One thing that many Asians find perplexing about Western behaviour is their ‘extreme risk taking’. You’ll see that in ‘extreme sports’ and to the Asians, unbelievable insane behaviour of Americans, Japanese, Europeans as they dare the elements to test the limits of their physical endurance, and, dare the ‘unknown’, those pioneers of past.
There Tosakan — I hope that helps explain to you why Thais, and Filipinos, and Indonesians and Malaysians, are so timid and mediocre.
To Bearling: First, “self-sufficiency” is not what “sufficiency economy” is all about. Second, as to who supports a welfare state in Thailand, well, Giles Ungpakorn has been campaigning for that. But, then, to him it is only the first step before Thailand will be turned into a socialist or communist country (probably just around the same time that Vietnam and Laos will democratize). Third, the junta has just asked academics to produce “objective” research pieces on “sufficiency economy” — as reaction on all the foreigners who got it so wrong in the international media (see Bangkok Post of Jan. 31).
I think there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. There are exceptions, however.
But what is intriguing to me is why? Why so much mediocrity? Everybody I talk to thinks it is the weather.
I think Thailand has all the “potential” in the world to be a great country, but it is sub par to mediocre in every way like you said.
My biggest fear is that if Burma ever opens up it will be immediately turn into another Thailand. Can you imagine all those beautiful pristine beaches turning into Pattaya and Phuket? That’s a horrifying thought.
I always thought an interesting experiment would be to give one Thai province to the Americans, one to the Europeans, and another province to the Japanese. They can manage these provinces any way they see fit. There would be no political interference from the Thais whatsoever. Give them five years.
Then let Thais vote on it. If the foreigners did a horrible job, then they would have to restore the province as it was before or pay a penalty. But if they did an excellent job, they could sort out a system of paying back the foreigners or continue to contract out its managements, but introduce an element of self-government as well.
Thai people living outside may miss some experiences of ‘lives under Thaksin’. I’m living here in Thailand and I can still remember how bitter we felt when he heard of his regime’s measure against medias, like The Nation and the family of its head, Yoon family, very early after he took power. Opponents hardly appeared on TV screen for almost 5 years. Even his major opponent, Sondhi, After his programme was ousted from Channel 9, he had never appeared on any free TV. What happened then???
And we have to recall what happened to thousands who were killed with the tag of ‘Anti-Drug’ campaign.
So, I’d like to warn that it is likely very risky to see Thaksin rule as ‘ true, authentic, pro-democracy’ regime. You would be upset…very upset.
Westerners have a long history of ignoring their supposed liberal values when doing so is convenient – consider support for Marcos, Suharto, Singapore, China, the Saudis, Saddam pre-1991, Pinochet, Somoza, the apartheid regime in South Africa, Hun Sen – the list goes on and on.
The bigger mystery is how with so much natural resources, the Burmese junta remains a pariah state.
From what I see in Thailand, the quality of Westerners who are here is piss poor. With few exceptions, Thailand is hardly the place to make your name in any corporate or government structure – how many Thailand country managers go on to become senior executives at headquarters? If you’re looking to Asia, it’s Japan, China, Hong Kong, maybe Korea, Singapore and increasingly India. Thailand is literally not on the map.
But lots of westerners love it here because life is cheap, the food is good, you don’t have to work very hard, chicks are hot and easy, and as a whitey making a decent paycheck you can automatically waddle your way into what passes for “high-society” – you get your picture in the paper and everyone treats you like you really know something because compared to the locals you’re probably a genius even though you’re average at best in your own country.
You see it in the atrocious quality of the “journalism” here, the laughable “political analysis” of “thai studies” academics, the inane business plans managers put together, the research by stock analysts, and on and on.
Since it’s such a tiny country, no one pays much attention, and people get away with what they get away with. It’s why the country will never grow very much – the more attention it brings to itself, the more the warts are evident.
[…] For the past three days I have been attending the Critical Transitions in the Mekong Region hosted by Chiang Mai University. Last July I made an early post about this conference, expressing slight scepticism about the ongoing preoccupation with the Mekong region. In some respects I think my concerns were misplaced. The┬ conference┬ has provided a forum for the presentation of an enormous range of research on economy, society, culture and identity in the so-called Mekong region. (I hope to feature some of this research in coming posts.) There can be no doubt that “Mekong” remains an attractive way to package diverse research interests and to encourage research linkages. And there is a pressing need to focus critical attention on the “Mekong region” development initiatives promoted by agencies such as the ADB and the World Bank.┬ […]
I absolutely agree with what you wrote, except a couple parts where you made exceptions.
