Globalization and Its Counter-forces in Southeast Asia

5. Civil Society, Accountability and Governance in Thailand: A Dim Case of Participatory Democracy

97 Thailand: A Dim Case of Participatory Democracy 97 5 CIVIL SOCIETY, ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE IN THAILAND: A DIM CASE OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY Surin Maisrikrod INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL TRANSITION IN THAILAND1 This chapter assesses the relationship between political-administrative accountability, civil society and a new form of governance in Thailand, following the implementation of the new constitution in 1997. The chapter begins with the historical context, especially the democratic transition and consolidation that has taken place in the country since 1973, within which the notion of accountability and transparency — or good governance — has emerged as a dominant political discourse in recent years. Secondly, the chapter assesses the extent to which the new system of governance has been developed in light of the government led by Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra since 2001. It is argued that the issue of creating a new system of governance — a more responsive, more transparent and more accountable governance — cannot be separated from the issue of democratic consolidation. Thirdly, it notes that globalization provides an impetus for the rhetoric of good governance and democracy in Thailand. But as globalization has at least two parts: firstly, market forces, or the material, with key beneficiaries being capitalists; and secondly, the ideational or “good governance” — accountability and transparency — which to a 97 05 G&CForces Ch 5 1/28/08, 12:26 PM 97 98 98 Surin Maisrikrod considerable degree is a civil society-led counter-force to the increasing corporatization of Thai politics. In Thailand, the pro-market forces and businessmen-politicians are more dominant, resulting in the erosion of accountability and transparency. This chapter thus hypothesizes that the new system of governance in Thailand is not being achieved as envisaged by the constitution because the capitalist class (or rather a key section of it), in collaboration with more conservative/repressive state agencies, especially the police and the Interior Ministry officials — have captured the electoral process, the parliament, and thus the government. These new political forces are less interested in advancing democratic/participatory governance, but more in monopolistic capital accumulation and, at least rhetorically, the country’s international competitiveness. At the same time, the Thaksin government has attempted to curtail the activity of the middle class-based civil society groups by, among other things, rallying its support from the rural areas based on the ruling party’s populist policies. So, instead of participatory governance, Thailand is now developing a “corporatized governance”. The issue of accountability and transparency is now therefore quite problematic, if not totally sidelined. THE EMERGENCE OF THE NOTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE IN THAILAND Although the democratic system was first introduced in Thailand in 1932 when a group of intellectuals and military officers staged a coup against King Rama VII and demanded a constitution, the first democratic change spearheaded by the larger public — intellectuals, bureaucrats, middle class, working class, members of the capitalist class — took place in 1973 when the student-led uprising toppled the military regime of Thanom-Prapat-Narong and ushered in a new era of political pluralism. The 1973 event led to an era of great democratic euphoria, with people in all sections of the society demanding more political space not only at the national level, but also in their places of work and of studies. Freedom, liberty, equality, self-governing, human rights promotion, workers’ rights and peasants’ rights were all part of the day-to-day conversation during the time. Workers were pitted against their employers, peasants their landlords, students their teachers, children their parents, community members government officials. New ideologies proliferated, particularly those which called for equality, an end of exploitation and distribution of wealth. Socialism in particular was very popular. Radicals were calling for further change in society and the political system to bring about a better life for the people. 05 G&CForces Ch 5 1/28/08, 12:26 PM 98 99 Thailand: A Dim Case of Participatory Democracy 99 Strikes and demonstrations were daily events. Clashes between the pro- and anti-change groups were part of the scene between 1973 and 1976. To many, the country was clearly ungovernable; elected government could not bring about political stability. The economy was turning from bad to worse. The business and the middle classes and the bureaucrats felt threatened by what was perceived as a turmoil, rather than a time of newlyfound freedom and democracy. The worsening instability paved the way for the eventual return of the military, after...