On Thai-Style Democracy
12 December 2009
2,497 views
7 Comments
Here is another essay that combines some of the old blog posts about Thai culture and democracy with some rather provocative new material (pdf format). As usual, comments are welcome.
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ...
KJF:
Superlative analysis of one of the key issues at the heart of the current political crisis. I am no admirer of Thaksin and his methods, but I wholeheartedly agree with your position regarding the unelected elite, and their subversion of Thailand’s potential to actually become a ‘democracy’ that’s worthy of the name.
The question the really bugs me though is that if we accept that continued interference and/or coups by those military/bureaucratic/royalists are not the way forward, how are Thais going to be able to counter the systematic corruption, vote-buying and self-interest that underpins much of the politcal process?
Thaksin’s ever-increasing centralisation of power, conflicts of interest, muzzling of the media, impunity etc. etc. were/are genuine issues affecting the country and ordinary people, aside from his perceived threat to the ‘old order’ elites. It was debate and worry over such issues which formed the kernel of what was later to be expressed most publically (although also by other media and in academia) by Sondhi and his ‘Muang Thai Rai Sapda’ forum. I was sympathetic to much of what was being said at that time, although I (like yourself may I suggest?) started to become disillusioned once things had metamorphosed into the PAD.
It seems to me though that the average (if there is such a thing) provincial Thai (which form the majority of the electorate in terms of voted-for parliamentary seats) is not overly bothered by the over-arching power and corruption of the likes of Thaksin, so long as they can see some direct tangible benefits (or even just a feel good factor of recognition) in their own lives.
So does the self-serving behaviour of Thaksin, or indeed many of the leaders who came before him, actually matter? If we are to say it does (I do) and agree with those (I’ll call them ‘more broadly informed’ for want of a better term) who see the harm caused to Thailand’s social/economic/political development, how can this be reconciled with the belief (I believe) that the rural masses also have views, ideas and aspirations, and a fundamental right to be heard and participate fully in the democratic process?
I’d be interested to know if you’re in the same quandary as me about all this. And if you are, if you have any ideas about what sort of direction the country should take…..
Once again, marvellous piece and I’m looking forward to your next postings.
Thanks Richard. As you might have gathered from reading other posts, I am no fan of Thaksin either. The dirty little secret, however, is that the people who are in power right now are no less corrupt than Thaksin ever was— notwithstanding the fact that the media, the ECT, and the Constitutional Court have taken a much more forgiving approach to the corruption of the Democrats and their corporate supporters. Of course, it is true that the unelected institutions that have removed Thaksin and his successors have successfully presented themselves as a check and balance to the power of greedy, incompetent elected politicians; but it is also the case that their constant interference in the process is largely responsible for the factionalism of Thai politics, the weakness of its party system, and the personalization of electoral competition. As such, the first step towards the country’s real democratic development has got to be that the influence of these unelected institutions is definitively stamped out, just as it is in most civilized nations. This will not solve the problems you refer to over night, but it will at least give the country some room to develop into a functioning democracy. One should not forget that some of the world’s most “established” democracies (like the US) have historically been characterized by possibly even more pervasive levels of corruption and vote-buying. There is a great book called “The American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century” that describes this in rather vivid and fascinating detail. The difference between these countries and Thailand is that some level corruption by elected politicians is not considered a good excuse to restrict freedoms of speech and association — nor was it ever a good excuse to overturn the results of elections and replace elected governments with equally corrupt, equally incompetent governments subservient to unelected institutions.
KJF
Thanks for your reply. I see that you highlight the need to quash the influence of the ‘unelected institutions’. Whilst I agree that this would indeed give the country a fighting chance at true democratic development, how do you feel this will be achievable (if indeed you do), if not in the short-term, then in the medium to long-term?
