Populism, the opiate of a 'drugged' people

[ThaiHome]

Populism, the opiate of a 'drugged' people

 

Published: 29/06/2010 at 12:00 AM

Newspaper section: News

Link

For better or worse, populism has been on the upswing in Thailand in the last 10 years, roughly corresponding to the rise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra's rule.

 

Although Thailand has seen populist behaviour before, most especially under the boot of Plaek Phibulsonggram who was a contemporary of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, and who was to some extent influenced by the rabid populism that transmuted into fascism at the time, it wasn't until Thaksin's arrival on the national stage that the Thai term prachaniyom was coined to replace the English-loan word for populism.

 

The good news for a Bangkok establishment fearful of red shirts taking to the streets again is that populist movements tend to fall apart rather quickly, typically due to the lack of sustainable infrastructure and hard-to-resolve internal contradictions, or, more simply, just by becoming unpopular.

Even populist leaders such as Thaksin who managed to scale the heights of power tend to fall, and fail, rather quickly, because taking over the top slot instantly converts them into a symbol of a new, unjust elite, an easy target for a fresh wave of resentment on the part of those who feel betrayed or excluded from the spoils of power.

 

The bad news for the establishment is this. Populism isn't conjured up out of thin air or pulled out of the ether. It is rooted to the earth, a reflection of real and perceived problems on the ground. It clings to pre-existing fault lines, makes claim to them, manipulates them, exacerbates and explodes them, in the hopes of triggering a seismic shift in power.

Once the cat is out of the bag, indeed even if the cat has run away, the underlying fault lines and rifts, are right there in the open for all to see. If such a social rift is neglected, it will produce new populists to replace the old ones.

 

Conditions on the ground, such as the vivid rich-poor gap in Thailand, which seemed in recent memory to be a tolerably exotic if not particularly likeable aspect of Thai society, and may indeed be no worse than other places where no protest is evident, now suddenly seems terribly unjust.

And it should, to the degree it is a reflection of an unpalatable truth, large or small, which many would prefer to ignore than countenance.

 

Fingering such fault lines is what populists do, and if that were the alpha and omega of populism, it would not be a precursor to fascism.

 

But then the demagogue comes marching in, the truth gets mangled, and the victims of injustice become unwitting enablers of a wily politician's fame and fortune.

As Henry Louis Mencken famously said, the demagogue preaches "doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots".

 

As such, the fortunes of demagogic politicians who seek to ride the wave of public indignation depend in large part on media reach, rhetorical persuasion and the ability to amplify complaints in a way that aggrandises the speaker and personifies the cause, until the two are seen as inseparable.

Populism would be less troubling if there was a way to lose the demagogue, but it is precisely the demagogue, who breathes fear and fire into the mix, using lies, half-truths and shrill identity politics, who sways sentiment and moves people to action.

 

Demagoguery is a project to rid reality of nuance, irony, complexity and even the truth, while casting things in high-contrast black and white. Populist leaders need the polarising, Manichaean divide to get traction, even if it means widening a fragile fissure or ruthlessly exploiting existing cracks in the social edifice.

 

If they can't meet the people in person, they use the media, especially television, and nowadays the internet, while employing proxies and sycophants to do the up close and personal.

 

It is telling that so much UDD air-time and stage time at the Ratchaprasong red shirt rallies was frittered away ranting not about poverty, not about unemployment, not about health care or police abuse or minimum wage or slum conditions, but about a horrible, fanged, foaming, blood-thirsty death and destruction-obsessed psycho-killer subhuman monster who goes by the uppity name of Abhisit Vejjajiva.

 

Everyone's entitled to their opinion of the prime minister; I for one happen to find him intelligent, thoughtful, polite and almost mild-mannered to a fault, though I'd like to see him reach out more to the poor and dispossessed.

 

But say what you will about the PM's policies, his questionable actions to date and - perhaps more pertinently - a certain degree of ill-timed non-action, the man is no Dracula.

Populists, even when not under threat, are ever in search of enemies, the more dastardly, stark and cartoon-like the better. If they can't find the Dracula of their dreams, they paint fangs on political rivals.

 

At Ratchaprasong, the red shirts, in both word and deed, betrayed a desperate desire for a truly convincing enemy to whip up the degree of incendiary hatred necessary to provoke fighting in the streets that would in turn set the stage for a rescue from their very own personalised knight in shining armour. They daily portrayed their patron's rival as the devil incarnate, but failed to convince their own political base, let alone society at large.

 

Thai populism today does not paint a pretty picture of the legendary "land of smiles", let alone a believable and balanced one, because it conceals ruthless political ambition and thrives on manipulative lies and ill will.

