Thais Rak Tyrants? | 14.10.05
Sarasonteh’s most stalwart commenter (shhhh, he hates that word), Post Staffer, wrote in the meandering thread that results from my “Pornthip Rojanasunand vs. the NRC” post:
I could think of nothing more self-debasing than aligning myself to what the masses think, and re-affirm that loyalty day after day, as the masses change their fickle hearts.
Still, if the masses still like Thaksin, despite the bad rap he gets from academics and the media, then they can’t be all bad.
I’m pinning my hopes on the fact that Thais (like people all over) admire strong leaders such as Thaksin. Anand’s woolly brand of peacemaking just doesn’t cut it when our soldiers are getting slain down South.
That reminds me of a paper I wrote back in college about Robert Moses, aka “The Power Broker”
We have made a major step toward political reform. After much struggling, the parliament finally passed the “most democratic” constitution the nation had yet seen. The premier and his cabinet were hailed as the great new hope to revive the economy and rid the country of the stigmatized label — “developing.” The stage was set, the ambience just right. All that was needed, was “action.”
That was a year ago. Unfortunately, nothing has since changed. Nothing except people’s sentiment. Today, in 1998, Thai seniors are thinking out loud of the days when dictatorship ruled, nostalgically. The despotic military chief of the post WWII political chaos is now remembered for his effective policies. They seem, of course, to have forgotten the complaints they made back then about his unlimited power and strict rules. The nation has been limping for too long with halfway democracy. Now the people want a march.
Robert Moses epitomizes what Thai politics has lacked for decades — a strong character filled with ideas and determination to realize them. Thailand has been stalled under politicians whose democracy means a reasonable slice of the budget cake for everybody. Money is not merely the grease in the power mechanics; it is the fuel. Having been governed by this system for so long, Thai people are too cynical to believe in “the Good, the True and the Beautiful.” They simply wish for someone who would adopt their well being as his goal and then do whatever it takes, fighting and feeding politicians, to make it reality.
Hmmm, looks like a good starting point for a discussion, doesn’t it? Especially on a day like this, I’m sure both Post Staffer and JW will come up with some insightful opinions.
Before we begin, however, I should first publish the paper’s conclusion, lest anyone misunderstands the point of this exercise and accuses me of dictatorial sympathy or worse:
There are many reasons for his long-lasting power. The political mechanism was primitive and hence susceptible to Moses’s manipulation. Sick of old-guard politicians, the public was quick to embrace Moses fresh audacity and his anti-politician image. While on the verge of becoming the great city of the modern world, New York in the 30s and 40s still reeked of dysfunctional legacy of the nineteenth century. Robert Moses offered his revolutionary ideas to fill in the vacuum at the time they were most needed. And on top of all, the vital key to his greatness lay in the very embodiment of RM — his sheer brilliance, relentless energy, adamant belief, and undeniable charisma.
The much safeguarded world of today already made it difficult to picture someone who could consolidate power the way Moses did. Our tight association of the term “Power Broker” to Robert Moses and his city shaping guarantees that it is not to be used in the same sense again. There will never be another Robert Moses, as there will never be another New York City.
And why should one even try? When the master himself who was probably born had to play this role has tried and failed? Who then could ever succeed? We know we cannot risk having another Robert Moses just as we cannot imagine Today’s New York without his presence.
Now, with my butt safely covered, let the conversation begin!
PS I got an A for that paper from Carol Willis
20:31 ▪ politics
« On libel law, Thai media, and freedom | Main | Political test results »
- 1
- poststaffer 14.10.05
Sheer brilliance, relentless energy, adamant belief, and undeniable charisma -I love all those things in politicians, because those qualities make them leaders among men (and women).
At the right time, with the right people around them (together with an agreeably spineless opposition, and a public that wants to be led), such politicians can rise to mighty heights.
But the intriguing thing is that adamant belief and brilliance can also be weaknesses which lead to a politician’s downfall. Some politicians just shine too bright for the dull political times they find themselves in.
The economy may weaken, voters grow weary of the changes those politicians unleashed on them. They demand a say, opposition nobodies seize their chance, party infighting takes its toll, and weak leaders suddenly seem appealing.
Everyone has his own political hero or heroine: one of mine was Margaret Thatcher, whom I almost wrote about this morning (in what have been another ‘meandering thread’) on the occasion of her 80th birthday.
