astrological sense), this kind of change is more achievable now than it has been at any point in Thai history. And after basically a decade of depressing news out of Thailand (first with the Thaksin regime, then this military-bureaucratic one), I thought it might have been useful to reflect on the opportunities this context provides as well as perhaps make a tiny contribution to finding a way out of this mess.
Excellent article!! many many thanks for it. This is what I’m looking for, both for personal and academic reason! I know I should finish yr article first before posting my comment, but I’m so excited!!
As a regular reader, but less regular contributor to several sites and blogs, I think this is one of the best written pieces, I have read in a long time.
I spent the past 4 days attending a family funeral in Udon Thani.
At such events one gets to see and hear a lot of things, which tend to sharpen one’s perception.
This was a particularly sad event, as it was the “sending off”, in a true Issan way ie. goes on forever), of a 14 year old boy, who had been killed whilst riding a motor bike, with no helemet (surprise!) on one of Udon’s main highways, on his way to school, with 2 other friends, as passengers – not smart.
His parents (who are both hard working and caring)did not see the danger in this.
Further, one of this unfortunate boy’s cousins, was out illegal street racing, 2 nights later.
Having won baht 500, he bought his father a bottle of whiskey. His father was so proud.
I do hope your optimism is rewarded and the time is ripe for change – for the better. From what I observed last weekend, there is a long way to go. But let’s all hope……….
I even have hope, that everntually David Brown will see Thaksin for what he was/is.
Very incisive and very insightful. I believe you have correctly read the spoor, which I have seen you do before in this blog and which I have seen others do in other blogs over the last 12 months.
I believe that this situation in Thailand will (and probably can) only end in civil war, but I also believe that in its finality, the people will have no choice. Thais too often do things only when they are made to and I think this approach will also ensure it takes serious conflict to bring about the inevitable change.
But I, like you, believe that this time will be a defining moment in the absence of a certain person, indeed, it may be that sudden absence which lights the fuse.
Oddly, in the face of such approaching turmoil, I feel strangely optimistic for the Thai people.
Tom
It is clear that the first step to real democracy is unbiased press/media(Press Freedom).The way forward can then be debated openly.Once the Thai people have a proper “Anchor of Truth” it might then stand a chance of finding the right people to move the country forward.Just now this is being denied.So everyone concerned must now fight this unjustified censorship in the guise of “Lese Majeste”.
@Darren:
I doubt it is only the daft lese majeste law. The Thai press is notorious for its bias, its lack of objectivity and its laziness, and these have doubtless contributed to the existing situation. As I perceive it, the press is owned by the very people that are the problem and I doubt that turkeys will vote for Xmas any more in Thailand than anywhere else.
Tom
I must admitted, this is a kind of article rarely seen in any websites/blogs nowadays. A well balanced piece on the current Thai politics, though a bit idealistic, but also a thoughtful one.
Tom: Thaksin responsibility to the humanrights violations in the south are undenialbe, also the drug war. More importantly his “influence” on the constitution court and the election committee were as digusting as “someone” did with the current constitution court. It also gave the PAD a big excuse to rally against him in 2005.
To me, all kind of authoritarians are the same, Thaksinocracy, the current aristo/bureaucracy,for whatever excuses they made,are poisonous to democracy.
People must learn themselves lessons from this, if they really want to move on toward a real and sustainable democracy. They must stop looking for a new hero,because heroes always turn tyrants, that’s what history told me.
A good piece, as (nearly) always.
I have long thought about this, but wont it take a real and charismatic leader to glue it all together? I fear it may go down the route of chaos because there is no bridging entity / person around, or even on the sidlines.
I have said for years….one can spot a bit of ‘Khmer Rouge’ in Thais of all classes…. if you look hard enough.
Prokster- I think the Pantamit might well be referred to as the “Thai Jaune.”
Yes a thought provoking piece but ….
[NOTE: THE REMAINDER OF THIS COMMENT HAS BEEN CENSORED, BUT THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN. THE PASSAGES TO WHICH YOU OBJECT ARE STATEMENTS OF STRATEGY MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE - KJF]
I guess Leveller was talking abt the last paragraph of the article (not sure if I ‘m correct), but I ‘m glad KJF remarks that they are merely statements of strategy. Although I’m Thai, I’m very cynical abt the Thai elite’s version of Thai history and Thai nationalism, because I believe their goal was/is largely to maintain absolutism, unequal power relations and the myth that traditional ruling class did everything for the sake of the nation state while at the same time forcing the role of passive, grateful subjects on ordinary people. In fact, a number of Thais are also questioning the age-old version of Thai history and Thai nationalism.