You wrote:
Of these differences one can point to the following:
– Lack of a formal fascist party
– Lack of explicit irredentism
– Lack of a racial scapegoat, and a discourse of racial purity
– Impossibility of conducting an autarkic economic policy, given the international hegemony of free market capitalism.
1. While it is true there has never been a formal fascist party, most Thai military dictators did have phony parties in which they ran, and the Democrat Party has always been quasi Royalist party.
But the name Thai Rak Thai says it all. You can’t get a more fascist name than that. I don’t even think our buddy Hitler would be that arrogant.
What was Thai Rak Thai’s original platform? The Dem sold out the country to the farang during the 97 crisis Thaksin was the only leader who could save Thailand. Lets go after the dirty drug dealers, Muslims, and porn websites. Lets us save the children from the evil farang values. Let us go back to our puritanical Thai roots of clean living and modesty. Let us worship the villagers and their crappy OTOP products. And like a good fascist, Thaksin was undermining all the legitimate instruments of political power by intimidating the media, buying off officials, and creating phony political parties.
One could say that Thaksin was trying to replace one charismatic leader, the King, with himself, and in a semi-fascist country like Thailand that is a no no, because the King has the military and his army of yellow shirted zombies and thugs. Thaksin could have had an army, but his capitalist Chinese buds go where the money goes, and Thaksin exploited the masses for their money, so they had no money to support him on their own.
The difference between Thaksin and the King is this: People literally worship the king as a God and would give their lives and money to him just like they would to a Buddha or Hindu deity whereas with Thaksin they are just waiting for the rich Chink to give them a handout.
2. Irredentism-Thailand does have a history of irredentism.
Thailand went after its “stolen territories” during World War 2.
In text books and in the popular culture(King Naresuan), there is definitely irredentist propaganda. Remember the Angkhor Wat controversy when Thais had their embassy burned down in Cambodia, because some soap opera actress said Angkhor Wat belonged to the Thais. What is the civil war in the South about? Those provinces used to be their own independent kingdoms and they are fighting for their freedom.
3. Racial scapegoats-Thais have a long history of using racial scapegoats. Burmese, Cambodians, the Chinese, Japanese, and the farang have always been used by the Thais as the “evil other” in their propaganda. And Thais have a long history of massacring the Japanese and farang. Concerning the Chinese, King Vajirayudh referred to them as the “Jews of the East.” Plaek Pibulsongkran instituted anti-Chinese laws during his tenure as dictator. Thailand also has had a long history of ghettoizing foreigners.
4. Autarky-King B’s Self-sufficiency theory is the code word for autarky.
Other right-wing non-Royalists such Ajarn Sulak and Ajarn Pawat advocate autarky.
So do many right-wing monks.
Thailand is not a fascist state; it is a quasi fascist state.
And the reason why it gets away with its fascist status is something I don’t understand.
I think Thailand deserves to be treated like a pariah state like Burma, but too many Western diplomats don’t give a shit.
Republican, interesting argumentation, you could add to your points the parallels between the New Year bombings and the Reichstag fire and between Sonthis secret police and the Gestapo (ok here I did almost a Goodwin). But you have to add to your differences the relative freedom of speech (if its not against the “head of state”) and that the power is in the hands of an old elite instead of a fascist party.
I would call it (neo-)feudalism (and of course you can’t compare the king with Hitler – but I don’t think that this was your intention)
Maybe we can rank Southeast Asia’s League of Leader Rogues:
1) PolPot of Cambodia
2) Newin of Myanmar
3) Marcos of Philippines
4) Suharto of Indonesia
5) Thaksin of Thailand
Will that satisfy you Republican or can you NOT breathe (your convoluted English suggested as much) to admit that Thaksin deserve to be in the select league above?