Mark Latham (the former Australian Labor Party leader I mentioned earlier) would also seem to fall into the category of someone who seemed destined for great things but whose own failings (or the mediocrity of people around him) ultimately let him down.
Politicians should be colourful, and they should be strong. They should be inspiring, courageous, and great. But they should also have an inbuilt self-destruct mechanism, for when it all starts getting too much, or when they start getting too lonely up there at the top.
This, from the Economist:
Latham’s dire read
The former Labor leader’s diaries show that Australia dodged a bullet last year- 2
- JW 14.10.05
While I think it is slightly unkind, Thaksin does remind me of Sarit in the sense that Thaksin is a strong leader and not that he is a dictator or a นักเลง [gangster - see Longdo for a further explanation) as Sarit certainly was.
During the 90s, Thailand went through Chuan, Barnharn, Chavilit, and then Chuan again. Every government was cobbled together with a number of different coalition members all seeking to benefit whenever they could. There was no real clear policy framework or anything that seemed to differentiate the different candidates (sure, I would concede there were some differences between the Democrats and some of their coalition partners, but the Democrats never had a large enough majority to assert a clear policy direction). I think that most Thais just got sick of it.
Thaksin’s main strength is he is a man of action (think social crusades in Bkk) and provides the perfect contrast with Chuan*, who can only be described as a ditherer so it hardly surprising that after 9 years of no clear policy direction and Thailand still suffering after the economic crisis that many Thais would look to Thaksin who ran a very smart presidential style campaign in 2001.
He promised certain things and delivered on most, if not all, his promises (no promises to fix the traffic in 6 months this time around though :)). While I certainly don’t agree with all of Thaksin’s policies, I do think he is the kind of leader who is well-suited to Thai political culture. I also think he has done a fairly good job, particuarly his economic policy which I almost universally agree with.
If you look at the US (this applies elsewhere too) where you often end up with laws which no one really likes or wants. To be passed, the Bill has to been watered down with substantive amendments to please lobby groups and incentives have to be provided (like bridges to nowhere). The same thing happens in Thailand. While, it still exists today, it was rampant in the 90s and was made more complicated with not only multi-party coalitions, but different factions within each party.
Thaksin is such a strong leader that it is difficult for most TRT members to oppose - pointless as well as TRT have such a large majority and Thaksin is known for remembering those who turn against him. If Thaksin wants a law, it will be passed, and the version of the law that will be passed is the one he wants.
Now, critics of Thaksin assert this makes him a dictator, I would counter this by saying that he is a stong leader and not a dictator. If after one term in office you dramatically increase your majority in the lower house at the election surely that means you are doing something right.
No one is forced to vote for Thaksin, he has just offered a clear alternative on social and economic policy which didn’t exist during the 90s.
Thaksin is very much like a President. If the economy tanks, he can’t blame anyone else. Basically, the buck starts and stops with him as it would be his policies which caused the downturn in the economy. To quote Bill Clinton “Its the economy, Stupid!”. Thaksin will only be only popular while the economy is strong. That it is not a dictatorship, it is democracy in action.
Finally, on a slight tangent, I have often wondered whether most of the western
hacksjournalists are still pissed at Thaksin over the social crusade his government started. Journalists being journalists liked to go out and get pissed and the 2am closing has cramped their style.*I had once a soft spot for Chuan, but he was just too ineffectual to do anything. I never also figured out what his economic policy really was.
- 3
- post staffer 15.10.05
Bridges to nowhere compromises…Tom made a similar point. What a bore it must be having to work with such a political system.
I agree with the Thaksin as president analogy, and the point that if the economy tanks, Thaksin is likely to find himself in trouble…that’s usually the way in politics, no matter how strong or ‘populist’ a leader you are.
When the economy is strong, the government can seem unassailable. When it is weak, a clever government can exploit people’s fears and weaknesses…immigrants stealing people’s jobs, for example.
If you are in opposition when the government has read the popular mood and is exploiting those fears, you can find yourself caught between a rock and a hard place (even when the economy is strong)…wedged, if you like.
Here’s Latham on wedge politics, in an interview over lunch with the Bulletin:
With the exception of Tony Blair in Britain, the parties of the right have a lock on electorates across the globe. Centre-left parties in Europe are asking the same questions that have got Labor so bogged. How to respond to individual and national concerns about safety and security without looking like second-string imitators of their opponents?
