 |
When illiberal democrats become converted to liberal democracy, after they've been deposed, it is hard to see this newfound enthusiasm for freedom as anything but pure Machiavellian instrumentality. And yet that is precisely what Westerners seem to like to hear. The IISS audience just lapped it all up and I overheard many praising his performance afterwards.
And what a performance it was.
Thaksin had begun by praising the achievements of Western democracy, setting out how the Third Wave of democratisation had proven a universal human desire for democracy and the good governance and economic prosperity that came with it (rather than the other way around), sketched how the EU could help democratisation in Asia with sensitivity, respect and vision, and expressed his optimism about Thailand's future and looked forward to national reconciliation that would undoubtedly come due to 'the good heartedness of the Thai people and the benevolent wisdom of our most beloved King.' Wow. I almost believed that he really really believed in what he said even though I was already inclined to be sceptical, having witnessed the vitriol of two of his opponents first hand. Which also influenced me to see the whole situation as a power struggle between various factions of the old and new elites. Even though his English pronunciation was far from perfect, he spoke with such apparent sincerity and depth of feeling. No wonder the coup leaders were so flustered by his visit to Singapore and had ordered a blackout of news about him on Thai television. Some Thais seem to adore him: A Royal Thai scholar studying law at UCL, whose adulation of Thaksin overcame his fear of the military junta cutting his scholarship, asked him why oh why he had committed 'political suicide' by selling ShinCorp to Temasek. And then asked for a donation to the Thai society he was helping to set up.
'I give him my moral support; I want him to be successful because it is my country too,' said Thaksin magnanimously in response to a question from a Japanese journalist from Kyodo about his views on the performance of the current Thai Prime Minister. Hmmm, I thought certain opposition politicians in Singapore could certainly take a leaf out of Thaksin's book. And in response to the Telegraph journalist's question about his plans to make a comeback: 'I have no intention to return to politics. I have remained overseas because I want to give the junta time for national reconciliation.' Somehow I don't think he would turn down a chance at returning to power if there was a counter coup or rural-based people power movement. And 'national reconcilation' was mentioned again and again. But apparently he seemed to imply that national reconciliation was predicated on the current government not prosecuting/persecuting him as a pre-condition.
'I did NOT do *anything* wrong.' The smooth charm became a tad frayed with a touch of indignation when a French and a Thai journalist asked, respectively, if he felt responsible for breaking Thai democracy and what his biggest mistake as Prime Minister was (after implying that his overthrow was due to bad karma). He proceeded to chide them and recount his numerous achievements in poverty reduction, economic growth, repayment of IMF debt two years ahead of schedule.'If you had been aware of these facts and figures, you would be ashamed to ask me such questions.' Ah yes, the "lim peh kah li kong" response. Where have I heard this before? Anyway this was certainly a more familiar Thaksin, the man that King Bhumibol had criticised for being unable to handle criticism, who showed through the cracks, albeit minute cracks that were quickly papered over with numerous witticisms and jokes that came quick and fast from this great communicator, causing the audience to roar with laughter more than once.
'A person of his position should be more familiar with the facts before making such remarks.' An IISS member had asked for Thaksin's comments about General Sondhi's speculation that Thai military communications could be spied on as a result of Temasek's ownership of ShinSat. If I understood Thaksin correctly, the ground station is in Indonesia, manned and maintained by Thai engineers, the satellites themselves remain in Thai government ownership while the company is only a sort of management agent for the concession of the orbital slot on behalf of the Thai government to recoup the investment in the infrastructure. That elliptically biting concluding line, quoted at the beginning of this paragraph, was delivered with such crisp dryness and impeccable timing that I couldn't help but laugh too.
Comments (6)
Thank you Ringsei for the report.
Isn't it ironic that Thaksin, the man who tried hard to undermine "democracy" by controlling freedom of speech and media in Thailand under his reign, is a proponent of liberal democracy now?
