http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/11/27/ ... 020039.php
Giving up on democracy for Thailand
Over the past few days, Sondhi Limthongkul has made a mini-tour of the US, talking to audiences of Thais and interested observers.
His message was stark. The experience of Thaksin has shown that electoral democracy cannot work in Thailand. The mass of rural people who constitute the largest element in the electorate do not have the knowledge to participate properly. They sell their votes, either retail to the local canvasser, or wholesale to the populist who promises them goodies. This commercialism breeds a style of politician who is greedy and corrupt. The last few years have shown that a constitution, however well crafted, cannot impose any semblance of good governance.
What Sondhi says is important because he served as the lightning rod for the Bangkok middle class's emotional rejection of Thaksin. In many ways, he was a surprising candidate for this role. He had been one of Thaksin's most fervent supporters for five years. The two men are so similar that if you set out to clone Thaksin and made a tiny mistake you might finish up creating Sondhi. He became a key leader of the anti-Thaksin movement for two reasons: he had rare access to media outlets, and he changed his own tune to brilliantly articulate Bangkok middle-class opinion. We have to pay attention to him because he is undoubtedly still trying to channel this middle-class voice.
What he is saying is not new, but as old as Thailand's first fragile experiments with democracy. Underlying his views is the city's fear of the countryside, the middle class's fear of the peasant.
In 1932, the pioneers of Thailand's middle-class politicians stopped short of ushering in a new democracy on the grounds the provinces were not yet ready. In the 1970s the middle class backed the military to thwart a pro-peasant insurgency. In the 1990s the middle class quietly cheered the Democrat governments for turning their backs on rural protesters, and occasionally beating them over the head.
Underlying this fear is the huge divide in Thai society - not just the massive inequality in incomes, but the great imbalance in the distribution of social services and public goods, and also the cultural gap, which has widened as the city has grown richer, more confident and more dazzled by globalisation. Over a decade ago the political scientist Anek Laothammatas mused on the political consequences of having society divided into two virtual nations. The city people harboured dreams of a Western-style liberal democracy, but the villagers sent gangsters as MPs to the capital to wrest away whatever resources they could bring back to their constituencies while making some private benefit on the side. The constant clash of these two political cultures resulted in endemic political instability. Anek's answer was to educate the villagers in democracy, but also to put their needs on the national political agenda so that the gangsters would no longer have a role.
To a very large extent, Thaksin was following that second part of Anek's agenda. The platform his advisers assembled before the 2001 election was simply a collection of measures that the rural electors said they wanted. The claim he made at the 2005 poll was that he alone could act as a channel for rural demands because other parties were not interested.
Thaksin's populism was sometimes crude, often extravagant, and always a cover for corruption, cronyism and profiteering. But what made this populism truly frightening for the middle class - and hence the focus of Sondhi's tirade - was its political implications. Thaksin was giving political legitimacy to rural demands. If this trend were followed to its logical conclusion, it would undermine the city's undue share of government spending and public goods. There would also be a bill, which the well-off might be asked to pay.
Sondhi is appealing to a deep vein of middle-class fear. Bangkokians no longer have to worry about rural revolution, and have even been spared the sight of rural protesters cluttering up the Bangkok pavements (an unappreciated benefit of the Thaksin era). But they understand that, deep down, electoral politics is a battle over the command of resources, and that Thaksin's populism showed the rural mass was starting to gain a larger share.
Seven years ago, on the eve of Thaksin's rise, Chang Noi wrote a piece on this same theme, joking that Bangkok would like to copy the Singapore Solution (giving away your rural hinterland, as Singapore did by splitting from Malaysia) or build a Great Wall round the city. But Sondhi's solution is serious. He is turning his back on the last 75 years of Thailand's political history, saying that Thailand's social reality makes electoral democracy unworkable and constitutions futile.
Compared to Anek's proposals of a decade earlier, Sondhi's thinking represents a considerable hardening of attitudes. He claims he will continue to work for democracy, but only with the middle class because they alone understand that populist politicians abuse power. By implication, the rural masses do not qualify for this "democracy" so must be excluded or contained.
This thinking may find its way into the drafting of the new constitution, in the form of measures designed to "upweight" the effective representation of Bangkok and "downweight" that of the countryside (for example, through a Senate partly appointed and partly elected as a single national constituency).
