Thailand’s revolting middle-classes

http://blogs.ft.com/rachmanblog/2008/12/thailands-revolting-middle-classes/

December 2, 2008
I am sure that if you are stuck in Bangkok airport, the theoretical implications of Thailand’s political crisis do not rank very high up your list of concerns. Nonetheless, they are fascinating.

Remember all those theories about how the emergence of an urban middle-classes is a force for democratisation, because the bourgeoise will demand political rights? Well, in Thailand the precise opposite is happening. The urban middle-classes are rising up and demanding that democracy be rescinded.

Do not be fooled by the fact that the group occupying the airport call themselves the “People’s Alliance for Democracy“. Their intent is clearly anti-democratic. They have just brought down an elected government. Their broader demands are for Thailand’s directly-elected parliament to be replaced by a legislative body that is 70% appointed. Sondhi Limthongkul, a Thai tycoon (Thaicoon?), who is the group’s de facto leader says bluntly that - “Representative democracy is not suitable for Thailand.”

The middle-class backers of the PAD hate the fact that under universal suffrage, the votes of the rural poor in the north of Thailand are usually decisive. They see this as a formula for corruption and pork-barrel politics. Hence, their desire to roll back democracy.



The implications for China are fascinating. There too the urban middle-class seem to be emerging as a conservative force, suspicious of democracy and the peasant power that it might unleash.

December 2nd, 2008 in Thailand | Permalink

61 Responses to “Thailand’s revolting middle-classes”
Comments
Calling the urban middle classes in Thailand and China conservative doesn’t fly, they are elitist liberals who want increased freedoms for themselves, ones that the people in the country who are much more traditional aren’t ready for, don’t want or don’t understand.

The countryside usually votes conservative no matter where you go, be it the US, France, UK or Thailand. The contrast between urban and country is simply stronger in Thailand but I have heard urban people the world over remark how the hicks in the country usually squander their right to vote by voting conservative or populist.

Posted by: Felix Drost | December 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm | Report this comment


As a Thai, I did not study US history deeply in school. However, I remember hearing once from someone that in the US, (not sure after the revoluation or after the civil war), it has been for several decades that the North states had to live with Presidents who came from the South Sates as the election system that was based on equal voting system. If this was also the case, it shoudl be something the Thai should learn to live and bear with the evoluation of democracy.

Posted by: Eric in the City | December 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm | Report this comment


Dear Gideon,
Read Fareed Zakaria’s article on the rise of illiberal democracies, and you will see that what is happening in Thailand makes perfect sense.

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html#n1

One of the problems is that the bourgeoise class is still too small, and their candidate keeps loosing. Another problem is that the winning candidate keeps trying to reverse “democracy” (by this I don’t talk about the election process, but of separation of powers, checks and balances, human rights, etc).

Posted by: Christoffer Larsson | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this comment


Democracy with universal suffrage is mob rule - it means that your vote will count the same as an ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid person. Remember, 50% of voters have below average intelligence and can be easily manipulated in to voting any which way by astute politicians, who will promise them the Moon before a election, usually at a cost to the small minority of richer voters. We have just seen Obama gain the US presidency promising change and then appoint Geithner to the Treasury and kept Gates at Defence. Plus ca Change?

Posted by: jo10 | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this comment


The Thai situation is not necessarily a challenge to middle-class democratisation theory. The PAD protestors are not the rising middle class which the theory talks about, because such rising middle classes are excluded from power, rather than part of it.

The British experience of the growth of democracy, would suggest that the PAD are the type of people who opposed Chartism - “power for our sort and not for yours”.

Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:11 pm | Report this comment


jo10: this is a common but misconceived argument because it assumes that voters take all input equally and decide every issue individually without any external philosophy or frame of reference. Are you an economist by any chance?

It’s also not true that 50% of voters have below average intelligence. 50% of voters have below *median* intelligence, but that’s true for a population of Einsteins as well as for a population of dunces. Mean intelligence is something different, and there’s no way of knowing what proportion is below and what proportion above the mean, even if you believe unreliable measures like IQ tests.

Posted by: Anthony Zacharzewski | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 pm | Report this comment


Many educated people assume those without that advantage are plain stupid. But you don’t need to read and write to make rational choices. My mother-in-law, an illiterate Chinese peasant, was a highly astute woman who had a very clear grasp of Chinese politics amongst other things.

I am sure the Thai peasantry voted for Thaksin et al in main because he delivered genuine benefit to people like them. I’m not sure I would vote the same way in other circumstances, but I’m happy to respect their motivation.

Posted by: FFScotland | December 2nd, 2008 at 1:33 pm | Report this comment


I am a middle class citizen living in Bangkok and I find Sondhi’s 70/30 ‘new’ politics incredibly ridiculous. If you ever get the chance to listen to him talk on his ASTV cable channel, you wonder, is this person supposed to represent the ‘educated’ middle class? His chosen words induce separation and hate and yet people listen to him. PAD blames the grassroots for being too stupid to be able to elect the government, but when the grassroots’ chosen government is in power, the economy flourishes. Whereas when PAD’s preferred party; the Democrats is in power it’s status quo at best.