Tosakan, I don’t want to stress this either, you are probably right that I underestimated the democratic pre-WW I tradition, but I have learned – unfortuntately my historical education might have been a little bit undifferentiated – that the German democratic tradition before 1919 mainly consists of the March Revolution of 1848 and of the Frankfurt Parliament (the national assembly also in 1848) and that parliamentarianism before the Weimar constitution was more of an alibi (they could have achieved some kind of constitutional monarchy in 1848 but the prussian king rejected the Kaiser title).
To get on-topic again one could argue (regarding your rather pessimistic post no.26 in the succession discussion) that if a country who was for half a century the biggest threat to world peace, who had deep nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian roots, who deeply believed in command and obidience (Lenin stated once that if there is in Germany a revolution at the train station the Germans would buy a platform ticket first) and who were feared by most of their neighbours – that if such a nation can develop quite strong democracy it should be possible for Thailand as well.
By the way I think the Thai official doesn’t know Fawlty Towers – otherwise he would have taken the advice of John Cleese: “Don’t mention the war!” and I think we should now keep it that way.
The comparison between Hitler and Thaksin raises the issue of the fascist nature of the Thai state. On this there are indeed some interesting similarities:
– Intensive cult of a charismatic, infallible leader, promoted by a relentless indoctrination program through the schools, the mass media, the bureaucracy and the armed forces
– Extreme form of cultural nationalism, discourse of “uniqueness”
– Anti-communism (less relevant since the end of the Cold War, but still salient)
– Strong anti-capitalist sentiment
– Strong anti-democratic sentiment
– Nativist discourse about the “volk” (i.e. the idealization of village culture)
– State control of the mass media
– Militarized state
– Broad, extra-legal powers of the police
– Discourse of self-reliance / autarky (i.e. “self-sufficiency”)
– A newly industrializing economy, with a large ‘peasant’ base
– An economically squeezed, fearful and easily manipulated petty bourgeoisie
– Cooption of big business by the fascist leadership
– Cooption of the universities by the fascist leadership
– Cooption of the judiciary by the fascist leadership
– Cooption of the religious establishment by the fascist leadership
– Bureaucracy under the tight control of the fascist leadership
– Resentment at past humiliations imposed by outsiders (Western territorial incursions during the colonial era; the 1997 economic crisis)
– Distrust of the outside world
– Suppression of individuality; stress on national unity, and citizen’s duty and loyalty to the Leader
– Official distaste for bourgeois culture and morality
– Mass rallies and displays of emotion and hysteria
– Officially enforced dress campaigns
– Fetishist preoccupation with symbols
– Continuous program of building grandiose monuments dedicated to the fascist idea
It is of course necessary to point out the obvious differences, while at the same time bearing in mind that many of these differences are simply a product of the time-lag between the corresponding rise of fascist tendencies in Europe and Japan on the one hand and Thailand on the other. In Thailand’s case fascism has flowered when the international conditions are markedly different from those that pertained in the 1920s and 1930s, European fascism’s heyday.
Of these differences one can point to the following:
– Lack of a formal fascist party
– Lack of explicit irredentism
– Lack of a racial scapegoat, and a discourse of racial purity
– Impossibility of conducting an autarkic economic policy, given the international hegemony of free market capitalism
If Thailand can indeed be classed as a quasi-fascist state (albeit of a “soft”, rather poorly organized variety), with the King as the fascist leader, what does this mean? The implications are that the regime in Thailand, contra the advocates of “Thai-style Democracy” or “White Knight” arguments, is not sui generis but a political and cultural type of political irrationality common to many newly industrializing countries.
Additional to post no.21 I should note – if I remember right – that the evolution of civil rights and the civil revolution was associated with the “arch enemy” France since the time of the Napoleon occupation and so it was opposed by large parts of the population.
The nationalistic and antidemocratic forces got pre WW I the upper hand after the 1870/71 war and the installation of the prussian Wilhelm I. as German Kaiser.
After the lost war the progeressive forces got the upper hand for a short time and so Germany got its quite liberal constitution of the Weimar Republic – although with a president with large powers as a quasi Ersatz-Kaiser. This started to vanish after the soldiers – bound to a strong hierarchical structure – came back (look at the paramilitary Freikorps) and finally during the Great Depression / Hyperinflation the radical forces got the upper hand.
@ Tosakan: I totally agree with your classification of the asian dictators
I really don’t want to drag this out more than we have to, but your posts don’t make sense and keep contradicting the facts.