Your analysis of cultural constructs, and how this is abused by the Thai elites for their own ends, is extremely insightful and something which I had not given much thought on up to now. I don’t want to raise your ire over culture (!), but I would suggest that Thai cultural traits in themselves present a significant impediment to ‘democratic’ progress. By this, I am not saying that there is anything unique about the Thais, that they are predisposed towards any particular thought or behavioural patterns, or more or less suitable for democracy. But even if we acknowledge that cultural attributes are in essence shaped and sustained by those in/with power, things such as ‘Pee-Norng’/kinship relationships and hierarchy/deference to ones elders and/or superiors, are a reality in Thai society and permeate all levels from the family right up to government and beyond…
In this regard, I believe that this helps to inhibit the questioning and challenging that would be necessary to shake the system; shake it enough to break the impunity and unaccountability of the interlinked (and competing) politico-business-military factions (some of which tie in to an even higher authority) which ultimately run the show. And I’m not just referring to the questioning and challenging potential of the general populace, but also to the very members of those elite factions, who are themselves subsumed with kinship-hierarchical paradigm.
Apologies for sounding so negative, but I suppose what I’m trying to figure out is how societal interaction and values which it seems help to sustain the power system as is (and whether it’s the impunity of Thaksin, Prem or whoever), can be altered (or even utilised) in such a way to enable a change towards more positive democratic development.
Greater depth and breadth of education? Reducing income inequality? Or is it just a case of letting things take their course, mirroring the centuries-old political trials and tribulations that the so-called western democracies had to go through to get to where they are now?
In all of what I mention above, I acknowledge your own fundamental differentiation between ‘unelected’ and ‘elected’ elites for the cause of true democracy, but I do feel these ‘cultural’ (sorry, there’s that word again!) issues are also relevant, whether it’s to explain the reverence shown to, and persuasive powers of those in the ‘network monarchy’, or the star qualities radiated by a manipulative and controlling CEO Thaksin.
Hello.
When you talk about Thai culture and society i think one thing is very important, more important than the hierarchical system you talk about, more important than the corruption, the obscurantism. It is something more fundamental.
Thailand can not hope to have a democratic system i believe, a fully functioning one (although i do find it amusing that you invoked US democracy as an example of ‘good’ democracy – wasn’t there a recent case of corruption in Florida? Is the system not based on having billions of dollars behind you and making sure you receive enough sir time) as the people themselves are not ready for it. Democracy, i believe, is a natural process, though this process comes when a society and its people have some amount of autonomy, when they can think for themselves, have the ability to think for themselves, are of a higher consciousness; i.e. not automaton, rigidly programmed to adhere to typical concepts.
I’m not saying you have to be clever to cast a vote, though you do have to have the capacity to scrutinize, discern, rationalise, analyze etc. I don’t think most Thais do have this ability. The reason, i don’t know. They do not have a philosophical background, an understanding of psychology, an understanding of their own history. They do not, for the most, read anything at all. We can lambaste the system, but look at where we live. Lambasting the system is like calling a baby childish.
Is this sounding racist? It’s empirical (i may be wrong).
How can democracy work when society is barely aware of itself and its role in the world? When thought process is mostly reptilian? This precludes democracy working. The people in Thailand are not ready for democracy, though it is unfortunate that totalitarian government is always corrupt and self-serving. It’s a bit of a Catch 22. (incidentally, i’d rather have a totalitarian Chomsky in power than a democratic Bush.) Until the people educate themselves and escape the conformity and utter stink they are fed at home and at school and through their media, then they can never have a democracy that works. It’s like putting the square piece into the round hole. It doesn’t fit. The country almost deserves what it has got, corruption and lies marry ignorance and vice versa. It sounds fatalist and pretty damn negative but in 100 or so years things might be different.
So Richard, i agree, we just have to wait until people are more aware, more conscious. Change won’t come through any amount of political analysis or lampooning of the present system, change will come as the people develop themselves and look into their own heads.