The media is intolerably biased- a PAD protestor dies and she/he gets a hero’s funeral. A pro-government dies from a clash against PAD? Noone cares. At least the grassroots are working and are contributing to the GDP, while the middle class ‘intellectuals’ are so free they can seize the Government House for months and can come up with great ideas like taking control of the airport and effectively damaging Thailand’s image and economy.

Posted by: Jade | December 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm | Report this comment


The revolt of Thailand’s middle class is an interesting topic and GR’s titles usually catch the eye, particularly the present one.

As far as democracy is concerned, the Swiss have a monopoly. Unfortunately, so far we can’t cash in on that.

However,I pass on the following info (gratis):
Any country which genuinely wishes to be a real democracy should get in touch with Professor Leonhard Neidhart, Professor Emeritus for Politics at the University of Konstanz (Germany).

Posted by: J.J. | December 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm | Report this comment


I don’t know if the Thai middle classes are the ones who are being conservative.

Can’t the supporters of Thaksin and the newly deposed government be termed lumpenproletarian in the sense that Karl Marx was referring to (see below) and hence aren’t they the true conservatives?

“According to Marx, the lumpenproletariat had no real motive for participating in revolution, and might in fact have an interest in preserving the current class structure, because the members of the lumpenproletariat usually depend on the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy for their day-to-day existence. In that sense, Marx saw the lumpenproletariat as a counter-revolutionary force.”

(from Wikipedia)

Best,

P

Posted by: P :-( | December 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm | Report this comment


I have lived in Bangkok for 9 years, speak Thai and have many Thai friends who are of the sort that would be described as the ‘middle class elite’.
I find the level of understanding of the press in the west to be shallow at best,
the government of Thaksin did everything it could to undermine democracy. The latest government has just been found guilty of what amounts to electoral fraud, Thaksins last government was similarly guilty, yet they are always described as ‘democratically elected’. If current Thai democracy is the party that can pay people most for their votes wins, whats so good about it? The difference between elections in Bangkok and in the provinces is that in Bangkok they are free and fair and in the provinces they aren’t. That is a fact and is the reason that people in Bangkok want to overthrow the government. They WANT democracy, but not the sort that we have here now.

Posted by: Andy | December 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Report this comment


A ready solution to this impasse exists. Let Thailand split into two independent units: the Thai heartlands centered on Bangkok (perhaps renamed Siam) and Isan (the Northeast) — plus most likely Lanna (the North — Thaksin’s home base). The combined population of pro-Thaksin Isan alone is well in excess of 30 million. If minute Montenegro or Estonia can make a go of independence, why not Isan? All it needs is an international airport — but then so does Bangkok! Urban Thais have nothing but deep scorn for the Isan labor force that cleans their houses, drives their taxis, and powers their factories. The two groups are joined by an accident of history, and barely speak the same language. Let each go its separate way. It worked fro the Czech and Slovak Republics. Why not in (soon to be former) Thailand?

Posted by: Paul | December 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm | Report this comment


I have never been in Thailand, having canceled a trip to that fascinating country exactly two years ago when I saw pictures of tanks in the streets. I was assured by friends who had recently lived in Thailand that nothing was wrong and the tanks were only there for decoration, in effect.

They may have been right for the following two years. Perhaps political crises move at a very slow place in Thailand, but, at any rate, I am glad I am not there now.

Moreover, I only know half a dozen words of Thai and have only read half a dozen books about the country, as well as about the same number of FT articles. I am clearly no expert.

But how much of an authority does one have to be to recognize that Thaksin’s corrupt, one man rule was a travesty of democracy, not the real thing? Therefore I have to conclude that the post by Andy, who, unlike most of the other above commentators, including, I strongly suspect, GR himself, seems to know what is really going on in Thailand, is the only one so far worth paying any attention to.

Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pm | Report this comment


I think that you have to buy voters to win the election, no matter where you are. In US for example, all politicians promised to cut taxes during the election…Nobody wins an election by telling people that they would suffer.

The only difference is that in the developed countries, the pie is so big that you can buy votes without hurting others’ interests too much. Thus everyone can afford a piece of pie. Not so in Thailand for example, if the rural poors want a bigger part of pie, then the existing middle calss people will suffer for sure…

Posted by: Fatbrick, analyst, 30 | December 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this comment


[…] simplistic both in its account of the situation and in its interpretation of democracy (see article here). According to Mr. Rachman (who by the way likes clichés): “The urban middle-classes are […]

Posted by: Democracy in Thailand : Global Dashboard | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm | Report this comment


On the whole I’m sympathetic to the Thailand’s middle classes. There is a strong tendency, in developing countries, for uneducated masses to vote in demagogues, irrespective of their ability or criminality, this is equally bad for democracy. Examples include Mugabe (in days gone by), Chavez, Evo Morales, Zuma and Bhutto.