I wrote this in SA when the coup happened and I still stand by it:
"The roots of the fall of Thai democracy should be primarily attributed to Thaksin's failure to consolidate the fledging democracy in Thailand. Critics point out his blatant vote buying in the rural regions, his political actions against Thailand's independent media, his use of former business dealings to aid his cronies and his purposeful cultivation of social and economic cleavages between Bangkok (where most people support the Democrat Party) and the rural regions to maintain power weakened the democratic institutions of his country. In addition, his poor engagement with civil society activists over the last January's sale of his family's 49 per cent stake in Thailand's biggest telecommunications company to Temasek, Singapore's state investment group, raised the stakes of the political game and made the rise of consensus politics, a vital component in a working democracy, impossible."
There's no denying that Thaksin is a great politician and orator. But whether he is a freedom fighter is yet another question. =)
Posted by Wayne Soon | March 6, 2007 9:28 AM
I tend to think that Abhisit and the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which mounted the anti-Thaksin demonstrations on the basis of him "undermining democracy", and then acquiescing to the military coup, are even bigger hypocrites. It proves that their real objective was political, not ideological.
Posted by Gerald | March 7, 2007 2:27 AM
Ermmm Gerald, the parties you mentioned, are all political parties...so...
Posted by ted | March 7, 2007 11:27 AM
I just have 2 points:
1. I happened to read up on Thaksin on Wikipedia today. Interestingly, for the numerous allegations against Thaksin, few of them have been proven without doubt that Thaksin was corrupt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin
2. For what's been said and done, maybe what Thaksin did may not be as illiberal as what's back home here. Or if whoever took over from Thaksin is more liberal - censoring a CNN interview with Thaksin and then alleging that Thaksin was disrespectful and insulted the King - not a sign of liberalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaksin#Travels
Posted by thor666 | March 8, 2007 1:59 AM
Wayne, glad you enjoyed the post. Further to what you wrote immediately in the wake of the coup, I think a class-based analysis also helps to set things in context. Thaksin and Thai Rat Thai were historically the first party to have a genuine popular base, displacing traditional patron-client dyads in the Northeast (a Choonhaven family fiefdom); a good idea to extend cheap credit there but severely flawed implementation. However, having an iron hold on the legislature, he felt he could ignore the middle class and intelligentsia as well as take on the old elite. I would surmise that the consolidation of his rule would have required him to get more buy-in from the latter powerful groups.
Gerald, I can't condone military and unconstitutional seizures of power but I wouldn't completely dismiss the motives of Thaksin's political opponents either. Yes, their relative acquiescence at the coup undermines their earlier claim to be defending democracy but perhaps we tend to forget how effectively Thaksin had squeezed the liberal out of Thai democracy.
ted, again I don't disagree but I also feel that we need to recognize that political parties do need to tolerate make compromises and u-turns to make internal discipline as well as tactical flexibility that may strike us as unprincipled or inconsistent. This is also a characteristic of successful political parties like Lenin's Bolsheviks and Singapore's very own PAP. But I believe this is what is (regretably) necessary for the complexities of politics. Frankly I feel that it's unrealistic and unproductive to expect politicians and political parties to be 100% pristine and 100% consistent.
thor666, while I use Wikipedia a lot myself, I always take it with varying quantities of salt. Quite a few of the corruption allegations will probably take time to investigate as they are incredibly complex (e.g. alleged kickbacks for the provision of rural credit) and there appears to be an ongoing process of intra-elite negotiation to exchange dropping charges for switching of political positions/allegiances. Of course, the military junta may not be any more liberal but it might be more useful to keep in mind the old elite (Prem, Democrat Party etc) vs new elite (Thaksin and TRT) dimension instead of just focusing on the illiberal vs liberal dimension - which is what the Western press tends to be preoccupied about.
Posted by ringisei | March 10, 2007 5:39 PM
I suppose you can read the hundreds of online newspaper references below Wikipedia to verify. There's a lot of allegations of Thaksin - many without evidence. I would think, even for complex allegations, the government should have some signs of clues or evidence to make a definitive statement about Thaksin's corruptions - rather than him "insulting the King" and trying to "overthrow the monarch". Barring which, I think it would be very hard for either side to make any case given the lack of clear evidence. Undemocratic movements? Maybe. Corrupt? Very hard to decide for now. The irony being, if we were so concerned about democracy, we only have to look back home to see the lack of it.
Posted by thor666 | March 11, 2007 12:02 AM