By the way, when I say “statements of strategy,” what I mean is that the post offers an example of how demands for sweeping democratic change can be grounded in rhetoric that is acceptable in contemporary Thai discourse (it doesn’t mean that I have any kind of “hidden agenda” beyond the goals I spelled out). Just as the current government, as well as a number of military dictatorships before them, have sought to present themselves as the embodiment of Thai cultural values and traditions, the prospects for real democratization rest on the ability of its proponents to do the same. The post is an example of the kind of rhetoric that might work in this regard.
i guess I know what u mean “…demands for sweeping democratic change can be grounded in rhetoric that is acceptable in contemporary Thai discourse…” Without ‘acceptable rhetoric’ I think demands for change will be rejected outright. i feel this is highly applicable to the attempt to repeal certain law.
Right. You could walk on a stage during a demonstration at Sanam Luang and read this stuff aloud without automatically getting arrested and subsequently escorted to some medieval dungeon where you could spend a few years reflecting on your own deviancy. Other manifestos circulating these days not so much.
Umm Again yr post gives an answer to something I’ve been pondering over after reading Nidhi Aewsriwong’s latest comment on LM law and Somsak Jeamteerasakul’s criticism of Nidhi(well, Somsak did point out some good points of Nidhi’s comment, but his attack is stronger (IMO at least)..Many thanks!!!
I have just read yr comment on the NEW Mandala thread on Giles. It enhances my reading of yr article, esp the last paragraph.Thanks !
“A chance to recognize, as Prince Damrong did, that tolerance, freedom, and non-violence are as much an integral part of Thai culture as sakdina-based social hierarchy. A chance to elevate, as King Mongkut demanded, the pluralistic traditions of Sukhothai on par with the more conservative legacy of Ayutthaya.”
Wow, there are liberal currents in Thai history? Somebody should tell Thai people.
But seriously, I agree that if minds are ever going to be opened, it is likely to happen through this kind of historical appeal. Still, I wonder how an intellectual approach can stand up against the hysteria and anti-intellectualism that define the Thai attitude to politics, culture and the monarchy. Have you ever noticed how resistant the majority of Thai people are to any sort of rational argument on these topics? If a liberal education capped by an Oxford degree couldn’t take the blinders off Abhisit, what are the prospects for everyone else?
That’s why, if political change is going to come, it’s likely to be via a lowest-common-denominator populist like Thaksin who doesn’t challenge people to think, but appeals to the same base attitudes that prop up the current system. The question is, can the few genuine progressives harness the populist wave, as Giles seems to be attempting? Or has the aversion to thought become so deeply instilled that Thailand is doomed to parochialism and authoritarianism for the foreseeable future?
Diblo: I think the Oxford degree did take the blinders off Abhisit; it’s the pursuit of power that made it convenient to put them back on.
One more thing about Thailand’s “liberal traditions.” We don’t hear so much about it because this whole debate about Thai culture and history is dominated by those who have a clear interest to reduce (and, indeed, cheapen) Thai culture to the mere legitimation of supposedly natural social hierarchies. Much like every other “culture,” however, Thai culture is very much open to alternative interpretations; like every other culture, it has authoritarian and hierarchical elements as well as more pluralistic and egalitarian ones. My point is that democrats (real ones, not the swine who are in power now) need not cede any ground on this debate about culture. They (we?) only do so at great cost . And while it is true that intellectual arguments may have little appeal to most people in Thailand (as well as to people in most other countries around the world, including my own), there are ways to package these claims in simpler, more visceral messages. The success of any truly democratic movement hinges in part on doing just that.