But this will fail. Thaksin became a populist not because he was born a populist but because he recognised there was a political demand which he could exploit to gain and retain power. Thaksin's populism does not show, as Sondhi claims, that the rural electorate is stupid, but rather that it is becoming more politicised and more astute in getting what it wants. Removing Thaksin from the political scene will not destroy the populism he came to represent. A constitutional solution that tries to ensure rural demands do not get the hearing they deserve in the formal politics of the nation will simply re-direct those demands elsewhere.
Chang Noi
Politics, City vs Rural
That was a bit of an interesting read.
One could easily posit that what Thailand has experienced is not much different than what the US has experienced. The only difference is that here in Thailand it is much more transparent.
Whilst the "middle class" in America is becoming increasingly hard to define (from an economic perspective) "they" harbor many of the same feelings toward the poor and disadvantaged.
Typically - and increasingly so since the advent of Regan - the Democrats have been blamed for doing what Thaksin did during his tenure.
The poor in America don't sell their votes. Instead, there are accusations that they are being denied the right to vote - or their votes are routinely disregarded. Or, even more to the point, they simply don't vote. Of course, the majority of Americans don't vote, which is quite a condemnation of the American public as well as our form of democracy.
People don't vote because they don't think that their vote will matter.
The general perception is that American politics are corrupt and crooked - which is borne out by the recent scandals that have hit Washington.
Essentially then, the argument could be made that electoral democracy can't work in America either.
One could easily posit that what Thailand has experienced is not much different than what the US has experienced. The only difference is that here in Thailand it is much more transparent.
Whilst the "middle class" in America is becoming increasingly hard to define (from an economic perspective) "they" harbor many of the same feelings toward the poor and disadvantaged.
Typically - and increasingly so since the advent of Regan - the Democrats have been blamed for doing what Thaksin did during his tenure.
The poor in America don't sell their votes. Instead, there are accusations that they are being denied the right to vote - or their votes are routinely disregarded. Or, even more to the point, they simply don't vote. Of course, the majority of Americans don't vote, which is quite a condemnation of the American public as well as our form of democracy.
People don't vote because they don't think that their vote will matter.
The general perception is that American politics are corrupt and crooked - which is borne out by the recent scandals that have hit Washington.
Essentially then, the argument could be made that electoral democracy can't work in America either.
Ain't Easy Being Me
I see very little comparison between the US and Thailand!In Thailand ,the educated middle class are a considerable minority and mostly centered within the cities.just the opposite of the US!
The majority are the ''poor'',rural,uneducated ,illiterate,ignorant,programmed ''mai pen rai'' ,superstitious peasants that had so long been left out of social services and other benefits that were geared to the middle class minority that supported the ''elite'' to stay in power and therefore maintain their control of the wealth and the country!
As far as corruption involved in politics is concerned,all politics of every form suffer from self interests.The diff between America and Thailand is the lack of transparency avalable because of built in corruption as a way of life amongst the citizenry,lack of laws demanding transparency and lack of enforcement of any laws of transparency in Thailand.
I'm sure the the politicians of the US profit in the long run from their positions of power,but their personal wealth is managed in trust while serving.In Thailand the politicians double and triple their assets each year while serving!
Thaksins mistake was to not play by the rules of the elite.His ego put himself above his''social class'' and its support base ,the middle class.He went outside the support base with his grandiose populist ''promises''that the ignorant rural masses could not see were unattainable and primarily designed to keep ''him'' in power his entire life while raping the country for personal gain.Its the ''elite'' that didn't want him to have this much power(egos at war)that whipped up the MC,that they would bear the brunt of the costs while Thaksy directed the show!
People don't only not vote in the US because they feel it doesn't count!Most are to fat and lazy,make up many excuses to not vote.They have to be convinced that their is a big ''self interest''of immediate gain to get them out of their comfortable chair!
In America,there are areas of extreme predjudice that thwart economic opportunity,but they are a small minority and if any person has the determination to succeed,relocate to a more friendly environment and apply themselves ,they can succeed!
In Thailand,you have a definite class system and if you ain't from the right class,you ain't going to succeed!Relocation only makes it worse as a Thai from outside his new province is not trusted!