Explanation and Short Recap

There was no post last night because there was no internet in my hotel last night. This sort of thing happens in Thailand. There is a Mai Pen Rai culture. Mai Pen Rai translates roughly to don't worry about it.So some times your lights will go out (even on the plans which was the most scary thing for someone who doesn't fly often), Mai Pen Rai. Sometimes your internet goes out Mai Pen Rai. Sometimes it happens at the same time as another weird event concerning the internet, Mai Pen Rai?

Yesterday when I got home the general of the Thai army was on all the TV stations. He was warning that there may be a restriction of social media sites such as Facebook. He said that there have been those on those sites trying to insight violence and chaos. I don't doubt that there have been call for protests on Facebook, though I don't think it's that big of a deal. Mass protests in Thailand against the military just doesn't seem likely. I was in a market when the national anthem started playing (it plays everywhere twice a day) and everyone just stopped in there tracks, stood up, and fell silent. It's the weirdest sight. The people who do this sort of thing seem unlikely to rebel.

The only worrisome thing is that the military seems to be taking these threats more seriously than I would. Also they haven't announced an election, though they have promised one. Whether or not this coup could be considered an OK thing to me would depend on the delivery of a legitimate and open election. I have no reason to believe that this won't happen, but the delay is less than settling. But most people here don't seem worried. Mai Pen Rai    
 

The promise of Education inherent in Democracy

*note tonight is going to be a quick post because of a hectic day, and a well-deserved social interaction session—will get back to Dostoevsky paragraphs tomorrow. There be typos.   

                I’m in Thailand primarily to teach English, and today I was able to visit a Thai school and sit in, observe, and even teach classes for the first time. There are three things to note here: 1. the importance of the English language versus distaste for cultural destruction. 2. The ASEAN focus. 3. Witnessing an election, that spoke volumes. The basic point I want to bring from all of these is that a democracy that functions in any way that could be effectively called democratic must ensure education for all participants (what that education consists of is debatable, but that it is necessary seems insurmountable). And secondly that the only sort of patriotism or general political ambition I can condone is one that sees progress as key to life, and identity as constantly in flux.

                I had a conversation with some other American English teachers, all who are of course, highly educated at top schools and bright in individualistic in liberal arts types of ways. Some comments struck me as familiar to I felt before and I do believe that their solution was also the solution I eventually came to. How can you say that all cultures are equally valid and all forms of expression, equally on fire with a sacred (secular) fire of life and go to a country to teach kids to be more western? This is a fair critic and one that I battled with immensely (I will revisit this in a longer post, but I want to get, it’s basically the most important political-philosophical question of the global era). Well when I walked into a classroom today a student bravely stood up and told me that she wanted to be a doctor. Later on in that same class she told me that she wanted to live in America. This is such a big deal. Sometimes we philosophers can get so away from people that we forget they aren’t just theoretical. There was a little girl and she had a dream—a ‘non-superficial’, super important dream, on fire with that sacred flame I alluded to earlier. The gift of English would allow her to accomplish that goal and I would dare deny here that because some people are worried or upset a status quo so old that no one remembers its point of origin will be disturbed? I will not. She will still be Thai, in fact she will be the one to define what that even means in her day.

                Thailand is part of the ASEAN community and if you didn’t know before you went into a classroom, you would after. Facts about ASEAN embroider the walls of every classroom. They see the success and flourishing of that community of south Asian countries as the key to their future development, and the official language to that is English. So here we have two points of geopolitics intertwining: the need to band together in like-minded groups to secure your shared prosperity and the need to be a member of a larger world that is going to engulf you whether you move towards it or not. The world is global and there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. We must learn what democracy means in this age.  

Lastly, I want to talk about an election I witnessed today that was momentous. It was the school election for the class presidents of every grade school class. I say this humorously, but I do think that there is immense value in the process. The elections were conducted on actual election boxes that are used in elections (like the ones we use in America and the ones that soon Thai’s will hopefully be returning to). The boxes were brought out and set up by the ROTC students, an extremely popular program here. And all the students got to vote. Now, this may be a superficial vote (I didn’t hear any of the candidate’s platforms), but it shows the children a glimpse of a future that they should be promised. This allows them to acclimate and prepare for the enormous burden that is participating in a liberal democracy. And as we learned on our last few posts, this may be one of the most important lessons that these kids could learn to ensure future triumph. Thanks for reading. I will do better tomorrow.                     

