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.