You wrote “Although there was some democratic movement in Germany even before WW I they didn’t had a democratic tradition before and – unlike 1945 where they probably thought as a majority that the defeat and the occupation was justified – they didn’t saw themself as deserved loser.”
So you are telling me there was no democratic tradition in the German states before World War 1? OK, if that is true, why did some German states have elected parliaments? And democratic government at the local levels?
As Marx said, as every bourgeoisie class develops, so does the cry for liberal democratic institutions by that class. How can you say that there weren’t liberal democratic tradtions, especially in the more progressive parts of Germany, before World War 1? Factually, you are incorrect, because there indeed were parliaments in German states before WWI. There were democratic governments at the local level as well, going back hundreds of years.
As for Hitler and the Enabling Act, a lot of what you are arguing doesn’t matter, because Hitler and his government were given the democratic seal of approval with a plebiscite, a direct popular vote, where he polled 85%, and the Enabling Acts were reconstituted over and over by the Reichstag up until the end of World War 2.
Actually this economic approach is very simple. fairly speaking, the King proposed it during the economic crisis years ago. And it is so true that one of main causes here was the Thai ambition to be a new ‘NIC’. But in fact Thailand was so weak in economic infrastructure, as lots of economists explained for long time. The center of his idea is just to be prepared when we have to go for some new change and first we have to fill our ‘stomach’ first. Do not too ambitious. And be highly cautioned for changes in the future.
Thai monarchy should be studied in Thailand’s unique context and without prejudice. Thai monarchy after 1932 has been placed in a very special position. Even a famed civilian leader of the 1932 coup, Pridi Phanomyong, once was the regency for the Rama VIII. He did not harm the monarchy though he once worked with ‘miltary men’ to topple the absolute monarchy! (that may be why military can not stay away from Thai politics.)
And Rama IX is just an aspect for this special development, he and his 200 year – old family should be seen exclusively.
Tosakan, I was quite aware what the Versailles treaty and what the Weimar republic was but in case you didn’t notice, the Germans lost WW I and so the peace treaty included reparations to France and the lost of some territory why it was never accepted by the Germans of that time. Although there was some democratic movement in Germany even before WW I they didn’t had a democratic tradition before and – unlike 1945 where they probably thought as a majority that the defeat and the occupation was justified – they didn’t saw themself as deserved loser. In fact the so called Dolchstosslegende was widely accepted by the Germans – they thought that the German defeat in WW I was only possible through treason from the inside (especially left-wing parties got the blame). After the Black Friday the anti-democratic forces grew stronger and we got the sharp left-wing / right-wing divide (in fact the only party always pro-democracy during the Weimar Republic has been the Social Democrats). They got some appointed chancellors (Bruening and Von Papen) until Hitler came to power as in post no.8 stated.
Of course you are right that the process was – kind of – democratic, because it used the channels provided by the constitution, but if the majority of the population doesn’t give a damn about democracy you get what you deserve. Especially the Enabling Act of 1933 was a shame for the parlament, for the German politicians and for the German population – and with the left quasi silenced after the Reichstag fire there was no real opposition.
I didn’t wanted to whitewash the Germans, they knew what they got and – by a majority – they wanted it and – as said above – they got what they deserved (and they could be happy that the US bombed Hiroshima and not Berlin with the first nuclear bomb).
Gentlemen, gentlemen….with all this talk about whether Thaksin = Hitler, we are forgetting to address the REAL issue: Would the German ambassador have penned this poisonous letter if Thailand possessed vast subterranean fields of oil?
Batman-Yeah, that is exactly what I thought s/he was saying.
Vichai- We all give Thaksin a hard time, but he was far from being the worst dictator in Thailand and not even close to dictators from neighboring countries.
Field Marshall Plaek, and generals Phao and Sarit were much bigger thugs than Thaksin–even though Thaksin paid homage to Phao’s statue many times.
Marcos and Suharto were horrible. They were shameless murderers
The juntas in Burma were bad and still are bad boys.
Batman, I am sorry that you got this impression. However, after re-reading my post a couple of times, I don’t think that this interpretation is covered by my text, and it is very certainly not on my mind.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
One thing that many Asians find perplexing about Western behaviour is their ‘extreme risk taking’. You’ll see that in ‘extreme sports’ and to the Asians, unbelievable insane behaviour of Americans, Japanese, Europeans as they dare the elements to test the limits of their physical endurance, and, dare the ‘unknown’, those pioneers of past.