Ideal Worlds versus Real Worlds and Giving the Scary Guys the Benefit of the Doubt

OK so this may be a controversial post, but probably not for the reasons you’d expect. I want to talk about the recent arrest of the former cabinet minister of the Thai government, as he denounced the coup. It’s an interesting conversation, because we Americans believe in Democracy to such an extent, that it seems like any breach of that democracy must have been done by malicious forces. I can tell you that I can’t find one piece of evidence to support this. For those not familiar with what happened Tuesday, AFP reported “Bangkok (AFP) - Thai soldiers swooped to detain a fugitive former cabinet minister on Tuesday after he emerged from hiding to become the first member of the ousted government to publicly denounce a military coup.” The former official held a press conference in which he stated his opinions openly about the coup. He knew that he would be arrested, and he still firmly believed that it was the right thing to do.

Here’s the thing, maybe he’s not wrong, but I also don’t think that the military is wrong. At least in Lampiog, there doesn't seem to be a negative view on the military. Even university students here, a demographic notorious for political angst, seem to see the military in a less negative light than many in the western media has portrayed them. As I walked next to a train station/ pop up market yesterday I saw military men in full uniform carrying automatic weapons. This, of course, can be disheartening or generally scary for American tourists. The two young Thai university girls with me, they took the opportunity to take selfies. They asked if I wanted to try and get one with a solider. I declined, though when I tell this story later in life I’ll fudge that part. That’s a humorous slant on a very serious issue but it is a reaction indicative of a general feeling. Thailand is not a violent place. There are low crime rates, and the popular sport Maui Thai (A mix of kick boxing and other fighting styles native to Thailand) is general disliked by Thais because of their feelings towards aggression. Overwhelmingly, it is foreigners who really enjoy and support the sport. But, during the protests people were actually dying here. From everything that I have seen of Thailand that doesn’t make sense.

So the military stepped in and seized power, not granting it to one side over the other through political-gainsmanship, rather they stepped in and removed both sides of the conflict. Now perhaps this move doesn’t make sense to Americans. But let’s give this some serious and critical thought. Both sides of the conflict seemed completely entrenched in the idea that their side was the legitimate voice in Thailand. In my last post, I talked about the necessity for someone to be willing to lose for a democracy to properly operate. In a situation in which both sides showed less than superb leadership to end the conflict peacefully for the sake of saving lives, there was a force whose whole mission is to protect a nation, that stood there with enough power to act, and what they say, was a legitimate reason to—to ensure peace only. This reminds me particularly of the Egyptian army.

 The Thai military didn’t really seize power, so to speak. They always had power. During the revolts in Egypt some questioned the role of the military really without thinking about a possible motive. Militaries are often painted as power hungry factions within foreign countries but neither the Thai nor Egyptian army are power hungry. I’m not saying that they are benevolent, but rather that they already held the largest share of power within their respective countries. The Egyptian army corners basically most of the major economic markets within Egypt and is the most stable organization within that country by far. This is similar to Thailand. In Thailand the military has not had to face the political drawbacks of democracy (unhappy citizenry entitled to a voice). The royal family enjoys a large amount of popularity as I have noted but though everyone seems to love the king and his daughter, there are those who worry about who will take over if the aging king passes. (Let me be clear to any possible Thai readers, this is not a criticism. This is simply a restatement of some of the things I have heard from the Thai people.) The military however, does not have to operate in such a strong feedback loop. In both Thailand and Egypt, the military has had really one motive: ensure stability regardless of the leader because that is their job, and to their advantage.

