Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand

3. Thoughts on Thailand’s Turmoil, 11 June 2010

Thoughts฀on฀Thailand’s฀Turmoil 15 3 THOUGHTS฀ON฀THAILAND’S฀ TURMOIL 11฀June฀2010 James Stent BACKGROUND In the latter part of the 1990s, after the financial crisis of 1997, but before the ascent of Thaksin, I was occasionally asked to speak to groups of foreign investment analysts visiting Thailand. I set forth the gist of what I used to say to these analysts, as it gives context to my thoughts on the present turmoil: Thailand is a country characterized by a high degree of ideological homogeneity, with broad consensus at all levels of society on the core This essay was originally written on 11 June of 2010 as a private document to be read by overseas friends inquiring into the events of the previous weeks in Thailand. It subsequently received considerable exposure on the Internet, and the author has now revised it for inclusion in this collection. In the revisions that the author has made, he is indebted to Paul Wedel and to several others who provided excellent feedback and suggestions, from which the final version has benefited. Notwithstanding this, all of the contents of this essay remain the author’s sole responsibility and reflect his personal point of view. 03฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀15 10/3/11฀฀฀11:21:04฀AM James฀Stent 16฀ values of Thailand and on what it means to be a Thai. This consensus includes veneration of the king, a leading role for the Buddhist religion, adherence to a free market economic system, support for a hierarchical society that emphasizes respect for superiors and seniors, provides an elevated position in society for Army, civil servants and police, and by implication leaves control of the nation in the hands of an establishment that sits at the top levels of the social pyramid. Over the decades, this establishment has instilled this view of the nation throughout all levels of society, with inculcation starting in the schools and reinforced continually through media, portraits of the royal family, etc. To dissent from the main elements of this consensus is to be “Un-Thai”. In fact, there have been few dissenters, and those that have bucked the consensus are marginalized, either through social pressure, or through police action. This consensus has made for a stable society in which people generally accept their place in life, but which also allows for sufficient social mobility to accommodate the bright and ambitious. Considerable economic development has occurred under this consensus and stability, and as a result the lot of poor villagers has improved substantially over the past half-century. The fears of many that communism would engulf the nation, as it had China and Indochina, have proven unwarranted. This stable consensus has benefited the elite levels of society, a few thousand members of which control what happens in the country. This elite occupies the key positions in the bureaucracy, the military, police, business establishment (particularly banks), and clergy, in both Bangkok and in provincial cities. None of them seeks change in the social, political and economic structure that provides them with such a comfortable way of life and position in society, and which has also led to satisfactory growth of the economy and improvement in the lives of the mass of the population. Political parties in this system do not have significantly different agendas, much less ideologies, because the people that control the parties all share in the benefits of the system. Thai politics has been about dividing up the pie among the elite, with a certain amount of benefits trickling down to the grass roots. The few people, such as Kukrit Pramoj and Bunchu Rotchanasathian, who tried to change the nature of politics to be more responsive to social and economic justice issues, did not have much impact, and civil society was tolerated provided that it did not push radical reform of the system. A man like Banharn Silpa-archa could rise from humble origins through this structure to 03฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀16 10/3/11฀฀฀11:21:04฀AM Thoughts฀on฀Thailand’s฀Turmoil 17 become prime minister, but he did it through playing within the system brilliantly, rather than challenging the system. The growing middle class accepted this consensus and accompanying political model, as their lives were appreciably improving; the broad mass of farmers and factory workers accepted it as reflecting the nature of the world, and anyway their...