There Tosakan — I hope that helps explain to you why Thais, and Filipinos, and Indonesians and Malaysians, are so timid and mediocre.
General Surayud pitches 2007 as “year of great reforms”
To Bearling: First, “self-sufficiency” is not what “sufficiency economy” is all about. Second, as to who supports a welfare state in Thailand, well, Giles Ungpakorn has been campaigning for that. But, then, to him it is only the first step before Thailand will be turned into a socialist or communist country (probably just around the same time that Vietnam and Laos will democratize). Third, the junta has just asked academics to produce “objective” research pieces on “sufficiency economy” — as reaction on all the foreigners who got it so wrong in the international media (see Bangkok Post of Jan. 31).
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
hpboothe-
I think there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. There are exceptions, however.
But what is intriguing to me is why? Why so much mediocrity? Everybody I talk to thinks it is the weather.
I think Thailand has all the “potential” in the world to be a great country, but it is sub par to mediocre in every way like you said.
My biggest fear is that if Burma ever opens up it will be immediately turn into another Thailand. Can you imagine all those beautiful pristine beaches turning into Pattaya and Phuket? That’s a horrifying thought.
I always thought an interesting experiment would be to give one Thai province to the Americans, one to the Europeans, and another province to the Japanese. They can manage these provinces any way they see fit. There would be no political interference from the Thais whatsoever. Give them five years.
Then let Thais vote on it. If the foreigners did a horrible job, then they would have to restore the province as it was before or pay a penalty. But if they did an excellent job, they could sort out a system of paying back the foreigners or continue to contract out its managements, but introduce an element of self-government as well.
I wonder what would happen.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Thai people living outside may miss some experiences of ‘lives under Thaksin’. I’m living here in Thailand and I can still remember how bitter we felt when he heard of his regime’s measure against medias, like The Nation and the family of its head, Yoon family, very early after he took power. Opponents hardly appeared on TV screen for almost 5 years. Even his major opponent, Sondhi, After his programme was ousted from Channel 9, he had never appeared on any free TV. What happened then???
And we have to recall what happened to thousands who were killed with the tag of ‘Anti-Drug’ campaign.
So, I’d like to warn that it is likely very risky to see Thaksin rule as ‘ true, authentic, pro-democracy’ regime. You would be upset…very upset.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Westerners have a long history of ignoring their supposed liberal values when doing so is convenient – consider support for Marcos, Suharto, Singapore, China, the Saudis, Saddam pre-1991, Pinochet, Somoza, the apartheid regime in South Africa, Hun Sen – the list goes on and on.
The bigger mystery is how with so much natural resources, the Burmese junta remains a pariah state.
From what I see in Thailand, the quality of Westerners who are here is piss poor. With few exceptions, Thailand is hardly the place to make your name in any corporate or government structure – how many Thailand country managers go on to become senior executives at headquarters? If you’re looking to Asia, it’s Japan, China, Hong Kong, maybe Korea, Singapore and increasingly India. Thailand is literally not on the map.
But lots of westerners love it here because life is cheap, the food is good, you don’t have to work very hard, chicks are hot and easy, and as a whitey making a decent paycheck you can automatically waddle your way into what passes for “high-society” – you get your picture in the paper and everyone treats you like you really know something because compared to the locals you’re probably a genius even though you’re average at best in your own country.
You see it in the atrocious quality of the “journalism” here, the laughable “political analysis” of “thai studies” academics, the inane business plans managers put together, the research by stock analysts, and on and on.
Since it’s such a tiny country, no one pays much attention, and people get away with what they get away with. It’s why the country will never grow very much – the more attention it brings to itself, the more the warts are evident.
Another Mekong conference!
[…] For the past three days I have been attending the Critical Transitions in the Mekong Region hosted by Chiang Mai University. Last July I made an early post about this conference, expressing slight scepticism about the ongoing preoccupation with the Mekong region. In some respects I think my concerns were misplaced. The┬ conference┬ has provided a forum for the presentation of an enormous range of research on economy, society, culture and identity in the so-called Mekong region. (I hope to feature some of this research in coming posts.) There can be no doubt that “Mekong” remains an attractive way to package diverse research interests and to encourage research linkages. And there is a pressing need to focus critical attention on the “Mekong region” development initiatives promoted by agencies such as the ADB and the World Bank.┬ […]
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Republican-
I absolutely agree with what you wrote, except a couple parts where you made exceptions.