Often we good liberals can paint a reactionary and negative picture of military forces without really thinking about it critically (note I include myself in those that make this mistake). In truth, militaries were devised to organize a citizenry against a physical threat that looms too large for individuals to combat or police forces to police. Perhaps, one could object that these have to be external threats, but I think only the most radical of thinkers would object to the military in America, attacking credible threats of domestic terrorism or mass violence committed by citizens. If twenty people died in an American protest tomorrow, we would be clamoring for the National Guard to swoop in and restore order. What I’m saying is that, in an ideal world. Democracy and the agency it affords individuals should be cherished and held in the highest of regards. However, in a world in which two opposing political parties start killing each other, someone has to consider the right of impartial parties to ensure their security and life. I’m not taking a side here. I love democracy, but I’m just saying, it’s also nice to know that I won’t be caught in the cross-hairs of an unreasonable political actor.                  

Lastly I want to make two notes. First, everyone was asked by the military to turn themselves in for questioning, and some who complied have even been already released. He was already wanted, not because of his denouncements, in which he said “from now on there will be more and more resistance”, which was a poor choice of phrasing. Secondly, the curfew, that was already lax in enforcement, was eased today from 12(midnight) to 4(in the morning). Thanks for reading.                             

Context and the Difference between Liberalism and Illiberalism

One of the problems with Western perception of the current political happenings in Thailand is a general lack of context. No one can reasonably blame the average citizen for not knowing much about the history of a country half way across the world, but if someone is reading this (you made it to the second post!) then  they are probably the type of person who chats with friends about this sort of thing, or considers themselves a scholar. That would mean that this would be a good place to add some well needed context to the conversation. Given the prevalence of Buddhism, one could easily and reasonably assume a strong influence of Indian culture onto Thailand, and this is very much accurate. The influence largely can be credited to the legendary Indian Emperor Ashoka, who plays a critical role in many southeastern mythic-historical accounts including the Mahavamsa, which is at the root of Sri Lankan Just War Buddhist doctrines. Really, Thailand starts to take shape as the place we know it to be in 1782 when Bangkok was established as the capital of Thailand by Rami 1 the Great. Though there is a rich history of the time between this and modern Thailand to be explored, I won’t burden you with the details or myself with doing more research tonight. What we have above will suffice.

 Jump ahead to the modern era and an interesting fact steps out. Thailand is the only southeastern country to never become colonized, which was partly due to the land concessions that the King made to European forces to secure the vast majority of Thai land. This ability to self-determine has led to some interesting outcomes. There is always infighting in a country the age of Thailand, but any bitterness that persists is nothing compared to the lasting effects of Imperialism on countries like those in Northern Africa, the Middle East and even its neighbors in Southern Asia. The preservation of religious autonomy has developed a rich cultural history and a country dripping with physical history and symbolism of grand and venerable importance. The political character of Thailand, for most of its history, was absolute monarchy. There had been slight murmurs of democracy and self-governance in Thailand, but in 1932, the unsuspected thing happened. I have heard two versions of this story. In the first version the King did what no one expected and voluntarily abdicated full power of the country in favor of a constitutional monarchy in which he would retain certain powers and give the rest to a democratically elected body. Another version of the story states that some citizens and military officers took the power in a bloodless revolution. I can’t confirm the validity of either story, yet in any case, we see a leader who was able to surrender power without the need for violence or warfare—this is going to be an important point when we start to talk about what is happening today. In all likely-hood the king did not have to relinquish any power at all. After all, he was seen as a ‘Dharmaraja’ which means that he is a ‘King who rules in accordance with Dharma’. Even to this day the king is honored in god like status by many loyalists and there were many very unhappy with the idea that their pseudo god-king would not be in absolute country. Today as I walked in a market in Lampong everyone eating got up out of their seats stared directly in front of them and paused silently. I realized that they were observing the King’s anthem. Everyone did it without coercion or hesitance—even children and the elderly. It is still illegal to criticize the king of Thailand, who wields more power in the government than occurs in British Constitutional Monarchy. The rules about criticism are taken seriously by the citizens who still like the king very much even today. Despite the power of influence and respect wielded by the monarchy, Thailand has not been without its political turmoil. It’s the constitutional aspect of the Constitutional Monarchy that has faced the majority of the issues. As I alluded to in the previous post, coups are nothing new to Thailand— since 1932 there have been about 30 or so coups.