The ousted PM Thaksin Shinawatra is no poster boy for democracy, being extremely corrupt.

It was suggested (in a comment on previous posting on Pakistan by a liberal) that third world countries should limit suffrage to the educated (in effect the middle classes). I think there is a strong case for this approach. Look at Africa, for most states short bouts of democracy interrupt the norm of dictatorship. By restricting suffrage to the smaller educated community would reduce major political swings and conflict, this would also strengthen other institutions, such as the courts.

However, a 70% appointed legislature seems a step too far.

I’m surprised Gideon didn’t make the link to Bolivia….a similar situation there.

Posted by: Cleisthenes | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this comment


I am sure Andy accurately reflects the views of many middle class Thais. But the fact is, the country is in a mess. This mess, I believe, is substantially due to precisely those views. They personalise everything down to Thaksin, his cronies and corruption. They fail to see the PPP and mutations have a genuine constituency, however much they disagree with them. They support or tolerate any means to attack anything connected with Thaksin, no matter how undemocratic, corrupt or destructive. They don’t WANT democracy unless it furthers the anti-Thaksin agenda. The Thai middle classes are indeed revolting

This is not to exonerate Thaksin and the PPP, except to point out that they really did win elections on a popular mandate, despite hurdles being placed in their way and a degree of corruption which all parties joined in.

Posted by: FFScotland | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 pm | Report this comment


While the PAD claimed to represent the middle class many of the people actually at the sites were far from being representative of it. Many looked suspiciously like cooks, maids and drivers of well to do Thais who in the great tradition of the country paid them to do their dirty work. The fact that 240,000 tourists were taken hostage in this situation has opened a dangerous new chapter in the country’s politics. Traveller beware!

Posted by: Suzi | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this comment


[…] candid take on an FT Blog: Remember all those theories about how the emergence of an urban middle-classes is a force for […]

Posted by: So many ways of looking at it all… at The FARANG Speaks 2 Much | December 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm | Report this comment


I will say it bluntly: I am revolted by Thailand’s revolting middle classes.

Posted by: RCS | December 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm | Report this comment


[…] more: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Thailand’s revolting middle-classes This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 5:23 am and is filed under Uncategorized. […]

Posted by: FT.com | Gideon Rachman’s Blog | Thailand’s revolting middle-classes | Rick Alberto Homepage | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:21 pm | Report this comment


RSC, are we to suppose that Thaksin was a sirring example of liberal democracy in action? Comparisons between Asian and western countries are always suspect, but if one had to draw a comparison between Thaksin and anything in US history, Huey Long of Louisiana might be a good example. An even better one, as I believe the FT has pointed out, is between Thailand and Italy, another country controlled by a billionaire media mogul.

As for one of the above comments to the effect that poor people in third world counties should not be allowed to vote, there is much international support for that. Robert Mugabe would no doubt agree. So would the Burmese Junta and the rulers of Uzbekistan and dozens of other dictatorships around the world.

As for the proposal to split off Thailand’s rural areas into a separate country, would anyone suggest the same for Italy? Or is this suggestion only meant to apply to Asian counties, not the white nations of the west?

Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this comment


Sorry, RCS. I keep repeating the same algasema in the spelling of your initials. My apologies.

Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this comment


I also misspelled “Asian countries”. Two algasemas in a row.

Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm | Report this comment


algasema,

I could not believe my eyes when I read your comment. You, who were stirred to outrage by the tactics you claimed the Republican Party was planning to use to disenfranchise poor black and Latino voters, are now willing to lend your pen in support of the most specious arguments favoured by authoritarian regimes the world over?!

Do you also favour removing from power the democratically-elected government of Italy for failing to conform to your refined tastes? If this is what we get from a fervent Obama supporter, I am beginning to perceive the truth in some of the claims made against the New York left. The Socratean elitocrats.

Posted by: RCS | December 2nd, 2008 at 8:04 pm | Report this comment


RCS, with all due respect, might I suggest that you re-read my comment? My point was to oppose all attempts to disenfranchise poor or less educated voters, as first the Southern Dixiecrats and later the Republicans tried to do with Southern blacks for so long, for example. I never, for one, suggested that any US voter should have been disenfranchised merely for believing obvious lies such as the ones that Barack Obama was a Muslim or a terrorist sympathizer.

But there is good reason to believe that Thaksin was elected only because of illegal or corrupt practices such as vote buying among rural voters. Even if he was elected fairly, he hid not govern according to the rule of law, but tried to turn his country into a one man dictatorship.

I have cautioned against making comparisons with the west, but there is one 20th century Central European leader who comes to mind who was elected democratically but who then promptly turned his country into one of the worst dictatorships known in the history of the human race.

