Election primer

[Loburt]

I intend to, and I respect Ajarn Giles, although I don't think he's right about everything. How can you be when you're a Marxist?

If it was a coup for the rich, it was also a coup against the rich.

The idea that only one side represents "the elite" is pretty farcical when you consider the wealth of most of the people leading the other side.

I dont see the dichotomy of the rich representing the poor - it happens everywhere.

Anyway he makes a number of points that you have always failed to acknowledge.

1. Thaksin is genuinely popular with the rural voter - evident by 3 general elections. A popularity that goes beyond vote buying and is built on building the first party to have really developed a popularist party platform and implemented it. (The fact that those people might be misguided is a different matter.)

2. The coup had little or nothing to do with Thaksin's corruption and everything to do with protecting 'the elite's' position in Thai society.

And now we are in one hell of a mess with no sign of an end....

No, you're incorrect. I have frequently acknowledged that Thaksin is genuinely popular with rural voters. I have been out to several of the poorer regions of Thailand and interviewed people there about why they like Thaksin (and by the way, have you?). I don't blame rural people for voting for him and I've never said they are stupid.

But with all this support based on his "policies" the question must naturally be asked, why does he still engage in massive vote buying? And why did he often use the military to do it?

Because he isn't a believer - by his very own words and admission - in democracy. He's interested in building a rigged system that will lock his grip on power permanently and therefore nullify opposition to his grabbing more wealth for himself and his friends. Even you have spoken of his greed.

Once again, his position is essentially: we have the votes, so we will break any laws or ethics that suits us. And if you get in our way, we'll break you.

That's his motivation behind his policies for the rural poor. When he formed TRT back in 1998, the problems of the rural poor were not part of his platform. Go back and check. This did not appear until about two months before the 2001 election. His platform was to protect big business, wounded in the economic crisis, from being gobbled up by foreigners.

Now the second point is partially true, but mostly a crock of bull.

Thaksin's corruption was a factor. It did anger many people. But in and of itself, it was not enough to spark the coup. His corruption, however, was certainly one of the reasons that enough urban middle class people turned against him, and so they would actually support a coup. Mistaken or not, they cheered the coup. Without that backdrop, I"m not sure the generals would have felt confident enough to pull it off.

The coup would not have happened had not Thaksin been interfering with two important institutions in this country. One is the army. It's certainly evident that there are several factions in the army. One of them are 'royalists' and another is Thaksin's Class 10 classmates. During the past few years, Thaksin spend a lot of time and money moving his classmates into positions of power within the military, leapfrogging them over others.

As evidenced by Thaksin's attempt last April to order the army chief to use his troops to break up the anti-Thaksin protests, he wanted the armed forces as a political tool to cement his grip on power.

When they refused, it was pretty clear Thaksin would try and move the 'royalists' out of power in the military in the next reshuffle (if not before) and install his loyalists.

With Thaksin's evisceration of most of the other checks and balances against his power in society, the royalists in the military viewed themselves as the last line of defense protecting another institution, and against Thaksin transforming the military into his political weapon. This interference, not corruption, was the real spark.

Now, with respect and deference to Ajarn Giles, portraying this schism in society as one in which "the elite" is protecting its interests against the upstart 'man of the people' Thaksin and his followers is incredibly simplistic, wrong, and frankly a childish/cartoonish interpretation.

In the first place, the forces lined up against Thaksin were many and varied. Those office workers making 25,000 baht a month out there demonstrating against Thaksin at the Royal Plaza are hardly an "elite." They may be better off than a rice farmer in Buriram and fewer in number, but they are not an elite.

And, once again, considering the vast wealth and power of people such as Thaksin, the Wongsawats, Suriya, Sudarat, Newin and the Chidchob clan and many many others in Thaksin's camp, I don't see how you can classify them as anything except an "elite."

So, if we are going to get into the game of oversimplifying this situation, then Ajarn Giles is wrong when we characterizes this as a battle between the rich elite and the masses.

It's closer to, as has been described by others, a battle between elites: Thaksin and his elite (including HIS officers in the military) on one side, and the aristocracy, royalist generals, and other big business groups on the other side.

The rural masses, and the middle class, academics, ngos etc., are pawns in this confrontation.

[robbie36]

Actually you read to much into the title of the book.

Aristotle had a good quote...

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme."

So rich people often represent the poor in order to obtain power.

You'll be pleased to know that as a good socialist Giles hates Thaksin - an arch capitalist - as much as you representing the working class.

