Good Commentary Coming Out Now...

[ThaiHome]

Please note, the following is purely an opinion, based on an analysis of the history of politics in the US and transferring the lessons from that to the current state of politics in Thailand.

 

In a relatively immature democracy it is usual for there to be many factions, usually centered on a specific geographical area. These factions are controlled by the dominant economic powers in that area, usually by a series of patron-client relationships.

 

It is very common for these factions to switch alignment with others as the relationships of the leaders with each other blows hot or cold. As a country’s economy grows and develops, and people become less dependent on patron-client relationships to survive (in other words, they move into a more middle class economy stage), then the powers of the factions weakens and they have to appeal more along ideological lines in order to get votes. That is when true political parties, more united in ideology, rather then just economic share of the spoils, start becoming more popular.

 

Thailand is pretty much right in the middle of this cycle, You still have very powerful faction leaders that economically dominate a rural population that is in a transition as many of the younger people move to urban areas and become less dependent on the rural factions. The rural factions see their power ebbing as it becomes harder to get their people to vote in a block and they are fighting tooth and nail to keep it the way it is.

 

That is the ultimate irony of the UDD. It is in fact a group of rural factions that are supposedly fighting an urban middle class in order to free their people from domination. The actual fact is the domination is not the urban middle class or even the ruling class that is dominating and the rural poor; it is their very own leaders.

 

One reason you see some people here identify so closely with professed, though false, ideals of the UDD is it strongly aligns with their own radical socialist beliefs which have mostly been rejected in their own countries.

TH

[Hardy641]

As unlikely as it may appear, I'll come to the defense of TH here. He's always very careful about the integrity of his argumentation in terms of always backing them with verifiable facts.

Obviously, he's also very careful at leaving out other facts that can go against his views, but that's fair game when it comes to political discussion and argumentation.

 

On the other hand there are other posters in this very thread who have stated things that are blatantly untrue Re. the institutional situation in 2005-2006 in order to somewhat legitimize the coup. I'll be charitable and suppose it is due to misinformation and the effectiveness of the coup-makers propaganda.

 

It just takes a quick search on wikipedia about 2006 general elections to spot those "inaccuracies" (euphemism!)

 

 

As you don't name the poster you are referring to but reply to my latest post I have to assume that your answer is addressed to me.

Could please highlighted which of the statements I did are blatantly untrue?

 

If your reply was directed to me, just disregard it.

[Hardy641]

Thaksin was and is a corrupt thug who employs rhetoric about democracy when it suits his purposes. But he was ousted in a coup.

 

Good. It seems we both agree that Thaksin's understanding of democracy wasn't really democratic. Isn't there a saying evil must be fought with evil?

 

And after that coup, supporters of TRT and its successors were re-elected back into power twice. And by "supporters" I include coalition partners that - when the voting occurred - were known to support TRT and Thaksin. This is significant because a vote for these coalition partners is a strong measure of the support for TRT.

 

The questions is whether they got their results in fair elections or through election fraud.

 

After all the PPP has been dissolved because of serious election fraud documented on video footage and involving one of their executives (Yongyuth from Chiang Rai).

 

Further the Thaksin system has been and probably is still in place in many northern or Isaan provinces. He allied the family that controlled a province by paying them significant sums or giving them favors and in return they ensured that 80% to 90% will vote for Thaksin's parties. This possible due to the still prevalent patronage system in the upper provinces.

 

Did not Chat Thai and Baharn firmly stated they would never build a coalition with PPP and then after the election Baharn changed his mind in the name of national interest. So he betrayed his voters too or didn't he?

 

Sure, questions can be raised about the elections and the corruption, but, at the end of the day, a group - that is not acceptable to the Bangkok middle class (I don't like them either) - keep getting elected, and keep getting booted out of power by non-democratic measures.

 

Again the PPP government was not booted out by non democratic measures.

 

Samak has been found guilty but by Thai law could have been reelected immediately. It was the PPP executives who decided to vote for Somchai, the brother in law of Thaksin instead. Don't you think that Thaksin who had more and more difficulties in controlling Samak wasn't happy to have an inconvenient PM Samak replaced by the puppet Somchai?

 

And delusion. If the government is not seen as legitimate in Issan and the North, how can it govern - without oppressive use of force - in Issan and the North?

 

What do you the suggest? New election because a significant part of the Thai electoral is to uneducated to understand the forming of coalitions in a democracy?

 

I don't see the current government to use any force in the North and Isaan. Instead they are spending 3 times more than Thaksin ever did. They kept all populist schemes plus granted free education and meals for the students. Unfortunately, the folks up north/isaan prefer some quick free handouts over a long term scheme to improve their quality of life.

 

BTW so far I only see that democrats are not able to run for elections in these provinces due to death threats. So who is threatening with force?