Certainly, Thaksin was nowhere near as evil, but to call him a democrat would be about as realistic as saying that the leaders of Hamas have been working for a lasting peace and amicable co-existence with Israel. And, by the way, were they not also elected democratically in an election that was, in all likelihood, fairer than the one which brought Thaksin to power?

Posted by: algasema | December 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Report this comment


Pedants’ corner : It’s “the bourgeoisie” (noun).
The “bourgeoise” is married to a bourgeois, or is the adjective in the feminine form.
Meanwhile, the Thai middle-class is, I hope, revolting in transitive form and not as an adjective …

Posted by: elizabeth schumann | December 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm | Report this comment


.

On democracy : its freshness flavor and use

Reading some of the above comments has been a delightful experience with the anti-people rhetoric coming from probable middle-class contributors .
There always has been a strong conservative element in rural and lower classes ,
Urban “liberals” sneer at such stuborness ,grumbling that Democracy is wasted on the people

A basic point on Democracy is
It’s not a procedure or a process .

it’s a basic belief than the majority will not force unaceptable outcomes on the minority , in exchange the majority can choose the agents of government.
not liking the outcome of an election is not a valid reason .

.

Posted by: jeannick | December 2nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm | Report this comment


algasema,

My apologies for misunderstanding your comment before last. I take back my words.

You are mostly right, I think — a difficult issue, hard to decide. However the Thai middle classes certainly have chutzpah. I cannot accept their behaviour. If we took a similar tact in Israel, there would be no Likud, no settlements, no corruption probes against a sitting PM (formerly Likud), no religious coercion, no awful ‘Eastern’-style music… in fact it would be nice to keep some of the people out of shopping centres, hotels, flights, camping grounds, national parks and especially the trains.

Posted by: RCS | December 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 pm | Report this comment


I understand, RCS. Some Israelis, at least, may need to take lessons in chutzpah from the Thai. Talk about power shifting to the east.

Posted by: algasema | December 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 am | Report this comment


Anthony Zacharzewski was clearly not educated in Russia where they had a good educational system for mathematicians. In a group with no negative values the mean is always greater than the median. However some of his other comments are valid.
Good to see algasema venturing outside domestic elections; however Andy’s comment does not justify a tiny minority (the chattering classes in Bangkok) usurping the government - even if you ignored the “bought” votes, Thaksin and his supporters would still have a clear majority. Try counting: Eric and Jade outnumber Andy as commentators with genuine local knowledge. Also anyone who suggests that Thaksin hoped to turn his country into a one-man dictatorship is merely reinforcing my prejudices about the quality of American education (in theory it is possible for a non-US person to say this, in practice…). Virtually every Thai trusts the King to prevent this - fifty years ago they probably expected him to take out any would-be tyrant physically, now they assume he will ask the nation to do so.
I have not got a copy of Webster’s American dictionary, but I assume that ft.com uses English English so “democratic” IS a realistic description of the election that brought Thaksin to power and the one electing PPP.
P should do some homework - Thailand is the world’s leading exporter of rice (on a $/head basis if not always absolutely) so any egalitarian solution would see massive enrichment of the farmers who grow the rice. PAD wants to preserve the political (and, by implication, economic) advantages of the urban middle class. Unless by “conservative” he means Disraeli rather than his fellow-countrymen who have misappropriated the name and the new edition of Webster has somehow changed the definition of proletariat he is talking nonsense.
jeannick is mostly talking propaganda - democracy is rule by the people, categorised as mob rule by the local intellectuals more than two millennia ago; her claim that her personal view is a “basic belief” is arrogant; however her last remark is a key point.
As for Andy: “Licence they mean when they cry liberty”

Posted by: John | December 3rd, 2008 at 2:44 am | Report this comment


PAD declared their winning and is moving out of the airports today after the Thai constitution court’s order to dissolve PPP, ChatThai and Matchima parties on yesterday which automatically force the current PM and his government to step down.

I do not get it. As early as last week, their condition was still based on “Representative Democracy”. Their protest, at the extreme cost to the country, ends in accordance with the existing judge system. In other words, if we trust in the system, it may be seen as even without such protest, the judges would stil decide this way. Otherwise, ones may see the protests as creating the pressure to the court to decide the other way.

I just hope to see more news coverage on individual joining the PAD to see whether a majority of them understand what they are protesting for other than just follow the order of PAD leaders.

For those following this situation, I suggest you watch the news on King’s birthday speech to be given on 4 December.

Posted by: Eric in the City | December 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 am | Report this comment


Middle class only is not enough. It goes for freedoms as long as it feels stability and no threat to property or social status.

Having state-dependent or tycoon-dependent media and short term (i.e. populistic) political landscape you may easily create an illusion of approaching threat. In Thai case you have middle class considering that rural voters are actually being fooled and manipulated. The question here is who pulls the strings on both sides?