You wrote:
Of these differences one can point to the following:
– Lack of a formal fascist party
– Lack of explicit irredentism
– Lack of a racial scapegoat, and a discourse of racial purity
– Impossibility of conducting an autarkic economic policy, given the international hegemony of free market capitalism.
1. While it is true there has never been a formal fascist party, most Thai military dictators did have phony parties in which they ran, and the Democrat Party has always been quasi Royalist party.
But the name Thai Rak Thai says it all. You can’t get a more fascist name than that. I don’t even think our buddy Hitler would be that arrogant.
What was Thai Rak Thai’s original platform? The Dem sold out the country to the farang during the 97 crisis Thaksin was the only leader who could save Thailand. Lets go after the dirty drug dealers, Muslims, and porn websites. Lets us save the children from the evil farang values. Let us go back to our puritanical Thai roots of clean living and modesty. Let us worship the villagers and their crappy OTOP products. And like a good fascist, Thaksin was undermining all the legitimate instruments of political power by intimidating the media, buying off officials, and creating phony political parties.
One could say that Thaksin was trying to replace one charismatic leader, the King, with himself, and in a semi-fascist country like Thailand that is a no no, because the King has the military and his army of yellow shirted zombies and thugs. Thaksin could have had an army, but his capitalist Chinese buds go where the money goes, and Thaksin exploited the masses for their money, so they had no money to support him on their own.
The difference between Thaksin and the King is this: People literally worship the king as a God and would give their lives and money to him just like they would to a Buddha or Hindu deity whereas with Thaksin they are just waiting for the rich Chink to give them a handout.
2. Irredentism-Thailand does have a history of irredentism.
Thailand went after its “stolen territories” during World War 2.
In text books and in the popular culture(King Naresuan), there is definitely irredentist propaganda. Remember the Angkhor Wat controversy when Thais had their embassy burned down in Cambodia, because some soap opera actress said Angkhor Wat belonged to the Thais. What is the civil war in the South about? Those provinces used to be their own independent kingdoms and they are fighting for their freedom.
3. Racial scapegoats-Thais have a long history of using racial scapegoats. Burmese, Cambodians, the Chinese, Japanese, and the farang have always been used by the Thais as the “evil other” in their propaganda. And Thais have a long history of massacring the Japanese and farang. Concerning the Chinese, King Vajirayudh referred to them as the “Jews of the East.” Plaek Pibulsongkran instituted anti-Chinese laws during his tenure as dictator. Thailand also has had a long history of ghettoizing foreigners.
4. Autarky-King B’s Self-sufficiency theory is the code word for autarky.
Other right-wing non-Royalists such Ajarn Sulak and Ajarn Pawat advocate autarky.
So do many right-wing monks.
Thailand is not a fascist state; it is a quasi fascist state.
And the reason why it gets away with its fascist status is something I don’t understand.
I think Thailand deserves to be treated like a pariah state like Burma, but too many Western diplomats don’t give a shit.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Republican, interesting argumentation, you could add to your points the parallels between the New Year bombings and the Reichstag fire and between Sonthis secret police and the Gestapo (ok here I did almost a Goodwin). But you have to add to your differences the relative freedom of speech (if its not against the “head of state”) and that the power is in the hands of an old elite instead of a fascist party.
I would call it (neo-)feudalism (and of course you can’t compare the king with Hitler – but I don’t think that this was your intention)
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Seemingly, the dicussion drifts into the domain of semi-professional denizens of a sapha kafae.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Maybe we can rank Southeast Asia’s League of Leader Rogues:
1) PolPot of Cambodia
2) Newin of Myanmar
3) Marcos of Philippines
4) Suharto of Indonesia
5) Thaksin of Thailand
Will that satisfy you Republican or can you NOT breathe (your convoluted English suggested as much) to admit that Thaksin deserve to be in the select league above?