Having watched in despair from the backbench as Howard exploited Beazley’s tactical ineptness and wedged him into a unwinnable position on asylum-seekers, Latham concedes the problem. “Unless you’ve got some constructive new engagement on these issues, you probably are buggered. There is no one-off immediate answer to wedge politics. But if you’re sitting there just waiting for it to hit you, well, you’re buggered by definition.
”Right through the 1950s and ’60s, Labor was wedged on communism. We were seen as too soft to deal with the communist bogey. And we kept losing. So what did [former Labor leader] Gough Whitlam do? He shifted the agenda. To the concerns of suburban Australia. He talked about schools and hospitals and cities. The lesson is identical today.”
- 4
- post staffer 15.10.05
If you are in opposition when the government has read the popular mood and is exploiting those fears, you can find yourself caught between a rock and a hard place (even when the economy is strong)…wedged, if you like.
Sorry…that should read ‘even when the economy is weak’. Redundant point anyway.
I do not see much of that kind of politicking here. Politicians don’t seem hungry enough. Mainly, I see politicians blandly ‘denying’ this or that (and threatening defamation action, another limp-wristed response). We seem to have few ‘haters’.
As the Bulletin puts it, these are politicians who are
‘…hungry for a victory. Bloody hungry. None of them want to see their their youth and policy resolve wasted.’
Or as someone else from that article puts it:
“It’s not about debating points, which is how the press gallery tends to see it. It’s about psychological warfare. All of us in there have a sense of who we can beat and who we’re worried about. And when you get to a point where there aren’t too many on the other side who worry you, that’s when you’ll start winning elections.”
Guess who?
- 5
- JW 15.10.05
PS
My point about the buck stopping with Thaksin is that he will be he will be solely responsible for any failures as he seems to control all policymaking. It is very difficult for him to blame someone else, ie Parliament, the Senate etc as he gets practically everything he wants. Sure, when the economy takes a dive elsewhere, governments face trouble, but I would argue that the extent of the blame that Thaksin would bear is greater than in other countries because of the greater concentration of power that Thaksin has.
The converse is also true and as the Thai economy has had good growth over the last few years, the Democrats can hardly claim any credit for this. It is not the Finance Minister that can be praised for his good economic policy. It is Thaksin.
“With the exception of Tony Blair in Britain, the parties of the right have a lock on electorates across the globe.”
Aren’t you forgetting that election in the southern hemisphere on September 17th? Given Brash has already conceded, Helen Clark will still be PM in NZ.
NZ provides a good analogy with Thailand. Thaksin has a senate through which legislation must be passed. The Thai Senate is sometimes openly hostile to Thaksin. NZ only has one legislative chamber (no Upper House/Senate). Now, if Thaksin is a dictator, what is
Helen ClarkHelengrad?- 6
- Tom Vamvanij 15.10.05
JW:
While I think it is slightly unkind, Thaksin does remind me of Sarit in the sense that Thaksin is a strong leader and not that he is a dictator or a นักเลง[gangster - see Longdo for a further explanation) as Sarit certainly was.
I know Sarit only by reputation. But if the legends hold up, it should be safe to say that the Southern insurgency would be much weaker with Sarit in power. Many lives would still have perished, but probably at the hand of the government rather than the insurgents’.
Shhh, don’t let the NRC hear this. They would insist that that’s going on right now.
That’s why there would be no NRC under Sarit.
Post Staffer:
I do not see much of that kind of politicking here. Politicians don’t seem hungry enough. Mainly, I see politicians blandly ‘denying’ this or that (and threatening defamation action, another limp-wristed response). We seem to have few ‘haters’.
Politics is an art of compromise. As the popular local saying goes: ในการเมืองไม่มีมิตรแท้ ศัตรูถาวร. (This is no doubt filched from Lord Palmerston.)
Haters, on the other hand, go into the “academia”, NGOs, and journalism. Probably in that order.
And then there’s a screwball hater of those haters who goes into blogging.
- 7
- post staffer 15.10.05
I didn’t write the comment about right-wing governments having a lock on power.
I am aware of the NZ election result. In fact, I have been following the coalition-building process closely. It looks much more straight-forward this time around than the first election I covered from parliament, in 1996, when coalition governments were still a new thing.
Politics as the art of compromise…that’s true, in the general sense. But would Margaret Thatcher have achieved everything she did as leader on the basis of compromise (think of what she did to the unions)? Of course not.
Coalition governments under mixed-member proportional representation are often blamed for forcing bland compromise on parties that lack the numbers to push through what they want.