Posted by: Andrei, Russia | December 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 am | Report this comment


Andre, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Thai politics is like a prism the links are murky at best and convenient lumping of categories does not always hold water. Family, social class, regional loyalties, school ties all interweave to complicate the siutation. In fact don’t be surprised if it turns out that some people are backing both sides to make sure that they are on the winning side, another time honored tradition in the country.

Posted by: Suzi | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 am | Report this comment


I don’t call “one man, one vote” democracy.
During the lifetime of a government there are definitely occasions when the voters should have the right to a referendum. Last Sunday there were 5 separate referendums for the voters to
accept or reject in Switzerland. Four got a “No” and one got a “Yes”.

In Switzerland, by rotation, each of the 7 cabinet ministers gets to be president for one year only. So maybe it is not surprising that I reject the idea of a president being elected for four years in office. The wrong man in office for too many years can bring even a country like the USA to its knees.

Posted by: J.J. | December 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am | Report this comment


Normally, I tend to agree with your views. Unfortunately, you have missed some key reasons why Thais are facing this mess. It is his unique charisma, combined with his seemingly limitless personal (and liquid) wealth, that makes Thaksin such a polarizing figure in politics. He is unusually well positioned to usurp traditional sources of power and authority in a tradition bound society, all wrapped up in a pseudo democratic package delivered periodically in parliamentary elections through dominance of a pivotal rural vote.

His announcement that he will re-enter Thai politics (after his visa window defenestration by the British government several weeks ago) raised the temperature on this already combustible mix of tradition bumping up against popular politics. No surprise that we and they are where we are.

Posted by: Karl | December 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am | Report this comment


I’m surprised that no-one is discussing the similarities between the Thai situation and those in Bolivia & Venezuela.

In all these countries, largely uneducated electorates have voted in populist demagogues who are corrupt and unafraid to use illegal means to get their policies through.

Could “middle class revolt” be the start of a trend?

Is it safe to use only the winning of an election, irrespective of how fraudulent, the only measure of democratic credentials?

Should not other factors count?

An honest electoral procedures?
A functioning free press?
Rule of law?
Independent courts?
Independent civil service?
No corruption?

Be honest, Thaskin and the PPP are exceptionally corrupt. Thaskin, who lives a playboy life buying football clubs, using stolen money, is apparently still controlling the PPP.

This is complex story and I really think its simplistic to merely write off the PAD as a bunch of “undemocratic rich folk trying to oppress the poor”.

Posted by: Cleisthenes | December 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 am | Report this comment


It is very funny to read that a British journalist calls vote buying a democracy and even called a government who comes into power by vote buying a democratically elected government.

I do not think that the British would have done it differently had Mrs. Thatcher privatised BT by valuing it at a tiny fraction of its real value and sold the bulk of shares to her entourages and nominees and her husband asked for 20% commission on each government project.

That kind of politicians by your standard could be statemen, but to the educated middle class people in Bangkok, we call them traitors.

Posted by: somsak | December 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm | Report this comment


I have lived in Thailand for ten years and have over time watched the country seeemingly self destruct on the alter of democracy. The West generally sees democracy as the answer to many insidious systems but when I look around the neighbouring countries, democracy does not appear to have played the most significant part in the development of Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong and is very much work in progress in Indonesia and the Philippines. Japan has had a single party ruling since the war and Korea is split in two.

The successful countries in Asia seem to have benefited from a strong benvolent leadership which punishes corruption and rewards hard work and education.

For this reason the form of democracy practiced by the Thai Rak Thai and PPP is probably not the best solution for Thailand and the PAD suggestion that a portion of the leadership is appointed has merit.

Posted by: Mark Hamill-Stewart | December 3rd, 2008 at 3:49 pm | Report this comment


Mark HAmill-Stewart: “Japan has had a single party ruling since the war and Korea is split in two.”

This is wrong. Even where their exists no competition, there is a material difference between a system which allows for potential competition and one which shuts the doors altogether.

This is like some anti-trust cases: even where there exists a monopoly, the mere potential that new entrants might be tempted to join the market puts a cap on prices.

Posted by: RCS | December 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm | Report this comment


The US constitution and bill of rights mitigate the effects of “mob rule” in voting.

It’s not the democratic voting that presents a problem it is with the way the government is set up. America is the role model. I believe that if every country had our constitution and bill of rights, peace and prosperity could break out all over the world.

Posted by: lilybart | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this comment


What is so difficult about this? Thaksin’s power was (and in some respects still is) based on 1) Control of media outlets, 2) Political patronage, and 3) Infrastructure and social support programs that disproportionally aid rural areas.

In large part, these protests, and the opposition to Thaksin in general, is an attempt by the city dwellers, who have always controlled the government and society of Thailand through monarchies, juntas, and short-lived Republics, to retain that control.

