| Home > South-East Asia >> Thailand | |
Only elitist commentators see this election as 'just about Taksin'
Red Thai Socialist - June 18, 2011
This is a common view held by all those who subscribe to the elitist view of Thai politics. The thrust of the argument is that ordinary Thais, especially poor people, do not understand democracy and are not really interested in politics. The implication is that before the 2006 military coup, Taksin "bought" the support of the majority of the electorate, with both money and short-term populist policies, and in doing so, trapped them in a patron-client system. Thus all Red Shirts and those who will enthusiastically vote for the Peua Thai party on 3rd July have been "led by the nose" like buffaloes.
This kind of argument was used by right-wing neoliberal opponents of Taksin's universal health care and village fund job-creation policies. These academics and Democrat Party politicians argued at the time, and people like Peter Warr still argue now, that such "short-term populism" was "bad for the country". The implication is that it would be better for everyone if Thais did not have secure jobs and universal health care, a point of view only possible for middle-class people who never have to worry about hospital bills and unemployment or under-employment.
Academics like Chris Baker support the King's Sufficiency Economic Ideology which is in clear opposition to redistribution policies. For the King, the poor should find ways to survive in their poverty while the rich can spend as much as they like. No wonder the Thai neoliberals love this ideology. It justifies not spending government funds on improving the lives of the majority.
The elitist argument was extended to justify the 2006 coup by claiming that "it wasn't possible to have democratic elections" because the majority of the electorate had been "bought" and felt obliged to their patron Taksin. This was merely a poor fig-leaf to disguise the fact that these elitist were prepared to back a military coup if the people voted for "the wrong party".
Since the rise of the Red Shirt movement, the elitists have tried to paint this movement, the largest social movement in Thai history, as merely a "Taksin fan-club". This is the view of Jon Ungphakorn and many others, who believed at the time of the 2006 coup, that the majority of the electorate voted for Thai Rak Thai "because they lacked the proper information" or were poorly educated.
The Red Shirt movement was not built by Taksin. He has shown an inability to build or lead mass movements. But he needs the Red Shirts and the Red Shirts see him as a very important political figure. That doesn't mean that the Red Shirts are just a Taksin fan-club which is being manipulated by him. The movement was built and sustained by hundreds of grass-roots activists.
Whether they are conscious or not of the implications of their views, the elitist analysis treats ordinary Thais like ignorant children. At no time are ordinary people credited with having any political understanding and of being able to develop that understanding through struggle. Yet, real-world field work in Thailand, by anthropologists like Andrew Walker, shows a very sophisticated rural electorate which is able to weigh up the pros and cons of each party's policy.
The elitists believe that they are the "enlightened ones in society" who can see through all the bull-shit of the populist politicians. Only they know what is good for the country and good for the people.
The elitist view of Thai politics has been around for a long time. In the mid-1950s people like Fred Riggs were writing that Thai politics was really just about what the elites do, because the vast majority of the population were "passive" and "politically ignorant". More recently Paul Handley, in his banned book The King Never Smiles, insults the poor by saying that they are weak and stupid.
Most Red Shirts, but not all, are enthusiastic supporters of Taksin because for the first time in decades a politician and his party took the poor seriously and believed that they should be brought in as stake-holders in Thailand's development. That is not being "led by the nose" or being trapped in a patron-client system. But anyone who has communicated with Red Shirts will also know that they have a whole spectrum of political views and that they turned out on many demonstrations over the years because they were angry with the destruction of democracy and the way that the majority of citizens are treated without respect. Not only do they want democracy, they want dignity, justice and a degree of economic equality. After the April and May 2010 shootings of nearly 90 unarmed Red Shirt protestors in Bangkok, after the imprisonment of hundreds of political prisoners, the blanket censorship, the use of lhse majeste and the silent approval of all this by the King, hundreds of thousands of Red Shirts are also very angry.
It is strange but true that what General Paryut Junocha said, about the election being about the Monarchy, could be party right. If so, a large vote for Peua Thai might be interpreted as a modest vote by many, but not all, against the Monarchy.
Ironically, the well-educated, royalist conservatives are the very people in Thailand who place blind faith in the super-human efforts of one top leader, who is supposed to have done everything for Thailand. Perhaps they are the ones who are "too stupid" to be allowed a role in politics?
On 3rd July Red Shirts will be voting for democracy, dignity, justice, equality and the need to punish the generals and the Democrat Party politicians who have blood on their hands. They will also be voting for Taksin. But the irony is that they also know, somewhere in the back of their minds, that neither Taksin nor Peua Thai will be able or even willing to solve the deep political crisis to the satisfaction of most Red Shirts.
See also:
 |