Populism, the opiate of a 'drugged' people

[Thaihome]

Populism, the opiate of a 'drugged' people

• Published: 29/06/2010 at 12:00 AM
• Newspaper section: News

For better or worse, populism has been on the upswing in Thailand in the last 10 years, roughly corresponding to the rise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra's rule.

Although Thailand has seen populist behaviour before, most especially under the boot of Plaek Phibulsonggram who was a contemporary of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, and who was to some extent influenced by the rabid populism that transmuted into fascism at the time, it wasn't until Thaksin's arrival on the national stage that the Thai term prachaniyom was coined to replace the English-loan word for populism.

The good news for a Bangkok establishment fearful of red shirts taking to the streets again is that populist movements tend to fall apart rather quickly, typically due to the lack of sustainable infrastructure and hard-to-resolve internal contradictions, or, more simply, just by becoming unpopular.
Even populist leaders such as Thaksin who managed to scale the heights of power tend to fall, and fail, rather quickly, because taking over the top slot instantly converts them into a symbol of a new, unjust elite, an easy target for a fresh wave of resentment on the part of those who feel betrayed or excluded from the spoils of power.

The bad news for the establishment is this. Populism isn't conjured up out of thin air or pulled out of the ether. It is rooted to the earth, a reflection of real and perceived problems on the ground. It clings to pre-existing fault lines, makes claim to them, manipulates them, exacerbates and explodes them, in the hopes of triggering a seismic shift in power.
Once the cat is out of the bag, indeed even if the cat has run away, the underlying fault lines and rifts, are right there in the open for all to see. If such a social rift is neglected, it will produce new populists to replace the old ones.

Conditions on the ground, such as the vivid rich-poor gap in Thailand, which seemed in recent memory to be a tolerably exotic if not particularly likeable aspect of Thai society, and may indeed be no worse than other places where no protest is evident, now suddenly seems terribly unjust.
And it should, to the degree it is a reflection of an unpalatable truth, large or small, which many would prefer to ignore than countenance.

Fingering such fault lines is what populists do, and if that were the alpha and omega of populism, it would not be a precursor to fascism.

But then the demagogue comes marching in, the truth gets mangled, and the victims of injustice become unwitting enablers of a wily politician's fame and fortune.
As Henry Louis Mencken famously said, the demagogue preaches "doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots".

As such, the fortunes of demagogic politicians who seek to ride the wave of public indignation depend in large part on media reach, rhetorical persuasion and the ability to amplify complaints in a way that aggrandises the speaker and personifies the cause, until the two are seen as inseparable.
Populism would be less troubling if there was a way to lose the demagogue, but it is precisely the demagogue, who breathes fear and fire into the mix, using lies, half-truths and shrill identity politics, who sways sentiment and moves people to action.

Demagoguery is a project to rid reality of nuance, irony, complexity and even the truth, while casting things in high-contrast black and white. Populist leaders need the polarising, Manichaean divide to get traction, even if it means widening a fragile fissure or ruthlessly exploiting existing cracks in the social edifice.

If they can't meet the people in person, they use the media, especially television, and nowadays the internet, while employing proxies and sycophants to do the up close and personal.

It is telling that so much UDD air-time and stage time at the Ratchaprasong red shirt rallies was frittered away ranting not about poverty, not about unemployment, not about health care or police abuse or minimum wage or slum conditions, but about a horrible, fanged, foaming, blood-thirsty death and destruction-obsessed psycho-killer subhuman monster who goes by the uppity name of Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion of the prime minister; I for one happen to find him intelligent, thoughtful, polite and almost mild-mannered to a fault, though I'd like to see him reach out more to the poor and dispossessed.

But say what you will about the PM's policies, his questionable actions to date and - perhaps more pertinently - a certain degree of ill-timed non-action, the man is no Dracula.
Populists, even when not under threat, are ever in search of enemies, the more dastardly, stark and cartoon-like the better. If they can't find the Dracula of their dreams, they paint fangs on political rivals.

At Ratchaprasong, the red shirts, in both word and deed, betrayed a desperate desire for a truly convincing enemy to whip up the degree of incendiary hatred necessary to provoke fighting in the streets that would in turn set the stage for a rescue from their very own personalised knight in shining armour. They daily portrayed their patron's rival as the devil incarnate, but failed to convince their own political base, let alone society at large.