Are the city dwellers then undemocratic? No, but they do want to hold on to their influence. Thus their support for the Junta, thus their calls to Monarchical authority. The problem here, I think, lies not so much in the people involved as in the generally loose political traditions of Thailand and a constitution which does not provide adequate legal protection to minority views, or adequate levels of local and regional autonomy. The elites oppose Thaksin partly because they fear and resent him, but also because they deeply fear what will happen to them when they don’t hold the reins of power, and the reason they fear this is because they know, from their own experience of governing, how those reins can be used to harm and control. This, in my view, is largely the result of political professionals’ love-affair with Parliamentary systems. A federal democracy, with clearly delineated authorities and zealously enforced rights and protections is much more stable, responsive to the population, and easier to live with as a citizen, than the centralized, almighty oligarchies created in emulation of Britain.

Posted by: Julian | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:21 pm | Report this comment


As a Fleming I would never suggest Thailand to adopt the Belgian system but it has kept things peaceful in Belgium so I suppose it has its merits.
To my mind, Swiss direct democracy would be the best solution, also a federalised Thailand could possibly help to ease its tensions with its muslim minority which seem be forgotten during these troublesome times…

Posted by: Johan Van Loon | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:40 pm | Report this comment


I have cautioned against making comparisons with the west, but there is one 20th century Central European leader who comes to mind who was elected democratically but who then promptly turned his country into one of the worst dictatorships known in the history of the human race.

Hitler wasn’t democratically elected, at least not in the sense you seem to mean.

Posted by: Scott de B. | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this comment


Mark, what people need is an effective democracy: ie a government that functions well and represents the voters at large. Currently, Thailand is becoming less democratic and more screwed up. Is there a link? I believe so.

Your ten years included a period of self appointed “leadership” by the military. This was a period of sharp relative decline for Thailand. Even the generals thought their own government was incompetent: “The way things turned out did not live up to our expectations. We cannot blame anyone but ourselves” - Council for National Security chairman, Air Chief Marshal Chalit Pukbhasuk

Posted by: FFScotland | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:45 pm | Report this comment


All this discussion about who represents the middle class, who is uneducated, etc. misses the point. Nations need the following factors in addition to democracy in order to produce stability and prosperity:

1) Secularism in government.
2) An independent judiciary.
3) A system of checks and balances limiting individual or party power.
4) An unchangable legal guarantee of the rights of minority groups and dissentors.
5) A free press.
6) An educated population that is aware of the successes and failures of world history.
7) Federalism, to give local people control of local issues.
Zero tolerance for corruption, and an independent investigative force to enforce it.
9) Police and military forces that are more loyal to democracy than to politicians.
10) A process that makes changing the constitution nearly impossible.

Posted by: Chris B | December 3rd, 2008 at 5:52 pm | Report this comment


John wrote:

“Anthony Zacharzewski was clearly not educated in Russia where they had a good educational system for mathematicians. In a group with no negative values the mean is always greater than the median.”

1,10,11,12,13
median = 11
mean = 9.4

5,6,15,16
median = 10.5 =((6+15)/2)
mean = 10.5

I won’t mention where I was educated because making broad generalizations about the education of individuals from various countries is apparently invalid.

Posted by: Chris B | December 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm | Report this comment


It’s extremely tricky comparing democratic systems in different parts of the world. Come to think of it, it’s extremely tricky even comparing democratic systems in the West. The Electoral College in the US, and the Parliamentary system in the UK are two complicated issues that come to mind.

Countries like Lebanon struggle with the same kind of mindframe that is currently plaguing Thai politics. The problem there is, of course, religion rather than socio-economic standing. A truly democratic system, rather than the quota-based system which is in place, would tip the delicate sectarian balance.

These issues are difficult to fully comprehend for a Western audience (of which I’m probably part).

Posted by: Nasri Atallah | December 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm | Report this comment


We in the West (particularly the media) have made a fetish of the ballot. Voting is of course a fundamental part of a true democracy, but only one part. Holding a free and fair election doesn’t make a country ipso facto a democracy, as we all should have learned by now. Transparency and the rule of law, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, a free press, the right to assemble, etc. are equally fundamental, sine-qua-non elements of a real democracy. For a country transitioning from one-party rule or dicatorship, I would advocate getting some of those other parts in place before holding elections; long-term results may end up being much better - look at Hong Kong and Singapore.

Posted by: JH | December 3rd, 2008 at 6:59 pm | Report this comment


[…] Interesting discussion on the recent government crisis in Thailand here. […]

Posted by: Memnison Journal » Thailand and whose idea of democracy: | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:00 pm | Report this comment


The middle-class Thais are onto something. Here in the US, the elderly, red states, and the lower class unduly influence elections, even though they are net recipients of federal tax money.

