During social and political upheaval, there is no better way to go forward than through a sincere soul-searching on sensitive but important issues such as the role of the monarchy, military and civic/political movements.
Historian Charnvit Kasetsiri said that instead of spreading propaganda without pragmatic solutions on such subjective issues as ethics, unity, and reconciliation,the Thai middle class should face the political division that has become a fact of life and stop blaming the rural people and the grass-roots as uneducated. They should stop singling out politicians as the only culprits for the country's political quagmire as well.
While many so-called elite groups continue to blame Thailand's political conflicts on nothing more than an attempt by bad people to cause trouble, Mr Charnvit believes the contention belies a deep rift that can't be bridged by acts of preaching.
Still, the Thaksin factor remains a core issue that can reignite a debate on "Thai-style" democracy - a concept which is brought up every time the country's process of democratisation faces a hiccup such as the coup d'etat three years ago.
At a recent seminar entitled "Ethics in Thai Democracy: Do We Have It?",organised by the Political Development Council, Stephen B Young, Caux Round Table Global executive director, said democracy could only work in an environment that is ruled by law and a fair justice system.
Mr Young said Thai jurisprudence has standards for judging the actions of leaders and rulers. These standards, he said, impose an ethic of fiduciary conduct and servant leadership on the outcomes of democracy, and should therefore be incorporated into Thai democracy to prevent its abuse at the hands of the unscrupulous.
Among the standards are barami (charisma) of a good patron who holds the trust and care of the people at his or her heart, and Tosapitratjatham , the 10 virtues for ethical leadership as well as the principle of sufficiency economy emphasising the middle path, foresight,rationality, self-responsibility and compassion.
He disagreed with the notion that Thailand was now greatly divided between the elite and grass-roots.
"There are only differences in opinion.All people have the right to vote. Look at Isan, say, in the early 70s and how it is now. Before there were few roads, now there is development and they are like Bangkok."
He concluded that the challenge of ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra for Thailand was serious because Thaksin does not "think like a Thai".
"Other Thai leaders who had political problems at home - Pridi Banomyong,Plaek Pibulsonggram and ThanomKittikachorn - they did not fight back nor try to restore their power after living in exile. But Thaksin is defiant," Mr Young said.
Sharing most of Mr Young's views,Borwornsak Uwanno, fellow of the Royal Institute of Thailand, said although the 2007 constitution put an emphasis on civic education and political ethics, it was still not adequate as Thai society's attitude remains based on the hierarchy system. Paying gratitude to phuyai was still imperative.
"Members of parliament are a reflection of our society. You can see from recent polls that people from the urban areas and Bangkok place good economy before politics, while rural people choose election before good economy. Why?Because the middle class have access to resources while rural people rely on their MPs for irrigation, infrastructure, education and jobs," Mr Borwornsak said.
"What the former prime minister offered to the rural people was access to financial resources through populist programmes, resources which they feel were unfairly allocated in the past. So their say in politics is important and they have to carefully choose who to support."
Mr Borwornsak concluded that democracy has yet to bring justice for all but we cannot pursue the goal only through populist schemes funded by loans. We will have to undergo a reform of the tax system and introduce some progressive schemes.
Michael Nelson, a visiting scholar at Chulalongkorn University's political science faculty, suggested that the question of whether democracy is suitable for Thailand should be open for the public to try to answer.
To move forward from the political stalemate, said Mr Nelson, Thais had to come to grips with some serious issues including what should the role of the monarchy, military and political/civic movements such as the People's Alliance for Democracy and the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD)be in the making of a future Thai democracy.
The military autonomy in Thai politics was echoed in the works of Paul Chambers, from Ruprecht-Karls UniversityHeidelberg, who said gossip about an impending coup, which often seems to occur, underlines a continuing popular perception of an extreme lack of civilian control over the military.
He predicted that however much Abhisit Vejjajiva might want to lead a strong civilian administration, it would be difficult for him to do so as his government was also set up under the patronage of the military.
More importantly, as the anti-Thaksin forces and attitude were prevalent now,it was unlikely to see greater civilian control in politics and military affairs as it would be perceived as harking back to the Thaksin days, where the military establishment was shaken, the American academic said.
"Governance in Thailand is a castle of cards able to collapse at the lightest breeze," he said.
He concluded that the year 2009 saw true military autonomy from civilian control and in the future the Bhumjaithai Party might be the perfect Trojan horse civilian proxy party for the military.
"The military has learned from experience that direct governance will only create a negative perception from society,while indirect domination of civilian government allows them to augment their autonomy from civilian authority and anything to be blamed could be shouldered by the civilian faces," said Mr Chambers, who is also a former Peace Corps volunteer.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment