![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Drawing a woman from the inside out (4:00) [ FLASH ANIMATION ]
Brio Networkers (5:28) [ BRIO ]
Jojo in the Stars (12:53) [ THE BAFTA-WINNING 2003 DEBUT FROM MARC CRASTE ] (If you only watch one of these three, make it this one.)Dec. 3rd, 2008
Drawing a woman from the inside out (4:00) [ FLASH ANIMATION ] Brio Networkers (5:28) [ BRIO ] Jojo in the Stars (12:53) [ THE BAFTA-WINNING 2003 DEBUT FROM MARC CRASTE ] (If you only watch one of these three, make it this one.)
Thai democracy and the PAD
Dec. 3rd, 2008 10:21 pmIn a mall in Bangkok last Friday I had to stop myself from laughing at an American man sitting at the next café table. He was explaining in serious, doom-laden tones over a cappuccino to his Thai girlfriend exactly how the weekend would see the end of the People's Alliance for Democracy's airport occupations in Bangkok. "There's only one way this will end. Hundreds are going to die on Sunday. The police will disperse the protesters, so they'll retreat into the airport building and completely wreck it. It will be at least two weeks before the airport can open again. They could put bombs on planes and everything will have to be searched..." I wanted to tell him to STFU, you know nothing, and the way his silent girlfriend was looking elsewhere told me she was thinking exactly the same thing. And at the same time, I had to hope he wasn't right. But from what source, or what experience, did he draw those far-fetched conclusions? He didn't seem to understand Thai society at all.
I've generally found the reporting of Thailand's current political turmoils in the UK press to be mostly fair, though it seems to skim the surface endlessly and rarely exhibits an awareness as to what lies beneath the current problems. I'm obviously no expert, but as I'm beginning to live there now, here's how I see things as they currently are, and what needs to be done to get things back to a more cohesive, pre-Thaksin political climate.
One thing that has been widely reported about the PAD anti-government protesters in Thailand over the last few months is that despite their name they are actually against democracy. This is true when you look at it in black and white: they want appointed officials in government, not ones directly elected by the influence of those inconveniently backward and ignorant rural voters. I don't know if there are, but I wonder if the democratic systems of any countries around the world have yet mutated into this form (I doubt it) while still having the gall to describe themselves as 'democratic'. It strikes me as self-defeating, and what is most worrying about this is that such a proposed re-arrangement of the furniture is surely as equally open to abuse and corruption as the current, more normal state of affairs. But then, with the success of the PAD over the last few months, it could be said that true democratic politics has already ceased to function in Thailand.
The PAD – who actually don't have the support of the majority of Thailand's middle classes, who see them as just another bunch of extremists – are trying to say democracy won't work in its present form in Thailand while the poor have been so easily bought and will continue to be so if the problem remains unaddressed. Vote buying by the People Power Party (formerly Thai Rak Thai – 'Thai Love Thai' – under Thaksin Shinawatra) was once again rampant in the last election, and there's plenty of damning evidence that at least the current Deputy Prime Minister, for one, had been doing plenty of it himself in his own region.
But that's only part of the problem for the PPP's opponents, including those other parties that have helped to make up the most recent coalition government. When in power, Thaksin, who is from Chiang Mai, largely delivered on his promises to the rural poor in the north, which is why he now commands such loyalty there. One aspect of Thaksin's tactics is very hard to criticise: what left-winger could possibly argue against helping the poor? The problem is that those promises he made and largely fulfilled revolved around extending cheap credit to poor farmers: "Have that car you always wanted, or buy that big house, with this cheap loan or mortgage. Elect me and you'll get it straight from the Bank of Thailand." Which is like using the Bank of England, or the Federal Reserve. And with that mandate he won that election, and the voters got what they wanted, and as a result Thailand's main central bank will soon go through its own massive credit crisis as more and more people begin to default. This is the current legacy of what put Thaksin, already a billionaire, in power. And it's what his opponents have been trying to actively fix since 2006, starting with the coup and the overnight installation of a military government.
When in power, among other abuses Thaksin made some illegal land purchases through his wife, and tried to meddle with the judiciary and buy them off too. That was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' for the king (and the courts), which directly led to the coup to remove him and ban him from politics. The coup was led by a military general, Chulanont, who was actually against the idea of a coup, but when the king asks the top military man to do something about his corrupt and dangerous government, he does it, out of loyalty. Nothing happens at that level in Thailand without the king's blessing or knowledge. The coup (often described as a non-coup because it was so peaceful and orderly) was meant to short circuit this problem and remove the cause. Thaksin's reformed party, the PPP, then won the next election too without him, again with a combination of vote buying and some unswerving loyalty to Thaksin, the deposed leader now in exile. The votes of the rural poor in the north of Thailand have long been decisive in the kind of government Thailand gets.
If anyone's in any doubt about who is really behind the PPP, at least in the eyes of the party's supporters, just look at the banners the government supporters are waving: they don't praise Somchai Wongsawat, or his predecessor Samak. If they show anyone's image, it's Thaksin's. A vote for a party of this stripe is, simply, a vote of confidence for Thaksin, now deposed and on the run from the law. It is baffling to the mostly left-wing middle-classes how those who have benefited under Thaksin can't see how they've been led right through the rose garden.
I found it a little ironic that Thailand's most recent PM, Somchai (actually Thaksin's brother-in-law) was over in Peru on an economic summit before returning to find his yellow-shirted opponents occupying both of Bangkok's airports (a yellow shirt is a symbolic thing in Thailand: it means loyalty to the king). Peru's current President, Alan Garcia, is one of the most slippery politicians in South America, and he could teach Somchai a few things about sleaze. My own opinion about Somchai is that he's not a dishonest or slippery person, but then neither is he a true politician – he's a businessman who's been asked to fill a post. His daily TV addresses last week from Chiang Mai, where his government was forced to retreat to, showed a weak man with little self-confidence (though I applauded his refusal to countenance a violent solution to the standoff). Similarly, the rest of the PPP ministers appear like they're protecting or representing interests that are not directly those of the electorate. There is something rather rotten about them. The current head of the military conveniently used Somchai's absence in Peru to call for new Thai elections, and the police let the PAD protesters go anywhere they liked because they're largely against the PPP aswell. It takes time to plan the occupation of two airports, let alone erect huge stages and rig sound systems, and the police were never going to fire tear gas at thousands of non-violent protesters that included children and the elderly.
Thailand is a far more collective society, comparatively, than many places in the West. I personally see the country as being fundamentally left-wing, which is fine by me, and there is not nearly as much polarisation between left and right as, say, in the UK or US. But the PAD's wish to remove the vote is a fundamentally dumb move: it's like saying parts of the electorate are too stupid to vote properly; 'we' know what's best for this country, therefore you don't have a vote anymore. It's elitist and dangerous, an insult and a recipe for strife, and equally open to abuse and corruption. It's completely the wrong tactic: it is to deny self-empowerment, whereas the right tactic would be to educate.
I've generally found the reporting of Thailand's current political turmoils in the UK press to be mostly fair, though it seems to skim the surface endlessly and rarely exhibits an awareness as to what lies beneath the current problems. I'm obviously no expert, but as I'm beginning to live there now, here's how I see things as they currently are, and what needs to be done to get things back to a more cohesive, pre-Thaksin political climate.
One thing that has been widely reported about the PAD anti-government protesters in Thailand over the last few months is that despite their name they are actually against democracy. This is true when you look at it in black and white: they want appointed officials in government, not ones directly elected by the influence of those inconveniently backward and ignorant rural voters. I don't know if there are, but I wonder if the democratic systems of any countries around the world have yet mutated into this form (I doubt it) while still having the gall to describe themselves as 'democratic'. It strikes me as self-defeating, and what is most worrying about this is that such a proposed re-arrangement of the furniture is surely as equally open to abuse and corruption as the current, more normal state of affairs. But then, with the success of the PAD over the last few months, it could be said that true democratic politics has already ceased to function in Thailand.
The PAD – who actually don't have the support of the majority of Thailand's middle classes, who see them as just another bunch of extremists – are trying to say democracy won't work in its present form in Thailand while the poor have been so easily bought and will continue to be so if the problem remains unaddressed. Vote buying by the People Power Party (formerly Thai Rak Thai – 'Thai Love Thai' – under Thaksin Shinawatra) was once again rampant in the last election, and there's plenty of damning evidence that at least the current Deputy Prime Minister, for one, had been doing plenty of it himself in his own region.
