Heading left | 2.03.05
It’s been more than three weeks since I wrote The Economist regarding its February 5 editorial on PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s reelection. They haven’t published my letter, so I will:
Dear Editor,
When Thaksin Shinawatra first made waves in Thai politics with promises of cheap health care, village funds, and debt moratorium for farmers, you were quick to label him “populist”. Now, four eye-opening years later and while making grudging concessions (“Heading back”, February 5), you still cling to your old narrative, contrasting his “well-defined nationalist and populist party” with the “technocratic and progressive Democrats”.
As noted in your special report (“Thaksin’s way”), the Democrats are now pledging “free health care, free education, pensions for the old, guaranteed jobs for university graduates and more debt relief.” On controversial issues from privatization to FTAs to contribution in Iraq, they consistently take popular positions — ones peddled by the media and in tune with most people’s basic instincts — against those of the Thaksin government (and, for what it’s worth, The Economist). Are these postures progressive or populist? The distinction has never been so “well-defined” to me, but that’s beside the point. It’s desperation, stupid.
Regards,
Tom Sanpaworn Vamvanij
Postscript for Sarasonteh readers:
- The Economist has been approvingly quoted on this issue by… drumroll please… socialistworld.net. When will the London magazine return the favor? By citing Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker, it’s already getting there.
- I talked about one such “technocratic and progressive” Democrat earlier.
Update See my definitive post: “Populism and nationalism in Thailand”.
Update II See also: Pasuk Phongpaichit, pretender of economics.
15:15 ▪ politics
« Give a man a fish... | Main | First post on Thaivisa.com »