They insist that they are the “core” of America, and not the cancer that’s eating it alive. They’re angry, too, rather than grateful that those of us who actually pay taxes haven’t yet deported them to the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Posted by: Blue's Clues | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm | Report this comment


The challenge is to the idea that democracy is inherently good. It is not, and honest advocates for democracy (including yours truly) have to to acknowledge that. Sometimes the will of the people is to elect fundamentalists (Hamas), corrupt oligarchs (Thaksin), or authoritarians in democratic clothing (Putin).

The situation in Thailand is a bit more complicated than the press lets on, although I can’t say that the self-titled PAD is justified in their actions.

Posted by: Joel | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 pm | Report this comment


This is one of GR’s favourite themes. He had a similar post on Thailand a while back, and I won’t repeat the comments I made then.

Many interesting comments. I agree with the following points in those comments:

Many educated people assume those without [education] are plain stupid. But you don’t need to read and write to make rational choices. FFScotland

I am a middle class citizen living in Bangkok and I find Sondhi’s 70/30 ‘new’ politics incredibly ridiculous. If you ever get the chance to listen to him talk on his ASTV cable channel, you wonder, is this person supposed to represent the ‘educated’ middle class? Jade

I haven’t had the chance to hear Sondhi, but I suspect Jade is right. The PAD have no viable alternative to democracy.

But I also agree that a functioning democracy entails more than voting. It also requires the rule of law. So I take note of the following comments:

The latest government has just been found guilty of what amounts to electoral fraud, Thaksins last government was similarly guilty, yet they are always described as ‘democratically elected’. If current Thai democracy is the party that can pay people most for their votes wins, whats so good about it? Andy

A cynic might say that votes are “bought” in advanced democracies too, though indirectly through advertising, etc.

I also note the comments on the corruption connected with the Thaksin government, and find them plausible. Allegations have been upheld in a court of law.

John makes two key points: even if you ignored the “bought” votes, Thaksin and his supporters would still have a clear majority. PAD wants to preserve the political (and, by implication, economic) advantages of the urban middle class.

From that I draw three tentative conclusions. One, there is no sustainable alternative to democracy. And efforts to try to imitate Western history by introducing democracy by steps don’t work. They result in either dictatorship or periods of fitful democracy.

Two, democratic systems that have been stable in developing countries are ones where, at least in an initial phase, there has been a clearly predominant mass party that is strong in rural as well as urban areas: Congress in India, Labour in Israel, the ANC in South Africa, PRI in Mexico, etc. It should be added that that they do not offer the rotation of government that democracy needs in the long term. (An extreme case was the PRI’s rule in Mexico. People said that Mexico was a democracy except on election days.)

Three, many developing countries would be wise to opt for decentralised, federal democracies rather than centralised, unitary democracies. They would also be wise to think in terms of proportional, coalition government rather than majority, winner-takes-all government. Federalism has been found to be a good base for stability in developed and developing countries alike. And at least periods of coalition government help to build attitudes of compromise and mutual respect that are so important for the survival of democracy.

In Thailand, the urban elite is going to have to come to terms with the interests of the rural poor, and seek to organise them in mass parties rather than trying to exclude them from the political process. In the medium, the urban elite can gain economically from the growing domestic demand that a richer countryside would generate.

Lastly, the idea that either the US [lilybart] or Switzerland [J.J.] has a monopoly on democracy is rubbish. But both have interesting features for developing countries to consider. Federalism in both countries, direct democracy (referendums, etc) in both countries, although not at national level in the US. Switzerland also shows how a preference for coalition government can help democracy survive in a multi-lingual country.

Posted by: Edward S | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this comment


As always, these discussions inevitably lead back to Churchill’s famous adage: democracy is indeed the worst form of governance — except all others.

The Thai middle classes are on to — nothing. A Hundreds years hence they will reach the one conclusion they could have reached now. But they just had to reinvent the wheel to show what an ingenious people they are.

Posted by: RCS | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm | Report this comment


‘Thaicoon’ made me smile. Your journalism always works so well because you keep both humour and appropriate deportment, the former being so often sacrificed as a foolish and half-baked nod to the latter…

Posted by: Justin | December 3rd, 2008 at 7:48 pm | Report this comment


I note the post’s reference to “theory.” The academic political science literature moved on from the bourgeoisie-democracy connection a while back. In fact Thailand is fairly predictable according to Eva Bellin’s 2000 paper “Contingent Democrats,” in the journal World Politics. The gist: the bourgeoisie will be pro-democracy if they don’t depend too much on state largesse and aren’t terribly threatened by poorer classes.

Posted by: Theo | December 3rd, 2008 at 9:00 pm | Report this comment


Purba Negoro: “As an Indonesian who has travelled extensiveley as a bureaucrat within ASEAN and one who is intimately aquainted with both the ruling class and poor- I can inform you all the poor majority DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY.”

Mr Purba, shall we have a vote on that?

Posted by: RCS | December 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm | Report this comment


John: even if you ignored the “bought” votes, Thaksin and his supporters would still have a clear majority.

How can you measure how many votes were bought?

