If the country is to reform, it must go
beyond politics.
Like
many other countries in Southeast Asia, Thailand is historically and culturally
an inherently unequal society. The Thai language, for example, serves as a
linguistic medium imbued with hierarchical indicators and class-based
insinuation. Before addressing someone correctly, you are expected to determine
first and foremost the person’s age. Then, the correct prefix can be placed in
front of the name.
Other
linguistic and colloquial additives are used to connote the speaker’s
positioning, chosen, preferred, or congenital, in the country’s social pyramid.
And this is not to mention the continued, albeit waning, existence of royal and
aristocratic titles and surnames among the populace.
Many
other nations, you might argue, also have their share of royal families and
privileged classes. But in Thailand, the system has been exceptionally
well-preserved in the sanctified value system that belies the liberal veneer.
The
stark contrast between rich and poor in Thailand may not be as extreme as it is
in the least developed countries, but the unaddressed and reinforced disparity
is a contributing factor that has fueled Thailand’s chronic conflicts.
Most
elites in Thailand either have royal connections or derive their massive wealth
from big businesses that, in turn, send tributary donations to royal and
governmental projects. A large number of Thai elite were educated overseas and
send their children abroad to ensure their continued privileges in the society.
Public schools and educational institutes in Thailand, despite their relatively
good standards, are nowhere near being among the world’s best. As testimony to
Thailand’s conservatism, Thai university students still have to wear uniforms
until graduation.
The Class Divide
Looking
at Thailand’s political crisis from a class-based perspective alone is flawed,
offering only an incomplete explanation. Still, it is undeniable that
Thailand’s social division is an outcome of a lopsided social structuring and a
growing divide between conservative and progressive elements.
While
these observations are mostly a micro picture of Thailand, it is precisely
these cultural and socio-historical attributes that make democratization in
Thailand problematic. At the risk of indulging in conspiracy theory, one often
wonders if the masses in Thailand have been kept ignorant on purpose. State
mechanisms, from school curricula to civil service codes, have long emphasized
unity and conformity at the expense of values like equality and egalitarianism.
Currently,
government agencies in Thailand are being deployed by the military government
to monitor dissenting views with the purpose of keeping Thais in the cocoon of
so-called national unity. Their rationale? The Thai monarchy has been a
uniquely and solely benevolent pillar in the Thai society – as if no other
social elements have ever done any good for the country. In short, diverse
opinions will not be accommodated as this interferes with the perceived need to
keep the country “unified.” Thailand’s overseas offices have also been
instructed to reach out and explain the military government’s plans and
policies, on the misguided assumption that a correct “understanding” of the
junta’s “good intentions” will encourage the international community to accept
and approve of their methods.
The
exceptionalism and excessive glorification of the established order in
Thailand, in this case the palace, is self-entrenching and carries enormous
risk. It has done little to advance democratic education among Thais, resulting
in an uneven and superficial understanding of their rights and duties as
citizens. Suppressing dissent and instilling a sense of forced reverence – as
evidenced in the several cases of arrests and other psychological warfare
methods – is not the optimal way to strengthen democracy. The chronic protests
that have repeatedly occurred among different groups serve as evidence of a
serious breakdown in normal policy and political process.
Rethinking Paternalistic Rule
The
problem with Thailand’s democratization, then, does not lie solely in Thaksin
Shinawatra or in the excessive influence of parliament. Rather, it is the
culture of impunity indirectly sustained by an unequal social structure. It is
a common knowledge in Thailand that if you get caught breaking the law, you are
quite likely to get off the hook if you have a powerful connection, palatial
and political especially.
Given
this starting point, many Thais have little faith in political institutions.
This, in turn, breeds a culture of protests, extra-parliamentary politics, and
the competition to attach oneself to individuals with a view to obtaining
impunity. Personality cults and patronage-style governance weaken institutions,
creating a cycle of corruption, bad governance, and double-standards, which
further undermines public trust in politicians and the democratic process.
At some
point, the Thai leadership will need to ask whether this cycle of paternalistic
rule is sustainable. Elsewhere around the world, official institutions have
learned, willingly or otherwise, to reform and adjust to changing
socio-political contexts. The Thai military, like other actors in Thailand,
will need to do the same. While it is using the opportunity of the coup to
undertake several initiatives, such as stamping out mafia gangs and cleaning up
corrupt systems, it will be interesting to see if it can resist the siren call
of corruption and vested interests itself.
In
particular, the two-pronged approach of running a “happiness campaign” of free
concerts and fun festivals for the general public, while leaning on individuals
to report in and sign a letter pledging to stay out of political activities has
drawn widespread flak and raises eyebrows about the military’s expressed
intention of consolidating democracy. Resisting pressure now will only mean
larger, more severe cracks later. Silence, especially on the part of the
palace, is not always golden. Palace defenders should protect the Thai monarchy
from being exploited for political gain. One way to do this would be by
improving the application of the lèse-majesté law to prevent unfair or
excessive punishment. Most importantly, the junta needs to understand that
reform of the monarchy does not necessarily mean abolishing it, as it seems to
fear. And keeping the public in blissful innocence will only delay the nation’s
political maturity.
Like it
or not, Thailand needs to make room for different opinions. On the political
and administrative fronts, more open debate is needed. Hunting down dissenting
voices betrays the military’s insecurities, not its strength Thai people need
to be better informed on politics so that they can engage in substantive,
quality political debates, as opposed to the kind of rhetorical hate speech
that has created this protracted divide. Otherwise, no government, civilian or
military, will be able to end the pervasive corruption and acrimony that have
engulfed the country. The Thai bureaucracy, too, needs an overhaul to make it
more professional and meritocratic. To achieve this, the mainstream Thai body
politic must strengthen civil society to reduce the polarization between
extreme elements. At the same time, the Thai people must gradually learn to
speak to each other as equals in the same, civil language. Only then can
democracy begin the take root in Thailand.
Samak
Mith
Samak Mith is a freelance writer based in
Singapore.
Business & Investment Opportunities
Saigon Business Corporation Pte Ltd (SBC) is incorporated
in Singapore since 1994.
No comments:
Post a Comment