Yet governments can hold power quite happily in a minority, with outside parties supporting them on supply and confidence. Even when they have formed a majority, the mix of parties voting with them on a particular issue may change, though this can create bitterness and lead to party bust-ups.
During coalition talks in New Zealand, the Maori party has been courting both main parties. It does not want to see its policies watered down: if they were, the party’s reason for being may cease to exist.
Helen Clark says she wants as broad a coalition deal as possible, and is apparently negotiating mutliple agreements with minor parties. This suggests they are all likely to get something in return for supporting Labour, even if Labour is already their most likely bedfellow.
However, the Greens look unlikely to be part of a coalition cabinet, as the other parties object to their off-the-wall policies. Conservative-leaning NZ First could be among the big winners. In return for its support it is said to be demanding a ‘gold card’ for pensioners with increased entitlements, more police, and tighter immigration laws.
But it may choose to preserve its independence or identity to the extent of staying outside cabinet.
In this way it could avoid being tarnished by the government’s unpopular decisions and make a more attractive centrist coalition partner for the main-centre right party, National, next time around.
One writer, FInlay McDonald, reckons journalists miss the excitement of the old system, in the days when single parties held majorities, and elections could deliver big swings. In a story headlined ‘MMP: saner and safer, but don’t you miss the blood?’ , he says:
‘If you think back to the changes of government New Zealand has experienced in modern times, they have usually been by what is commonly known as a landslide: 1972, 1975, 1984, 1990, 1999 each represented a lurch rather than a shuffle. Usually they left the losing side considerably weakened, at least two terms from regrouping and reinventing itself.
‘If First Past the Post lingers anywhere it is in the mindsets of certain journalists and politicians. Elections are still reported as though they are rugby tests, and there is an almost tangible desire for a close result to mean instability or potential chaos.
‘Perhaps this is due partly to the journalistic instinct for avoiding boredom. Where Helen Clark plainly revels in the Scandinavian torpor of policy negotiation and strategic alliance building, we hacks would prefer it all to descend into bitching and scratching because it makes better headlines and obviates the need for anything more than superficial analysis.’
- 8
- post staffer 15.10.05
Thank you for tidying my posts, Tom, by providing the click-to-page link below in place of the ugly one I left.
Your blog looks much more attractive as a result (and I look more proficient on the computer than I actually am).
- 9
- JW 15.10.05
I didn’t write the comment about right-wing governments having a lock on power.
Sorry about that, I now see that you were quoting from an article.
I know Sarit only by reputation. But if the legends hold up, it should be safe to say that the Southern insurgency would be much weaker with Sarit in power. Many lives would still have perished, but probably at the hand of the government rather than the insurgents’.
Shhh, don’t let the NRC hear this. They would insist that that’s going on right now.
That’s why there would be no NRC under Sarit.
The problem is that Sarit was also a corrupt thug who. He managed to amass a bank account of some 3 billion baht . He was not in favour of trials either and would summarily execute Chinese arsonists (legend has it that he would fly there personally by helicopter and execute them himself).
Sarit [also] identified a number of groups as undesirable — hooligans, drug-pushers, addicts, prostitutes, pedicab peddlers, beggars, lepers, unrepentant politicians, supposed Isan separatists, non-conforming intellectuals, critical thinkers or writers, alleged commun-ists, hippies and stray dogs
SourceWell, I am sure there is some merit to get rid of unrepentant politicans and non-conforming intellectuals, I don’t think it helps the long-term future of a country for there to be no dissent.
Sarit wasn’t that successful with the communists though. More deaths doesn’t help anyone if you don’t win the war. It took Prem and Chavilit to figure out that the way to beat the communists was through social and political means and not through the use of force (it also helped they were able to convince the Chinese to cut off the Communist Party of Thailand’s funding). At times, Thaksin seesm to recognise this, but I still am not quite sure what is actually policy on the South is - he seems to go from dovish to hawkish and then back to dovish in one day.
- 10
- Tom Vamvanij 16.10.05
JW:
I agree with you.
Sarit wasn’t that successful with the communists though. More deaths doesn’t help anyone if you don’t win the war.
One might add that if the government were killing more people (insurgents or otherwise) than its enemies, what would be the point of their victory?
Just because I think the insurgents would be weaker under Sarit doesn’t mean I’m to willing to take the rest of his package. (And note, “weaker” isn’t even close to”eliminated”.)
I have more to discuss on this thread. Do check back in a couple days.