Thai populism today does not paint a pretty picture of the legendary "land of smiles", let alone a believable and balanced one, because it conceals ruthless political ambition and thrives on manipulative lies and ill will.

But it cannot be dismissed out of hand, either. The yellow shirts used populist technique, not just vilifying their political foes, but initiating the divisive politics of shirt colour to create a destabilising we-them divide in the first place. While Sondhi Limthongkul and Chamlong Srimuang were not strictly populist in the sense that they chose to uphold the status quo and embrace the elite rather than challenge it, they nonetheless introduced a troubling kind of more-Thai-than-thou attitude which edged society closer to the slippery slope of loyalty tests and prosecution of "unThai" activities.
It was at red shirt-controlled Ratchaprasong this past May where a rather more earthy populism briefly blossomed, and subsequently withered, as the core leadership abandoned the crowd and the absent patron went shopping at a pricy boutique in Paris.

The message of red shirt propaganda, however badly twisted, smoke-screened and distorted, however opportunistically hitched to a desperate tycoon trying to regain fame and fortune, was not just hot air.

A bleak, borderline subversive vision of Thailand as a country split into two classes was shrewdly introduced, branded and marketed, court jester-style, on the red stage in which credible singers, emcees, comedians and political hacks all chimed in and tried to stay on message.

They can claim some success to the degree that a trumped up we-them divide deepened and spread around the country, but it wouldn't have taken wing if it did not contain at least a kernel of truth.

While material conditions in the countryside have generally improved, there truly is a stark divide between rich and poor that goes far beyond unequal bank accounts and extends to the social sphere, an endemic divide that offends democratic sensibilities.

If the red shirts have anything worthwhile to say, it is a truism that predates them and will outlast their demise.

There is injustice in the land and it needs urgent tending to.

Philip J Cunningham is a freelance writer and political commentator.

[StrontiumDog]

Interesting read, thanks TH.

Nice use of the word "Manichaean". I'd forgotten it, but it is one I will employ with renewed vigour. It's highly appropriate for some here.

[Butterfly]

populism always lead to Fascism, that's why most "Democracy" have a system in place to stop it from happening. In Thailand, we have the army

oh the irony,

nice article, of course silence from our usual demagogue red supporters

[Butterfly]

As Henry Louis Mencken famously said, the demagogue preaches "doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots".

better words couldn't describe the current situation here, both for the yellow and the reds.

The bad news for the establishment is this. Populism isn't conjured up out of thin air or pulled out of the ether. It is rooted to the earth, a reflection of real and perceived problems on the ground. It clings to pre-existing fault lines, makes claim to them, manipulates them, exacerbates and explodes them, in the hopes of triggering a seismic shift in power.

and that's why the most important task of this government should be to carry deep social reforms, like high taxes for the rich, the reform of the military and the police, social programs for the poor. In terms of priority, social programs for the poor should be first, followed by the restitution of the government authority and the state rule of laws in the provinces. Unfortunately, this means to implement an "authoritarian" regime in the government agencies like France and England currently have.

[Thaihome]

The only solution to populism is the middle class that are much less likely to be taken in.

The author addresses some shorter term solutions, but the long term is to break the rural poverty cycle and with that out goes the rural political strongman.

The rural poverty cycle is not broken by government hand outs, it is broken by development and giving the younger generation a way out.
TH

[sabang]

populism has been on the upswing in Thailand in the last 10 years

What a coincidence- it was just over ten years ago that the last democratic elections held in this country were actually respected, and voters not disenfranchised.

As best I can see, the article fails to even mention this, and it is a major omission. There are social and economic divides and any sort of rational, far sighted policy should be addressing this. And we certainly gather the author doesn't like Thaksin- thats what about 90% of the article seemed to be getting at, and discrediting the UDD by association.

But by repeatedly not mentioning, or glossing over the fact that a large part of the popular resentment is because of the repeated disenfranchisement of the peoples vote, well I do think that this 'pro-Government' sort of spin basically gives itself away. Unfortunately for them, wishing it away will not make it so, and failing to mention it will not make people forget.

