By David Simmons
When Thailand’s
popularly elected government was overthrown this year, an English
expatriate friend who lives in the country’s Southern region –
the only heartland of the royalist anti-democracy movement outside
Bangkok itself – rejoiced that with “Thaksin out of the way”,
badly needed road repairs were finally taking place in his town.
It’s easy to
laugh at the suggestion that the exiled billionaire Thaksin
Shinawatra, himself turfed out as prime minister by the military in
2006, has the time and energy – while continuing to “bleed the
country dry”, usurp control of the offshore petroleum fields in the
Gulf of Thailand, and “run the country” via Skype from his
apartment in Dubai – to interfere personally in the pothole-repair
program of a small beach town in Prachuap Khiri Khan province. But
one of the most bizarre aspects of the polarization that tore
Thailand apart in the first half of 2014 and, arguably, nearly
resulted in civil war was the extent to which expats bought into the
Thaksin personality cult – pro and con.
The fact that a
large minority of Thais, predominantly in Bangkok and the South,
swallowed wholesale the largely fantastical demonization of Thaksin
during the six months or so of political chaos that ended with the
return of the country to military dictatorship was not surprising.
Most Thais, even wealthier people with the benefit of a foreign
education, are deeply superstitious, and are brainwashed from birth
to believe their monarch is a demigod. So believing that a telecom
tycoon – especially if he hails from the primitive Northern region
of which the mysterious city of Chiang Mai is the capital, and is
excluded from the favours of the royal court – can be possessed of
devilish powers is no great leap of faith. His worshippers, by
extension, in the North and Northeast are part of a lost tribe that
not only must be excluded from a role in choosing their own national
leaders, but (as suggested by the since-resigned Miss Universe
Thailand, among others) should be “executed” as enemies of His
Majesty the Demigod.
A few years ago
I wrote a blog piece (Dream State) about how
everything in Thailand centres on dreams, and not the boring
practicality of most Western states (of which, of course, the
boringest of all is probably my own homeland). This dream state is
largely what makes Thais, and their country, so charming, but also so
challenging, even frustrating, to live with.
This became a
glaring reality during this year’s anti-democracy campaign
spearheaded by Suthep Thaugsuban, the alleged mastermind of the 2010
massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators in Bangkok during the
previous unelected government of Abhisit Vejjajiva. His campaign this
year was alarming to most of us on the pro-democracy side not because
(as was often alleged) we had any fondness for Thaksin, a renowned
thug and crook in his own right, but because of its fascistic
elements. Day after day invective, lies, slander and incitement to
hatred and violence were hurled from the huge stages Suthep set up in
the middle of Bangkok’s main intersections, funded by big business
and applauded by the media, the police prohibited by the corrupt
courts from shutting him down and getting the capital operating
again. But arguing this to our friends on the opposite side of the
debate was pointless; the whole scenario was based on belief systems,
not logic or even hard economic data.
Well, what about
us democrats? Weren’t we “true believers” as well, choosing to
overlook strong evidence that democracy had failed not only in
Thailand but elsewhere in Asia? Or the world, for that matter?
One does not
have to look very far afield, after all, to find compelling evidence
of the failure of democratic experiments. India, the world’s most
populous democracy and the oldest in Asia, is still largely backward
and wallowing in poverty. If the main purpose of a governmental
system is to improve the people’s economic status, there is a good
argument that the communist dictatorships of China and Vietnam, at
least over the past couple of decades, have done a far better job.
The Philippines was in some ways more prosperous under the Marcos
dictatorship than it has been, until very recently, under democratic
regimes. Discounting the absolute monarchy of Brunei as an anomaly,
the richest countries in Southeast Asia – Singapore and Malaysia –
are only quasi-democracies. Indonesia is a lone success story among
the relatively young democracies in the region, and there are
questions about its stability too.
All of this is
not lost on educated Asians, who say, “Southeast Asia is where
democracy goes to die.” The reason, many argue, is that the
democratic systems Asians have experimented with have been based on
those of alien cultures, primarily the United States and Europe, and
what is happening over there? Those countries’ political systems
have been hijacked by the financial industry that with impunity
nearly destroyed the global economy in 2008; youth unemployment in
much of southern Europe is as high as 50%; millions of Americans
languish below the poverty line, with their offspring’s massive
student-loan debts ensuring a lifetime in the economic doldrums;
elected legislatures are dominated by millionaires totally out of
touch with ordinary people; and more meaningful democratic entities
such as trade unions have been decimated.
So why do we
still believe in democracy? More to the point, why do we believe in
anything? Is there such a thing as empirical fact?
Ninety per cent
or more of climate scientists say the planet is warming to dangerous
levels because of humans’ misuse of the environment, but television
stations can always find a few to say it ain’t so. As I write this,
the Israel Defence Forces are slaughtering Palestinians by the
hundreds, yet millions of people who nominally detest violence and
support human rights say it’s just fine because Israel “has a
right to exist” according to millennia-old myths. Do you support
the anti-Russian regime in Kiev or its opponents in eastern Ukraine?
Depends on your belief system. What about the Rohingya – are they
victims of unjustifiable persecution by Myanmar’s Buddhist majority
or just a bunch of ragtag “Bengalis” who should go back where
they came from? Depends on your belief system.
I like to submit
that my own belief system is based more on evidence and logic than on
myth, personality cults and wishful thinking. I oppose the kind of
military dictatorship Thailand now has because I know of the excesses
of similar types of regime in this very neighbourhood, notably the
Khmer Rouge, which was at least mercifully short-lived though the
damage it did was not, and the longer-lasting State Peace and
Development Council in Myanmar – whose very name has been reflected
by Thailand’s National Council for Peace and Order. Thais, for now,
are only grateful that their capital has been cleared of Suthep’s
thugs and the pro-Thaksin “red shirt” hotheads have been subdued
for the time being, and they can return to their beloved shopping
malls in peace. The emerging megalomania of the dictator concerns no
one, for now.
Saint Paul wrote
to the Corinthians, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and
love. But the greatest of these is love.” He didn’t even mention
evidence and logic. Funny, that.