Though again let’s put this into context. Fifty years ago there were only ten cars in the district of Lampong. Everyone used horse and carriage—today only used to shuttle the occasional romantic tourist who doesn’t (yet) know how bad horses smell. Seventy years may seem like a long time but it took America, under the government that persists today, almost 200 years to move from ‘Illiberal Democracy’ to what can be considered the liberal democracy it is today. ‘Illiberal Democracy’ is a term mostly credited to Fareed Zakaria and it refers to a democracy in which the regular orders of democratic life break down at some point— be it at ensuring equitable civil liberties, or holding free and fair elections, or just functioning in a genuine non-corrupt way. Despite the high scores Thailand makes on the Human Developmental Index (the best in South East Asia), Thailand still seems to suffer from the inability to function in the way that a democracy basically should—notably the ability to accept the outcomes of an election. Fareed Zakaria revisited the issues of illiberal democracies in his praise of Mexico’s leader’s ability to stand next to each other on a stage, after months of fierce ideological debate, and have the successor willingly and gladly hand over power to those who were elected in his stead. This represented a landmark in Mexico’s political history—for a country plagued by partisan rebukes of election results in every election cycle, this is a big deal. Zakaria referenced the American 2000 elections, which saw a down to the wire decision that was obviously controversial and debatable. He said that American democracy was actually put to the test that next morning and it succeeded with flying colors. The ability for Al Gore to accept what felt like an obviously contestable lose, proved America’s ability to respect the process and mechanics codified in our constitution and that ensure liberal society. Thailand, it seems, has not quite reached that point. This is not unreasonable. The country’s democratic aspects are still relatively young and it took the United States twice the time, to even be able to call themselves a fully liberal democracy. Here is where the coup comes to play. Is it a good idea for a military junta to take over the government in order to ensure stability and reset the democratic functions? Is that really what they’re doing? Were the elections even legitimate in the first place? These are all questions this blog will be exploring in detail in the upcoming weeks. Thank you for reading. Please stay tuned.                   

We begin with a Question

The last few years, have seen their fair share of political upheavals. What would the first half of this decade be without the Arab Spring? What is to become of Venezuela? How can we reach a critically equitable solution to the Ukrainian problem, which threatened to throw the entire world back thirty years? So when I heard about the problems in Thailand, like so many others, I thought I had some general idea about where this was going. I thought that this was the next Domino. As I prepared to take a job in that country for nine months, I did my research and learned that I might have been mistaken. And getting here today I now know that I don’t get it at all. Whatever Thailand is said to be in the media or over a water cooler, that isn’t what greeted me. I flew into a country under Martial Law, and didn't realize it until I was two minutes late for mandatory curfew, and lost in a dark and alleyway market.  It also seemed I wasn't the only one who forgot about it— it seems the crowds of native Thai’s, and the police did as well.

‘Life goes on as usual, this is nothing new’. This is the message that I got from everyone who had actually been in Thailand for an extended amount of time, or was living in the land during the coup. Of course, my employers could have been lying to get me to continue to accept moving half way across the world to a country with a destabilizing (turned non-active) government. But this was told to me by friends, by mentors, and by people who had taken the trip themselves and had nothing to lose by telling me the truth. Nevertheless, my nervousness persisted. But the truth is Thailand is not a powder keg. It’s not going to blow any second. It’s probably not going to blow at all. How can this be? We all saw the protests on TV, and we saw how passionate the parties were against each other. But as I saw myself in a crowd of people— people not running home as curfew loomed ever closer, I knew that something different was happening here. Folks in Thailand seem actually pretty relaxed— scratch that— insanely relaxed. How can this dichotomy persist? How can the Land of Smiles also be the Land of the Repeating Coup, averaging about one every six years? This is what this blog is going to be about. I want to look at Thailand in the light of Contemporary Political Thought, Ancient Buddhist philosophy, the on the ground experience of an amateur philosopher from the West in a country he doesn't understand. I hope to post daily here, but I don’t know how reliable my internet will be, and I don’t know my schedule. Likely most posts, like this one, will be hastily planned in the morning on a piece of tissue paper and cobbled together late at night, instead of sleeping. I hope we can all learn something.