KJF, thanks for the response. Heartily concur with your point about discourse of culture concealing relations of power. And I’m all for supporting those in Thailand who want to uncover their country’s long-denied liberal traditions, give them some sunlight and water, and watch them flourish. I think Thailand is a tougher case than the botanical model suggests, though. First of all, to really do the trick, we need to find some liberal-minded forbearer who’s not a royal or aristocrat, since a progressive idea attributed to a king of prince is just further proof (to many Thais, if not to us) that all good things come from on high. Are there any suitable role models who aren’t descended from gods? Is there a Thai history that’s not royal history? Second, as specious as the predominant views on Thai culture, religion and monarchy may be, they are ingrained in the population with a completeness that’s close to unique. People who question them are very rare, no matter how far up the ladder of education or power you look. This at least is my experience. So while I agree that intellectual arguments don’t appeal to most people in most countries, Thailand is special in that intellectual arguments don’t appeal to intellectuals.
The question that I’ve been asking myself is, where are the democrats (small-d, non-swine, as you put it)? When I arrived in Thailand a while ago, I found myself trying to figure out where the good guys were hiding. I assumed I might find them in the media, standing up for freedom of expression and keeping a watchful eye on the powers that be. Wrong. No “liberal media” here. I thought maybe the democrats were hiding out in the universities. Nope – it was Chula University itself that turned Giles in to the authorities. Western-educated Thais? The ones I’ve met seem about as progressive as Abhisit, maybe because they have too much to lose from asking questions. Thai-Chinese? You’d think they would have a bit of perspective on the whole cultural charade, being recent joiners, but you’d be wrong. So I still don’t know where the good guys are. Sure, I know individual Thais who are democrats, but they are few, they are jaded, and they are scared. Some of them might even be able to write a manifesto as eloquent as yours or Giles’, but none of them would dare, because they don’t have the means to flee the country. So I guess my question is, if a country has a liberal tradition, but there’s no one there to see it, does it really exist?
Diblo: You have asked excellent questions. I guess that the notable absence from the current political discourse of any mention of Thailand’s more pluralistic traditions speaks to the incredible power dictators have to shape their own people’s worldview through propaganda and so-called education. This is the one thing that the otherwise bumbling leaders Thailand has had over the past several decades have mastered.
As for where the impulse for real democratization should originate, I think that your comment goes to the heart of the problem – which is that of leadership. Indeed, even the otherwise fairly optimistic post above only speaks of opportunities and *conditions* favorable to democratic change, but leaves the issue of leadership largely unaddressed. Indeed, it wasn’t addressed because it’s not clear to me either.
The way I see it, perhaps the best hope comes from those grassroots civil society organizations that were once demonized by Thaksin (and were hence aligned with the first, more benign incarnation of the PAD), but appear to now be a growing part of the “red” movement (at least according to some reports of recent demonstrations). Beyond this I don’t know. I guess it is quite possible that the opportunities that the current political context offers will go unexploited. However, the first step towards making use of such opportunities is to recognize they are there. This is what the post sought to accomplish – take some time to step back, think about the big picture, and reflect on the vast possibilities that these otherwise dark and increasingly obscurantist times still offer.
Quote (Diblo) :”…. Still, I wonder how an intellectual approach can stand up against the hysteria and anti-intellectualism that define the Thai attitude to politics, culture and the monarchy. Have you ever noticed how resistant the majority of Thai people are to any sort of rational argument on these topics….”
I couldn’t agree more with this.it’s so true. As a Thai, this is so depressing to me.
…has the aversion to thought become so deeply instilled that Thailand is doomed to parochialism and authoritarianism for the foreseeable future?
That, or ‘illiberal democrcacy’.
Just came across an interesting (and, in my opinion, great) critique of the Red Shirt movement by Nidhi Eowsriwong, who argues that the love of democracy and the love of Thaksin(at least the Thaksin in the past) can’t go together. He also notes that the Red-shirted people should engage more in fruitful and self-questioning debate rather than laregly relying on ‘mob/mass mentality’.
http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/view_news.php?newsid=01act01020352§ionid=0130&day=2009-03-02
Quote”….This is the people’s chance. A chance to substitute Thai-style dictatorship with a real, Thai-style democracy. A chance to honor king, nation, religion, and each of the distinctive traditions that make Thailand a unique, special place without subjecting dissenting views to censorship, legal harassment…”
Sadly, i doubt if this is possible now that the gov is so intent on suppressing even constructive criticism.. I think the climate of fear is now dominating Thailand…
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/2009/03/06/crackdown-on-prachatai/
“The way I see it, perhaps the best hope comes from those grassroots civil society organizations that were once demonized by Thaksin (and were hence aligned with the first, more benign incarnation of the PAD), but appear to now be a growing part of the “red” movement (at least according to some reports of recent demonstrations). Beyond this I don’t know.”