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Tosakan, I don’t want to stress this either, you are probably right that I underestimated the democratic pre-WW I tradition, but I have learned – unfortuntately my historical education might have been a little bit undifferentiated – that the German democratic tradition before 1919 mainly consists of the March Revolution of 1848 and of the Frankfurt Parliament (the national assembly also in 1848) and that parliamentarianism before the Weimar constitution was more of an alibi (they could have achieved some kind of constitutional monarchy in 1848 but the prussian king rejected the Kaiser title).
To get on-topic again one could argue (regarding your rather pessimistic post no.26 in the succession discussion) that if a country who was for half a century the biggest threat to world peace, who had deep nationalistic, militaristic and authoritarian roots, who deeply believed in command and obidience (Lenin stated once that if there is in Germany a revolution at the train station the Germans would buy a platform ticket first) and who were feared by most of their neighbours – that if such a nation can develop quite strong democracy it should be possible for Thailand as well.
By the way I think the Thai official doesn’t know Fawlty Towers – otherwise he would have taken the advice of John Cleese: “Don’t mention the war!” and I think we should now keep it that way.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
The comparison between Hitler and Thaksin raises the issue of the fascist nature of the Thai state. On this there are indeed some interesting similarities:
– Intensive cult of a charismatic, infallible leader, promoted by a relentless indoctrination program through the schools, the mass media, the bureaucracy and the armed forces
– Extreme form of cultural nationalism, discourse of “uniqueness”
– Anti-communism (less relevant since the end of the Cold War, but still salient)
– Strong anti-capitalist sentiment
– Strong anti-democratic sentiment
– Nativist discourse about the “volk” (i.e. the idealization of village culture)
– State control of the mass media
– Militarized state
– Broad, extra-legal powers of the police
– Discourse of self-reliance / autarky (i.e. “self-sufficiency”)
– A newly industrializing economy, with a large ‘peasant’ base
– An economically squeezed, fearful and easily manipulated petty bourgeoisie
– Cooption of big business by the fascist leadership
– Cooption of the universities by the fascist leadership
– Cooption of the judiciary by the fascist leadership
– Cooption of the religious establishment by the fascist leadership
– Bureaucracy under the tight control of the fascist leadership
– Resentment at past humiliations imposed by outsiders (Western territorial incursions during the colonial era; the 1997 economic crisis)
– Distrust of the outside world
– Suppression of individuality; stress on national unity, and citizen’s duty and loyalty to the Leader
– Official distaste for bourgeois culture and morality
– Mass rallies and displays of emotion and hysteria
– Officially enforced dress campaigns
– Fetishist preoccupation with symbols
– Continuous program of building grandiose monuments dedicated to the fascist idea
It is of course necessary to point out the obvious differences, while at the same time bearing in mind that many of these differences are simply a product of the time-lag between the corresponding rise of fascist tendencies in Europe and Japan on the one hand and Thailand on the other. In Thailand’s case fascism has flowered when the international conditions are markedly different from those that pertained in the 1920s and 1930s, European fascism’s heyday.
Of these differences one can point to the following:
– Lack of a formal fascist party
– Lack of explicit irredentism
– Lack of a racial scapegoat, and a discourse of racial purity
– Impossibility of conducting an autarkic economic policy, given the international hegemony of free market capitalism
If Thailand can indeed be classed as a quasi-fascist state (albeit of a “soft”, rather poorly organized variety), with the King as the fascist leader, what does this mean? The implications are that the regime in Thailand, contra the advocates of “Thai-style Democracy” or “White Knight” arguments, is not sui generis but a political and cultural type of political irrationality common to many newly industrializing countries.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Additional to post no.21 I should note – if I remember right – that the evolution of civil rights and the civil revolution was associated with the “arch enemy” France since the time of the Napoleon occupation and so it was opposed by large parts of the population.
The nationalistic and antidemocratic forces got pre WW I the upper hand after the 1870/71 war and the installation of the prussian Wilhelm I. as German Kaiser.
After the lost war the progeressive forces got the upper hand for a short time and so Germany got its quite liberal constitution of the Weimar Republic – although with a president with large powers as a quasi Ersatz-Kaiser. This started to vanish after the soldiers – bound to a strong hierarchical structure – came back (look at the paramilitary Freikorps) and finally during the Great Depression / Hyperinflation the radical forces got the upper hand.
@ Tosakan: I totally agree with your classification of the asian dictators
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
21 Jan-
I really don’t want to drag this out more than we have to, but your posts don’t make sense and keep contradicting the facts.