 

But it cannot be dismissed out of hand, either. The yellow shirts used populist technique, not just vilifying their political foes, but initiating the divisive politics of shirt colour to create a destabilising we-them divide in the first place. While Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang were not strictly populist in the sense that they chose to uphold the status quo and embrace the elite rather than challenge it, they nonetheless introduced a troubling kind of more-Thai-than-thou attitude which edged society closer to the slippery slope of loyalty tests and prosecution of "unThai" activities.

It was at red shirt-controlled Ratchaprasong this past May where a rather more earthy populism briefly blossomed, and subsequently withered, as the core leadership abandoned the crowd and the absent patron went shopping at a pricy boutique in Paris.

 

The message of red shirt propaganda, however badly twisted, smoke-screened and distorted, however opportunistically hitched to a desperate tycoon trying to regain fame and fortune, was not just hot air.

 

A bleak, borderline subversive vision of Thailand as a country split into two classes was shrewdly introduced, branded and marketed, court jester-style, on the red stage in which credible singers, emcees, comedians and political hacks all chimed in and tried to stay on message.

 

They can claim some success to the degree that a trumped up we-them divide deepened and spread around the country, but it wouldn't have taken wing if it did not contain at least a kernel of truth.

 

While material conditions in the countryside have generally improved, there truly is a stark divide between rich and poor that goes far beyond unequal bank accounts and extends to the social sphere, an endemic divide that offends democratic sensibilities.

 

If the red shirts have anything worthwhile to say, it is a truism that predates them and will outlast their demise.

 

There is injustice in the land and it needs urgent tending to.

 

Philip J Cunningham is a freelance writer and political commentator

[Guest]

"...the Thai term prachaniyom was coined to replace the English-loan word for populism."

 

 

Haha, I love it...try SANSKRIT/PALI term, which is all they're ever doing when they create new words. Oh yes, it's much more "Thai" if it comes from India...!

[Flashermac]

And God knows we would NEVER do anything like that in English, borrowing from Greek, Latin, French etc.

 

Oh, the stupid backward Thais ... why can't they have a PURE language like English.

 

And the wonderful Cambodians would never ... ever ... stoop to borrowing from Sanskrit or Pali.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

And God knows we would NEVER do anything like that in English, borrowing from Greek, Latin, French etc.

 

Oh, the stupid backward Thais ... why can't they have a PURE language like English.

 

And the wonderful Cambodians would never ... ever ... stoop to borrowing from Sanskrit or Pali.

 

 

 

 

I think you missed my point entirely.

 

I wasn't implying that it's somehow "wrong" or undesirable to borrow words from other languages, just that when you do it, you should admit that's what you're doing...which the Thais do not, generally. And whether the Thais admit or not, certainly the author of the article (which is, let's remember, what I was commenting on) was painting the new word as a Thai (as opposed to English) word.

 

Funny you should mention the Cambodians, they created a whole movement in the late 60s/early 70s, called "Khmerization," where they set out (their words) "to replace French influence on Cambodian language with KHMER words"...again, all Sanskrit/Pali stuff.

 

And in the Khmer case, 60% of their "new words" were Sanskrit/Pali roots and affixes already assembled by the Thais (to "Thai-ify" their language and cleanse their language of English) back in the 30s and 40s...

[Hugh_Hoy]

Interesting essay/thesis.

 

At least more than a few of the points made could be equally applied to current "happenings" in the U.S.

 

We have a populist President in Obama. Many of his supporters have come to feel betrayed. Demogogry (sp?) has become his style. While exploiting social and economic "fissures", he has widened them and more polarized the population.

 

I wonder if Cunningham's model fits other countries.

 

HH

[AF16]

The teaparty are populism, Obama is not.

[Hugh_Hoy]

True...the Tea Party is a populist movement. To say that Obama is not a populist is to be mentally defective. If you are interested in self-treating this affliction, just google "obama populist populism".

 

HH

[shygye]

Teddy Roosevelt was a populist.

 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.

 

We demand that big business give the people a square deal; in return we must insist that when anyone engaged in big business honestly endeavors to do right he shall himself be given a square deal.

 

 

[Guest]

True...the Tea Party is a populist movement. To say that Obama is not a populist is to be mentally defective. If you are interested in self-treating this affliction, just google "obama populist populism".

 

HH

 

No shit...Obama, "not populist"?! Get real.

 

The Tea Party bitches are racist reactionaries, pure and simple. Pretty hard to argue that fact, haha.

 

Not saying Obama doesn't have his weaknesses and hasn't made his mistakes...but those pathetic right-wing fucks are so obviously just upset with a "NEGRO" in control of things that they're willing to do ANYTHING to get things back to the normal, "proper" situation of us white folk running [and supremely fucking up] the show...

[ThaiHome]

Yep, great, thought provoking article. So far, the only responses have been one poster use a single sentence as an example of Thai ethnocentrism and xenophobia and another use it as an attack on Obama, both of which generated more response then the topic of the article itself.

TH