Thais live in Heigal’s ‘master/slave’ syndrome to a much greater extent than most people do in the west. Though i think more important than the fact that they are enslaved – in the system – is the fact that they enslave themselves. Their consciousness is locked up. That’s where i think the problem lies. The change must come from ground level, because the tree is already rotten (hmm, a lot of analogy today). I think the best thing we can do – if indeed we are not fond of corruption, lies, inequity, or even anarchy – is to start from the root and ignore the dying tree. hand out books – that Thais, or even foreigners, can actually understand. I’m afraid academics never seem to have the muscle to do much at all other than be academics. Power to the people.
I was reading Locke the other night. On totalitarianism he said, i paraphrase, “People fear polecats and snakes, but don’t realise they should be afraid of the lion.” Something like that.
It’s interesting seeing how the west, mainly Europe, developed, politically, philosophically. How, after the Greeks, Europe plummeted into a dark age with only those mad scholastics shining a light on what they told people was knowledge. So many comparisons can be made to Thailand about this age of superstition and cruelty.
Then there was the renaissance – the bloodiest era (do you have to crack a few eggs?) – the many schisms, revolutions, fractures and revisions. Most importantly the unfettering of the noose that was tied around society’s heads that was the catholic church. The more lenient Protestantism gave the people more freedom; it gave free thinkers more freedom to think freely. In the UK military government tried to succeed and so did divine right rulership, but it never worked.
I was reading Locke and he was attempting to explain what he thought was the perfect government and how we should legislate. I see now where much of the American constitution came from – especially his stuff on property.
I am saying this as it seems to me so salient (can it be retro-prescient?) viewing Thailand’s present political status. I wonder if the [NEXT SENTENCE REDACTED; SORRY ABOUT THAT] I wonder what will happen.
A propos my last post, i was also wondering how the hoi polloi (UK) thought in those days of transition. Was the man in street thinking, reading, assessing what was happening in the political sphere? I wonder how change came about.
Locke was stuck with God – his biggest flaw if you ask me. But i liked his style. Where is Thailand’s Locke, Thailand’s Spinoza, Thailand’s Nietzsche, Thailand’s Russell? I think this is my point, maybe Thailand is so entrenched it its own ignorance that things here won’t change for a while. The government may graft western ideology and political system onto itself, but can these ideologies and systems really be understood, really be felt and embraced? Can the people cope with that when they have lived for so long in their age of darkness and superstition and ignorance of rational thought? When we see the inequity and pain in Thailand we most likely conclude that change must come. But i wonder how possible this is.
I have met few intellectuals here hiding in the shadows, waiting for an opportunity to speak. For now they are scared.
I stick to my point, it’s a symbiotic process, evolution, the people must work with the people leading them. The man in the street has to start thinking for himself, education must be automatic, it must be autodidactic, as well as taught, or forced upon.
If we consider where we are in the realm of polico-philosophical thought then we (i mean Thailand) have not even had a period of Greek idealism. We are pre-Greek. But we have technology and have managed to graft some part of westernization onto the country’s (i can’t think of the right word). Can this work, this posthaste graft, or must change be intrinsic, natural, progressive? Are the people of Thailand ready for democracy, equal rights, a fair law and government?
I am not a political analyst as you may have guessed, more a concerned citizen. Maybe you can clarify my haphazard speculations and help me to understand how things might progress here.
James:
I don’t pretend to have answers to all the points you have raised, so here are just a few observations.
It’s interesting that you raise John Locke, who is quite a fascinating historical figure besides being a very influential thinker. As you noted, the ideas that John Locke put forth are echoed in much of the Declaration of Independence and to some extent the US Constitution. However, one of the facts that I always found intriguing about John Locke is that he was a government official as well as a philosopher. And some of the things he did as a government official are quite jarring when matched against his most famous writings.
John Locke, for instance, was the author of the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, adopted in 1669 (at this url: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc05.asp). This was a document that sanctioned the existence of both slaves (Par. 110) and serfs (Par. 22); it instituted property qualifications to both vote and run for office (Par. 72); it included statements of incredible racism for people of non-Christian faiths (Par. 97); and it banned political speech in “religious assemblies” (Par. 103). To say nothing of the fact that Locke himself made quite a load of money by investing in the slave trade.