[The Ghost Of The Moog]

The populism that arose in Thailand was a mutation of post crisis nationalism.

Surviving business elites banding together to take a grip on an economy that had been subject to gross macro mismanagement. Tossing the electorate a few dollars underwrote that at the ballot box.

The reaction from the Opposition's perspective should have been recalibrating their own policies to provide authentic social reforms when the wheels finally fell off the faction-ridden Government, to allow them to take the helm (and this has happened in several Asian countries).

This didn't happen. Yes, they eventually got their power, but in a way that many, whether fair or not, still perceive as unsavoury, and without having had to give any real thought or implementation in building their constituency or having an action plan.

So there is now a Government that is neither ideological, reform-oriented or apparently having any purpose beyond that of enduring in Government, as their knuckles turn white with hanging on in there.

Power for its own sake, supported by draconian censorship, knee-jerk ineffective spindoctoring that even a tenth rate PR agency could improve upon, cosying up to the same pragmatic, disreputable money politicians, and ostensibly there for the purpose of supporting one institution at the expense of weakening all other democratic institutions.

In the Asian sphere, Thailand remains a side-lined country. In the wider global community Thailand is and always was a joke nation, but for different reasons.


<Edit: there isn't necessarily anything wrong with a party wanting to be in power for the sake of being in power -(its what motivates a lot of politicians everywhere), as long as they exercise their power to further some platform. Here though, for the last four years, the assumption of that power seems to be predicated mainly on denying it to the other lot......and you just can't run a country like that >.
.

[Thaihome]

The populism that arose in Thailand was a mutation of post crisis nationalism.

Surviving business elites banding together to take a grip on an economy that had been subject to gross macro mismanagement. Tossing the electorate a few dollars underwrote that at the ballot box.

The reaction from the Opposition's perspective should have been recalibrating their own policies to provide authentic social reforms when the wheels finally fell off the faction-ridden Government, to allow them to take the helm (and this has happened in several Asian countries).

This didn't happen. Yes, they eventually got their power, but in a way that many, whether fair or not, still perceive as unsavoury, and without having had to give any real thought or implementation in building their constituency or having an action plan.

So there is now a Government that is neither ideological, reform-oriented or apparently having any purpose beyond that of enduring in Government, as their knuckles turn white with hanging on in there.

Power for its own sake, supported by draconian censorship, knee-jerk ineffective spindoctoring that even a tenth rate PR agency could improve upon, cosying up to the same pragmatic, disreputable money politicians, and ostensibly there for the purpose of supporting one institution at the expense of weakening all other democratic institutions.

In the Asian sphere, Thailand remains a side-lined country. In the wider global community Thailand is and always was a joke nation, but for different reasons.


<Edit: there isn't necessarily anything wrong with a party wanting to be in power for the sake of being in power -(its what motivates a lot of politicians everywhere), as long as they exercise their power to further some platform. Here though, for the last four years, the assumption of that power seems to be predicated mainly on denying it to the other lot......and you just can't run a country like that >.
.

I don’t have any real argument with theme of your post, but would like to clarify a few details.

Could you say which other Asian countries recalibrated their own policies to provide authentic social reforms when the wheels finally fell off the faction-ridden Government, to allow them to take the helm? Korea comes to mind, but the economic policies followed by the new government elected after the ’97 crash were the same as the Democrats used in Thailand in the same period. Both of which allowed both countries to recover. A more fitting comparison might be the populist Uri Party which after winning the first majority in Korean history, went on to self destruct in blaze of scandal and corruption, culminating in the suicide of Roh Moo-hyun last year.


Why do you limit your statement on a party wanting to stay in power for power sakes to just the last 4 years? You don’t think the Thaksin and the TRT was intent on setting up a New Front type coalition that would ensure they won every election and stayed in power? Was there ever any sustainability to the social programs the TRT put in place? The programs were blatant bribes to the poor, funded by the middle class (who are the only ones that actually pay taxes in Thailand) done to make sure they the poor stayed beholden to the local faction.

In Thailand, it always comes down to the factions and until a way is found to limit their power to deliver blocks of votes Thai politics is going to be a mess. I believe the economic development will continue, the middle class will continue to grow and that is how the factions will be broken. The trick is going to be avoiding a Hugo Chavez coming along that will thoroughly fuck it up.
TH

[The Ghost Of The Moog]

I'm thinking Japan, Taiwan, and Indonesia.