But that's only part of the problem for the PPP's opponents, including those other parties that have helped to make up the most recent coalition government. When in power, Thaksin, who is from Chiang Mai, largely delivered on his promises to the rural poor in the north, which is why he now commands such loyalty there. One aspect of Thaksin's tactics is very hard to criticise: what left-winger could possibly argue against helping the poor? The problem is that those promises he made and largely fulfilled revolved around extending cheap credit to poor farmers: "Have that car you always wanted, or buy that big house, with this cheap loan or mortgage. Elect me and you'll get it straight from the Bank of Thailand." Which is like using the Bank of England, or the Federal Reserve. And with that mandate he won that election, and the voters got what they wanted, and as a result Thailand's main central bank will soon go through its own massive credit crisis as more and more people begin to default. This is the current legacy of what put Thaksin, already a billionaire, in power. And it's what his opponents have been trying to actively fix since 2006, starting with the coup and the overnight installation of a military government.
When in power, among other abuses Thaksin made some illegal land purchases through his wife, and tried to meddle with the judiciary and buy them off too. That was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' for the king (and the courts), which directly led to the coup to remove him and ban him from politics. The coup was led by a military general, Chulanont, who was actually against the idea of a coup, but when the king asks the top military man to do something about his corrupt and dangerous government, he does it, out of loyalty. Nothing happens at that level in Thailand without the king's blessing or knowledge. The coup (often described as a non-coup because it was so peaceful and orderly) was meant to short circuit this problem and remove the cause. Thaksin's reformed party, the PPP, then won the next election too without him, again with a combination of vote buying and some unswerving loyalty to Thaksin, the deposed leader now in exile. The votes of the rural poor in the north of Thailand have long been decisive in the kind of government Thailand gets.
If anyone's in any doubt about who is really behind the PPP, at least in the eyes of the party's supporters, just look at the banners the government supporters are waving: they don't praise Somchai Wongsawat, or his predecessor Samak. If they show anyone's image, it's Thaksin's. A vote for a party of this stripe is, simply, a vote of confidence for Thaksin, now deposed and on the run from the law. It is baffling to the mostly left-wing middle-classes how those who have benefited under Thaksin can't see how they've been led right through the rose garden.
I found it a little ironic that Thailand's most recent PM, Somchai (actually Thaksin's brother-in-law) was over in Peru on an economic summit before returning to find his yellow-shirted opponents occupying both of Bangkok's airports (a yellow shirt is a symbolic thing in Thailand: it means loyalty to the king). Peru's current President, Alan Garcia, is one of the most slippery politicians in South America, and he could teach Somchai a few things about sleaze. My own opinion about Somchai is that he's not a dishonest or slippery person, but then neither is he a true politician – he's a businessman who's been asked to fill a post. His daily TV addresses last week from Chiang Mai, where his government was forced to retreat to, showed a weak man with little self-confidence (though I applauded his refusal to countenance a violent solution to the standoff). Similarly, the rest of the PPP ministers appear like they're protecting or representing interests that are not directly those of the electorate. There is something rather rotten about them. The current head of the military conveniently used Somchai's absence in Peru to call for new Thai elections, and the police let the PAD protesters go anywhere they liked because they're largely against the PPP aswell. It takes time to plan the occupation of two airports, let alone erect huge stages and rig sound systems, and the police were never going to fire tear gas at thousands of non-violent protesters that included children and the elderly.
Thailand is a far more collective society, comparatively, than many places in the West. I personally see the country as being fundamentally left-wing, which is fine by me, and there is not nearly as much polarisation between left and right as, say, in the UK or US. But the PAD's wish to remove the vote is a fundamentally dumb move: it's like saying parts of the electorate are too stupid to vote properly; 'we' know what's best for this country, therefore you don't have a vote anymore. It's elitist and dangerous, an insult and a recipe for strife, and equally open to abuse and corruption. It's completely the wrong tactic: it is to deny self-empowerment, whereas the right tactic would be to educate.