The reason why I am raising this is to reiterate that what we consider to be a “democracy” today was perhaps more foreign to most Westerners in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries than to most non-Western peoples today. Indeed, even someone like John Locke, who is generally considered one of the fathers of liberalism, was deeply influenced by feudal ideas that made some of his actual work more reminiscent of Thai-style sakdina than “Western democracy” as we conceive of it today. Democracy, in other words, isn’t something that comes especially natural of white people; it is rather something that evolved, over time, into the system of government it is today through a lot of trial and a lot of error. Along the way, it is probably no fluke that gradual diffusion and development of democratic ideals coincided with by far the most tumultuous two- and a half centuries in human history ( circa 1778-today).
Back to Thailand, my view is that “the Thai people” are no more ill-suited to (actually, they are in all likelihood much better suited for) liberal democracy than Italians were in 1946, than the French and the Americans were in 1870, or than the people of India were in 1947. Not only have the Thai people long been exposed to these ideas; they have been fighting for it for quite some time. Even the much-derided northeastern peasants are no longer the passive, uninvolved “sacks of potatoes” (to use a term from Marx) they might have been a few decades ago. They talk politics constantly and appear to be more than ready to participate in the government of their own country. One could argue that many of them remain ignorant, superstitious, and subservient to authority; but isn’t this also the case of large swaths of most Western electorates? I have found myself way more horrified by statements I heard while I was living in a trailer-park in Kansas (long story) than by any political ideas I heard during the time I spent in Isan villages.
This is to say that I don’t think it’s an especially big problem that one cannot point to Thailand’s equivalent of Spinoza, Locke, and Nietzsche (by the way, Nietzsche is by far my favorite philosopher but his democratic credentials are rather suspect) — or Voltaire, Montesquieu, Marx, and Beccaria for that matter. These are thinkers who do not belong to “the West” any more than the ideas of Emperor Ashoka, King Ramkhamhaeng, or Akbar the Great belong to “the East.” The writings and practices that these men put forth are part of our heritage of ideas as humans, not as members of any particular race, creed, or nationality. Beyond this, as I mention in the paper, it’s true that liberal democracy is for the most part a modern, Western innovation. Then again, so are most forms of dictatorship as well as most other government institutions used around the world regardless of regime type. To me, the standard for whether democracy should be exported is whether it can help a society be more active and just, as opposed to who came up with it first.
Thanks for your response. Yes, i was reading how Locke was in favour of slavery, and of course, that women do not get the vote. I suppose too, like you say, that philosophical thought through the ages was alien to most of the societies from where it came. A pity. I have always said – in drunken discourse with mates – that what the world needs is an education in philosophy, starting early in school. It’s a pity, i think, that much of what is written is either too abstruse for most (including me at time!) or hardly even available. It’s kind of like what one philosopher said, maybe Plato, that knowledge leads to goodness. I can’t see how it doesn’t, if we keep an open mind and read on, not become a neophyte or zealot to some (one) thought or system. Someone introduced me to Hegel recently, and one part i remember was his ‘mutual recognition’, master/slave theory. That we live in this perpetual master/slave relationship, in love, in friendship, in politics etc. But to recognise one another’s consciousness, to see yourself through their eyes/mind too, it creates, Hegel writes, and in my mind, a deeper understanding and empathy. But usually we are usually so closed and fearful and protective of our own egos we don’t allow this to happen. imagine people existing in a world of mutual recognition. Now that’s idealism.
I think sometimes i become disenchanted when people around, for the most part, seem wholly disinterested in thinking – out of the box.
But as you say, perhaps more is happening than i know about.
I’m with you on Nietzsche, the world wasn’t ready for him, as if often the case with bright sparks. I very much enjoy Heraclitus, and succumb to the idea that i don’t have an effing clue and never will. Embrace my own confusion etc, though that doesn’t help much when injustice rubs me up the wrong way.
Looking forward to the book. Will try and write a review.
Leave your response!
RECENT POSTS
RECENT COMMENTS