I'm sure its possible to dissect these countries to find a myriad of explanations (other than policy), about why the opposition got in (and in some cases got thrown out again), but those Oppositions did get their tilt against monolithic entrenched governments. They were patient and they got their chance.

Would Thaksin's party have held a money-grip on power permanently? Good question. At the time, it certainly felt like it. History shows frequently though that a political phenomena that appears to be permanent is actually transitory. Thai Rak Thai would have flamed out eventually.

Malaysia, Singapore? Right now one says with conviction - 'gosh, there will always be a status quo there, '....but of course, who can tell.

Of course we never know this until the history books are written and we see with 20/20 hindsight the flaws that brought them down (eg: not having any authentic deep reform policies in the case of TRT). The Democrats or some iteration would have probably got their win eventually.

[GooMaiRoo]

"Populism" is an Orwellian term, a degrading and misleading label tossed around by the Western mass media for any non-leftist political movement that attempts to materially improve the life of the average person. In the USA, for example, Pat Buchanan is labeled "populist" simply because he's an anti-war, anti-immigration and economic-protectionist Republican. Buchanan's populist label defines him as a rabble-rouser whose only intention is to channel public discontent into personal political power. Critical examination of his ideas is conveniently deflected. The reality that Thaksin told the IMF to go f*ck itself, made it easier for the rural poor to attend university, provided micro loans to small farmers and created affordable medical care becomes irrelevant when he's labeled a populist. His movement is degraded and trivialized by such a label. Sure, Thaksin was a crook. Most politicians are. But to slap the populist label on Thaksin prevents a critical look at the efficacy of his policies while Prime Minister and turns needed attention away from the causes of public discontent in Thailand.

[Butterfly]

The populism that arose in Thailand was a mutation of post crisis nationalism.

1997 changed a lot of things here, our "newbies" expats keep forgetting that

Surviving business elites banding together to take a grip on an economy that had been subject to gross macro mismanagement. Tossing the electorate a few dollars underwrote that at the ballot box.

The reaction from the Opposition's perspective should have been recalibrating their own policies to provide authentic social reforms when the wheels finally fell off the faction-ridden Government, to allow them to take the helm (and this has happened in several Asian countries).

and you nailed perfectly the core issue, this is exactly what it is.

This didn't happen. Yes, they eventually got their power, but in a way that many, whether fair or not, still perceive as unsavoury, and without having had to give any real thought or implementation in building their constituency or having an action plan.

So there is now a Government that is neither ideological, reform-oriented or apparently having any purpose beyond that of enduring in Government, as their knuckles turn white with hanging on in there.

agree, but the Thaksin Fascist movement (reds and a few others) has been a big "distraction" for a government trying to "fix" the political crisis. The problem is that we have a Fascist group trying to take over, and the only way to defend yourself against such a group is to become a "Fascist" yourself. In that regard, the government becomes the same as the Fascist opposition to save itself. If we want the government to stop using "Fascist" tactics, we need to "destroy" the cause, that is Thaksin and his fascist movement.

Would Thaksin's party have held a money-grip on power permanently? Good question. At the time, it certainly felt like it. History shows frequently though that a political phenomena that appears to be permanent is actually transitory. Thai Rak Thai would have flamed out eventually.

That was the danger since the beginning. Eventually the "populist" and "fascists" idea would have gone, and instead we would have an official "Fascist" regime with the full support of the Thai population, at least in the beginning until all opposition were crushed. Not sure the Issaan poor would have done better than now.

Take a simple example and see Mugabe as the perfect "popular" fascist when he went after the white farmer to consolidate his power. Look where he is now.

The fascism threat in Thailand is real, the UDD and Thaksin are strongly behind it, there is no negotiation possible with that group, above all when they start using terrorist techniques to further their agenda.

[sabang]

This might help with your Hot flushes BF-

[Bettyboo]

Crap article in my opinion; says virtually nothing, just does so with a lot of words, and in a very biased manner...

[Butterfly]

This might help with your Hot flushes

have you tried getting less of this ?