“Still, I wonder how an intellectual approach can stand up against the hysteria and anti-intellectualism that define the Thai attitude to politics, culture and the monarchy. Have you ever noticed how resistant the majority of Thai people are to any sort of rational argument on these topics.”
^Interesting comments, but I;m afraid Thai society is “doomed”, due to the nature of, well, Thai society.
After working in the Thai media field for three years, I can tell you, it is a world ruled by “obedience” – everyone is looking after him or her self. And who governs him or her self? Whoever is “above”. People do not have the option to “speak out” since their livelihood depends on staying “in line”. As a foreign-worker in the Thai media, I’ve tried my hardest to get across, to readers and the public, much of what the author of this blog expresses. But you know what? I am constantly, endlessly met with complete indifference. Thai society is a product of its own creation – “som num na”. I dont mean that to sound in a derogatory manner. There must be a huge cultural shift in Thailand for things to change, and I just dont see that happening for awhile – although things might start to change [...REDACTED: THE JIST OF IT IS "SOON"]. I find it amazing how many of my Thai friends [...REDACTED...], and it seems that it is done mainly as a manner of obedience. I am a Buddhist, and I know Dhamma can help Thai society more than anything else, but, the reality is that Thais refuse to engage in open, honest discourse with each other.The majority of Thais are ignorant even to the fruits of their own religion.
Great article, I only wish that the people that surround me daily might read or understand or even contemplate such concepts. I am not optimistic. I believe improvement, revision, is a long way off, it’s barely perceptible. Though i know there is a small minority of people in Thailand who are not constantly living hoodwinked in a miasma of smokescreens, they are so paltry in numbers and weak in voice that i don’t see any change any time soon. The bubble cannot just burst, people won’t allow their constructs to tumble over night, parents won’t teach their children the ‘middle way’ or foster criticism of the elite, it’s just asking too much, the ego won’t allow it. And importantly, many Thais, and foreigners, want to believe in the brother/sister narrative where everything is great, where compassion is omnipresent. It’s hard to take this golden dream away from people, reality is a bummer. Thailand, socially, artistically, politically, doesn’t do realism.
And the fear, the draconian fear will not dissapate so quickly people will have the courage to stand up and speak against the status quo. I think the next generation will have a different take on this long standing corrupt system, but even if they do, they may still become part of it due to what they might gain from it.
A friend recently informed me that his students at CMU grade him on his dress code and his understanding and politness towards the much hackneyed and grossly hypocritical standardised ‘Thai culture’. In the halls of academia, one of Thailand’s best universities. Rather than be encouraged to read, to be cynical and open minded it seems students are continually reminded that conformity is paramount to anything else. The dress code and adherence to relentlessly ridiculous notions of right and wrong has predadence over free philosophical thinking.
The rubbish needs taking out, the fusty stalwarts that keep us in the dark ages need to hang up their bruised and battered gloves. I believe, in a Platonic way, that we need to step out of the cave, just open our eyes. The first step, beyond micro politics, is just asking people to think. As a writer and commentator i am often accused by my Thai collegues of being too dark, of thinking too much, however they are fond of wearing certain colours that ostensibly correspond to a belief. My criticism, uncolured, is a bit too much. I think we are a centrury away from any real progress. Taking sides is more important than understanding the game, and who really knows what team they are on anywhay? I believe Engels called this false consciousness. No where i have ever been is false consciousness so prevalent, and with it a profound national insecurity and identity crisis.
From my western perspective the barrier is cultural conditioning. I see within my own thai family the two prevalant barriers:
1)Paternalism: Elders take care of you, shield you from effort and any level of responsibility or consequence. In return you owe respect and obedience and quid pro quo-you will be taken care of.
2)Group Identity:The need to belong to a family group/graduate class/ shirt colour/mob/nation and not be seen as an isolated (sad-sack) free-thinker.
These traits are conditioned from birth, polished at school and burnished by media and society. With this level of saturation conditioning how can anyone function “intelligently” without an overseas upbringing?
The intellectuals and manipulators have been well aware of this down the ages and worked to maintain the hermeticism that allows it to flourish. Globalisation is a nightmare for them!
Leave your response!
RECENT POSTS
RECENT COMMENTS