Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand

18. Thailand in Trouble: Revolt of the Downtrodden or Conflict among Elites?

Pasuk฀Phongpaichit฀and฀Chris฀Baker 214 18 THAILAND฀IN฀TROUBLE Revolt฀of฀the฀Downtrodden฀or฀ Conflict฀among฀Elites? Pasuk Phongpaichit and Chris Baker Among academics, journalists, and other commentators on Thailand, there are two very different views of the conflict that has steadily grown over the last six years. The first argues that this is an uprising of the downtrodden, especially farmers from the poorer Northeast and far North, demanding a better deal, and being fiercely resisted by an elite, jealous of its power and privilege; underlying this uprising is a great division in income, wealth, power, and opportunity in the society. The second interpretation argues that the social division is illusory or unimportant, and that this is a battle among elites, essentially between former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his enemies, with ordinary people being used as paid pawns in the struggle. This paper was prepared while the authors were visiting scholars under the GCOE program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies and was presented at the GRIPS Forum, Tokyo, on 21 June 2010. 18฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀214 12/15/11฀฀฀10:57:08฀AM Thailand฀in฀Trouble 215 We want to argue that it is both — both a real social movement, and a battle between elite figures and groups. These two historical processes are inextricably intertwined, and that is why the resolution is so complex. The first section discusses the socioeconomic background, and why a social movement of this force should have appeared at this point in history. The second examines how an elite conflict has developed into competitive mass mobilizations, and a fierce ideological debate. RISING฀ASPIRATIONS,฀GATHERING฀RESENTMENTS The press has tended to describe the Red Shirts as the “rural poor”. While that description has a kernel of truth, it is also quite misleading. Many of the movement’s supporters are well off. Even the poorer ones are not as poor as they were a few years ago. Behind the upsurge, there are two forces. One is a revolution of rising aspirations, driven by increasing prosperity. The other is an outbreak of gathering resentment, driven by ever-widening and more obvious inequality in the distribution of income, wealth, power, and public goods. Figure 18.1 shows Thailand’s economic growth since 1950, expressed in terms of real per capita income. This is one of the best records of any country in the world. The 1997 crisis was a setback, but only temporary. Most strikingly, over the past generation, since around 1980, average real per capita income has tripled. Most Thais are much better off than their parents were. Poverty has declined from around 40 per cent in 1980 to 6 per cent today. But growing prosperity has other results. People have more assets to protect, more interests to pursue. They have more aspirations for themselves and their children. They have more education, more access to information. And they have more demands on the state — to provide public goods like education and health, and public services like a working legal system and functioning police. The Red Shirts who poured into Bangkok in early March 2010 were not the destitute. They had trucks, pick-ups, and motorcycles. They were relatively well dressed. These were the aggrieved with assets. But the gains of growth have been very unevenly distributed. Of course that is often the case, but in Thailand the bias has been very marked — as a result of the particular pattern of growth. 18฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀215 12/15/11฀฀฀10:57:08฀AM Pasuk฀Phongpaichit฀and฀Chris฀Baker 216 Figure฀18.1 Real฀GDP฀per฀head,฀1951–2009 x 3 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ’000 bahat at 1988 prices 1 9 5 0 1 9 5 5 1 9 6 0 1 9 6 5 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 5 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 Thailand has aimed for industrialization by relying on borrowed capital and technology, and relying on the world market for demand. This has shaped the workforce in a particular way (see Figure 18.2). Multinational firms use capital-intensive technology, so although manufacturing contributes around 40 per cent of GDP and 90 per cent of exports, it employs only 8 per cent of workers.1 The government relies on exports...