Thai people have tolerated corruption for a long time. However, when Thaksin came in, he set a new standard for corruption. It was obvious, out in the open, daring and in the scope Thais have never seen. The “middle-class” were the ones suffered most. They saw their hard-earned money funneling into the wealth of this one man. The ultra wealthy generally have a strong tie to the government in some ways and were benefiting. The very poor were the voting machines, having not much else to contribute to Thaksin’s wealth. The anger is deep because a lot of “middle-class” in Thailand are really just the 2nd or 3rd generation of wealth. They had seen their parents/grandparents, and in some cases themselves, working days/nights and weekends. To be robbed outright like this is infuriating to say the least.

Was Thaksin the most evil man? That, I don’t know. Was he exploiting the country with no shame? Absolutely.

To those who would like to argue on the definition of “democracy”, if you would like to make a point worth reading in this issue, I suggest you learn more about Thailand. If not, it’s like claiming you can judge a married couple’s argument without ever knowing them at all.

Thailand is a unique country with complex history. RCS, have you ever known a poor Thai person from the rural area who actually died as a result of the poorly-planned, poorly managed “30-baht cures all” program from Thaksin? Reading the Western press might not give you a well-rounded knowledge on all issues. That should not be surprising, I hope.

Posted by: LaLana | December 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm | Report this comment


Isn’t it heart of democracy to run a country according to the majority.Is it that ridiculous if the poors want better life for themselves. To say the rural people are stupid and cant think for themselves is ignorant at best and to say all the rural votes were brought is as ridiculous as to say Barrack Obama is a terrorist.
The Thai elites should realize that no matter how much money and power they have, they are just a minority group after all.(they surely have the power to spread the wealth but would they?)

The main issue right now is not about Thaksin anymore, but it is about class struggling.
The poors saw hope and change and they are holding on to it. The elites saw the poors have some sort of hope and trying to change so they are destroying it. It’s that simple.

Posted by: Mod, Korat | December 4th, 2008 at 6:02 am | Report this comment


The problem is that Westerner used to reify the concept of democracy and taught that if developing countries adopt democratic system, it was because of an acknowledgment of liberty, human rights and so on.

The deconstructed reality is different, they embraced democracy because it allow the urban elite to stay in power and to give them the legitimacy to stay there. The majority of elected people come from the urban elites. Nowadays, the extension of universal suffrage toward the poor is changing that. Morales election was a turning point. Thailand is not different.

Posted by: JC, HEID, Geneva | December 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am | Report this comment


Purba Negoro says:

“As an Indonesian who has travelled extensiveley as a bureaucrat within ASEAN and one who is intimately aquainted with both the ruling class and poor- I can inform you all the poor majority DO NOT WANT DEMOCRACY.”

“All the poor majority do not want democracy.” Ok, then let’s say 99% of the poor majority want democracy. More seriously, one of the striking features of many elections in developing countries is how the poor turn out in large numbers to vote, and are willing to wait many hours to cast their vote. And their votes make a difference. In the latest elections in India, most pundits expected the BJP to win easily. But primarily the rural poor turned the election in favour of the Congress-led coalition. The poor know that the vote is one of the few chances they have to countervail the inequities of the economic and social system.

But thanks for this insight into ASEAN’s thinking on democracy. It confirms my suspicions.

Purba Negoro says:

I quote Sukarno, “democracy is NOT the end. It is not the means to an end. No! The end is a just and prosperous society.”
We indigenous ruling class know precisely what is best for our own peasantry.

The Sukarno experience highlights the disadvantage of authoritarian regimes: their inflexibility and vulnerability to crises. That’s because a change of government requires a change of regime. The more democratic Asian regimes survived the economic crisis of the late nineties. The most autocratic one, Sukarno’s, collapsed. On that occasion, the peasantry did not seem to be convinced that the ruling class knew what was best for them.

Purba Negoro also says:

Singapore- not a democracy- and one of the world’s most prosperous nations.

I would not call Singapore a dictatorship, but rather a preponderant party democracy (the PAP), which, within the present regime, could evolve into an effective two- or multi-party system. (Though it is sometimes said that Singapore is the world’s only Social Democratic dictatorship).

Perhaps the best way out of the current political deadlock in Thailand would be for the two sides to form a joint, coalition government, at least until fresh elections can be held. If a grand coalition government is good enough for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (permanently), it is good enough for Thailand too. The king of Thailand could help bring about such a solution. Actively bringing parties together to form a government is a service that a king is supposed to provide in a constitutional monarchy.

While in Thailand, I have noticed that there are few women in Thai politics, certainly not in leading positions. That contrasts with the strong position of women in Thai economic and social life, in comparison with many other Asian countries. A stronger female presence could temper macho attitudes, though the example of the Philippines is not too encouraging in that respect.

Posted by: Edward S | December 4th, 2008 at 12:51 pm | Report this comment