You wrote “Although there was some democratic movement in Germany even before WW I they didn’t had a democratic tradition before and – unlike 1945 where they probably thought as a majority that the defeat and the occupation was justified – they didn’t saw themself as deserved loser.”
So you are telling me there was no democratic tradition in the German states before World War 1? OK, if that is true, why did some German states have elected parliaments? And democratic government at the local levels?
As Marx said, as every bourgeoisie class develops, so does the cry for liberal democratic institutions by that class. How can you say that there weren’t liberal democratic tradtions, especially in the more progressive parts of Germany, before World War 1? Factually, you are incorrect, because there indeed were parliaments in German states before WWI. There were democratic governments at the local level as well, going back hundreds of years.
As for Hitler and the Enabling Act, a lot of what you are arguing doesn’t matter, because Hitler and his government were given the democratic seal of approval with a plebiscite, a direct popular vote, where he polled 85%, and the Enabling Acts were reconstituted over and over by the Reichstag up until the end of World War 2.
Sufficiency economy and human development
Actually this economic approach is very simple. fairly speaking, the King proposed it during the economic crisis years ago. And it is so true that one of main causes here was the Thai ambition to be a new ‘NIC’. But in fact Thailand was so weak in economic infrastructure, as lots of economists explained for long time. The center of his idea is just to be prepared when we have to go for some new change and first we have to fill our ‘stomach’ first. Do not too ambitious. And be highly cautioned for changes in the future.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
Thai monarchy should be studied in Thailand’s unique context and without prejudice. Thai monarchy after 1932 has been placed in a very special position. Even a famed civilian leader of the 1932 coup, Pridi Phanomyong, once was the regency for the Rama VIII. He did not harm the monarchy though he once worked with ‘miltary men’ to topple the absolute monarchy! (that may be why military can not stay away from Thai politics.)
And Rama IX is just an aspect for this special development, he and his 200 year – old family should be seen exclusively.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Tosakan, I was quite aware what the Versailles treaty and what the Weimar republic was but in case you didn’t notice, the Germans lost WW I and so the peace treaty included reparations to France and the lost of some territory why it was never accepted by the Germans of that time. Although there was some democratic movement in Germany even before WW I they didn’t had a democratic tradition before and – unlike 1945 where they probably thought as a majority that the defeat and the occupation was justified – they didn’t saw themself as deserved loser. In fact the so called Dolchstosslegende was widely accepted by the Germans – they thought that the German defeat in WW I was only possible through treason from the inside (especially left-wing parties got the blame). After the Black Friday the anti-democratic forces grew stronger and we got the sharp left-wing / right-wing divide (in fact the only party always pro-democracy during the Weimar Republic has been the Social Democrats). They got some appointed chancellors (Bruening and Von Papen) until Hitler came to power as in post no.8 stated.
Of course you are right that the process was – kind of – democratic, because it used the channels provided by the constitution, but if the majority of the population doesn’t give a damn about democracy you get what you deserve. Especially the Enabling Act of 1933 was a shame for the parlament, for the German politicians and for the German population – and with the left quasi silenced after the Reichstag fire there was no real opposition.
I didn’t wanted to whitewash the Germans, they knew what they got and – by a majority – they wanted it and – as said above – they got what they deserved (and they could be happy that the US bombed Hiroshima and not Berlin with the first nuclear bomb).
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Gentlemen, gentlemen….with all this talk about whether Thaksin = Hitler, we are forgetting to address the REAL issue: Would the German ambassador have penned this poisonous letter if Thailand possessed vast subterranean fields of oil?
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Batman-Yeah, that is exactly what I thought s/he was saying.
Vichai- We all give Thaksin a hard time, but he was far from being the worst dictator in Thailand and not even close to dictators from neighboring countries.
Field Marshall Plaek, and generals Phao and Sarit were much bigger thugs than Thaksin–even though Thaksin paid homage to Phao’s statue many times.
Marcos and Suharto were horrible. They were shameless murderers
The juntas in Burma were bad and still are bad boys.
Pol Pot tops them all.
Diplomatic exchange carried by The Nation
Batman, I am sorry that you got this impression. However, after re-reading my post a couple of times, I don’t think that this interpretation is covered by my text, and it is very certainly not on my mind.