Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand

21. The Social Bases of Autocratic Rule in Thailand

The฀Social฀Bases฀of฀Autocratic฀Rule฀in฀Thailand 267 21 THE฀SOCIAL฀BASES฀OF฀ AUTOCRATIC฀RULE฀IN฀THAILAND Craig J. Reynolds During the political disturbances in Thailand in March–May 2010, media attention was naturally focused on the legitimacy of the Abhisit government and the rights and expectations of disappointed voters. Over many decades democracy has been regularly thwarted by the military establishment and by business interests working hand-in-hand with the bureaucracy and regime of the day. Elected officials as well as military officers and bureaucrats have business interests, often managed through members of their immediate families. When a new constitution was promulgated in 1997, “good governance”, translated into Thai as thammarat, became the catch-cry of advocates of political reform. Alas, the moral force signalled in that formulation by the Buddhist keyword Dhamma (thamma), best understood in this context as “righteousness”, has been inadequate to the task of transforming the political system in An earlier version of this essay appeared in e-IR online at . The current version was prepared for this volume. 21฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀267 9/9/11฀฀฀6:50:10฀PM Craig฀J.฀Reynolds 268 ways envisioned by those who drafted the new constitution. Authoritarian, liberal, and communitarian strands of thammarat/good governance have stubbornly competed with one another in a way that was visible in the speeches, negotiations and media commentary in early 2010.1 What was missing from media and academic commentary on the 2010 round of the Thai political crisis, apart from the occasional comparison between Thailand and military despotism in Myanmar, was the regional context.2 Since decolonization after the Second World War, democracy, however conjured by voters, academics, protestors, or ruling elites, has been a problem in mainland Southeast Asia. Despite the prevalence of one-party governments put in office by the popular vote, the distinction between democracy and elections is often not made. Governments, especially authoritarian ones, favour elections, because political leaders can claim popular legitimacy from the electoral process. But participatory democracy is undermined if elections are not free and competitive. Votebuying — candidates handing out cash and other inducements to voters — is a recurrent issue, leading to the widespread belief that elections are fixed.3 Most importantly, whereas the ambient ethos of the political culture in a participatory democracy needs to be tolerant of dissent, in the region those already in power strive to limit dissent and manipulate democracy to ensure not just their longevity in office, but permanency of rule. In Myanmar the armed forces have governed for nearly fifty years with no end in sight to military rule even on the most distant horizon. In Cambodia a strongman is still in power some two decades after he was installed as prime minister by the Vietnamese during their military occupation of the country. In socialist Laos and communist Vietnam only one party is allowed to field candidates in national elections. In Malaysia there is more multi-party activity, but the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the dominant party in ruling coalitions since independence, expertly gerrymanders to preserve its electoral advantage and alters the constitution in its favour. In Singapore the People’s Action Party (PAP) hobbles other parties if they exhibit meaningful opposition and thus maintains its one-party dominance. This, a region of autocratic political systems, is the immediate neighbourhood in which Thai democracy is expected to put down its roots and flourish. The conflict of March–May 2010 generated prolific comment in the blogosphere in which the term “fascist” was used to describe both sides 21฀BangkokIT.indd฀฀฀268 9/9/11฀฀฀6:50:10฀PM The฀Social฀Bases฀of฀Autocratic฀Rule฀in฀Thailand 269 — the government as well as the protestors, most of whom were rural people from the North and Northeast. In this usage, fascism is a lazy, sensationalist synonym for autocracy. Thai writers and academics have been known to hurl the fascist epithet at Field Marshal Po. Phibun Songkhram, Thailand’s first military premier from 1938 to 1944. The Phibun government, which continued unscathed through the Japanese occupation, was much taken by Japanese militarism. Popular patriotic literature during the 1930s drew on the Japanese martial code of bushido, and Japanese journalists and ministers were received hospitably on visits to Bangkok where they were invited to view plays with pan-Asian themes celebrating the solidarity of Asian civilizations against the West. Although a fascist...