I dont disagree with much of your analysis. However, I dont believe that Thaksin was setting himself up to be some dictator in this country. On the contrary, I think he was on the way out - he had lost the support of Bangkok, had made his money and he was losing interest. The coup was not only unnecessary, it was a disaster for this country.

Incidentally you ask why Thaksin still engages in massive vote buying and I have to say that the CNS have only themselves to blame. Thaksin is only involved in politics imho as a defense against the legal attacks that have been made against him. If the CNS had done a deal with him- let him keep his assets, stayed in exile - I am sure he wouldnt have been a problem.

I am sure we can agree that we would like to see Thaksin out of politics. You would like him locked up and I would be happy with him playing football manager. But appearing back in Thai politics is only a recipe for disaster. No possible good can come of it.

[Loburt]

Actually you read to much into the title of the book.

Aristotle had a good quote...

"In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme."

So rich people often represent the poor in order to obtain power.

You'll be pleased to know that as a good socialist Giles hates Thaksin - an arch capitalist - as much as you representing the working class.

I dont disagree with much of your analysis. However, I dont believe that Thaksin was setting himself up to be some dictator in this country. On the contrary, I think he was on the way out - he had lost the support of Bangkok, had made his money and he was losing interest. The coup was not only uneccessary, it was a disaster for this country.

Well, as I said, I have yet to read his book.

It's kind of funny to quote Aristotle considering that the poor were excluded from Athenian democracy. But that's besides the point.

I'm not trying to justify the coup or say it was good for the country. Only, that considering the way society is set up, it was a somewhat predictable response considering his provocations. And I can't lie and say I wasn't happy to see him go.

But I said on September 20, 2006 that the danger is that the military is by nature very conservative and does not have the savvy to run the country in these times. And times were already tough before they stepped in. I just went through a pile of newspapers from 2004-5-6. People were already complaining about the economy back then, and several analysts said in very early 2006 that growth in 2007 would be 4.5 percent. Which it was.

Instead of choosing an enlightened, dynamic bunch to run the country in their stead, the generals chose very conservative people, and they also were not up to it.

But where I disagree with you is, I don't think Thaksin was losing interest at all, and I believe his lust for power was dangerous for a pluralistic democratic society. He was a Marcos or Fujimori in the making.

If he was really losing interest, then he would have stuck to the announcement he made after his April meeting with a very high ranking person, when he said he would step back and not accept the PM's post after the next poll. That was the perfect opportunity, if he had really lost interest, to make a graceful exit.

He changed his mind a couple of months later.

And, you're also not addressing the statement by his former deputy PM, Surakiart, about his willingness to use violence against those who opposed him.

That's clearly the mark of a dictator. Mind you, the Thai leader he said he admired the most was Sarit Thanarat - a military dictator.

My clear recollection from the two or three months before the coup was that many of us covering this whole thing had a strong feeling the country was headed for a very bad and probably bloody confrontation.

One of the sadder things about this whole period was that, having delivered for the rural masses, he could have used the opportunity in 2005 to really clean up the notoriously dirty electoral system and still won big.

He didn't even make an attempt.

You're also wrong when you say I need to see Thaksin locked up. I think he deserves to be locked up, but I'd also be just as happy if he just stayed away and played football manager.

I believe there was a lot of negotiating behind the scenes for a deal. But as neither you nor I were a party to them, it would be overstepping for either you or I to say which side was responsible for no deal being struck.

Time for work, so I guess you'll have the last word for today.

[robbie36]

One of the sadder things about this whole period was that, having delivered for the rural masses, he could have used the opportunity in 2005 to really clean up the notoriously dirty electoral system and still won big.

Oh I think there is no doubt that many people especially in Bangkok feel very let down by Thaksin.

First, they expected that as he was rich he would be less corrupt than other politicians and there really wasnt much evidence of that. Selling his business for US$2bn and giving nothing back to the country was clearly unacceptable.

Second I think that many people felt that he initially used the dinosaurs of Thai politics to get elected and he would dispense with them after that - as you eluded to. Not only did he not get rid of them. Now we see him dependent on them for his future.

For various reasons people are always looking for a decent party to emerge as an credible alternative to the Democrats - remember Palang Tham? This time around it was supposed to be Somkid but he was banned along with the other 110 TRT execs. That was a bad tactical error. Things could have been very different.

[venus]

khun ying pojjaman arrived bkk since yesterday.

mathichon said that - as this couple's future depends on the new gorvernment.

so, it will more convenience for them to have someone here to give those direct advices of how k. taksin wants things to be done. especially with k. banharn.

http://www.matichon.co.th/matichon/matichon_detail.php?s_tag=01pol02090151&day=2008-01-09&sectionid=0133