On Media Sensationalism, Busting the Hunger Games Bubble, and Perspectives on Oppression

Everyone is talking about Thailand again. It’s a weird thing to get news from outside of the country before you hear about it inside the country. In my last few posts on the takeover by the military Junta I have tried to shed some perspective on the situation, while still maintaining the point that eventually military rule has to end, and the sooner the better. It actually seemed like things were calming down though. From what I’ve saw and heard and read, all the major protests were isolated to Bangkok, I’ve only had one person tell me that there were protests in Chaing Mai, but the military check points increase as you get close to Bangkok, and are almost a non-factor in the North. Added to this, there seem to have been no protests against the Junta, as large as those that occurred before the Junta took power. So what has brought the attention of the west back to Thailand’s, almost traditional at this point, coup? The Huuuuungeeeeer Games! Sorry but I couldn’t help it.

                Articles from Wired, The Global Post, and Amnesty International, have all followed the same trend. Describe a surreal situation in which a salute from a movie has been re-purposed in a mirrored situation. Or at least this is the headline and the first paragraph: a shallow and plastic comparison of the dystopian government from the hit novel turned movie franchise and the actual real life coup. It does make for a good story, too bad it seems to lack any real attempt to educate. The articles largely glide over the small scale of the protests until the third or so paragraph and even then, they are much more interested in the catchy hand signal than a critical look at the issue. I read an article the other day that remarked that Thailand’s coup was systematic of South East Asia’s regression from democracy. It’s not at all. That’s just a good tag line. Thailand is a unique situation. It isn't indicative of anything but Thailand's own particular story. The military says that they took control because the elected government had become incapable of actually governing. This is not an ideal situation, but considers this: people we’re dying in the streets of Bangkok, and there was a non-military organization that was pushing against the government and questioning the validity of the results and the government’s ability to rule. The military did not hand over power to this group. To stop the fighting they took the current leaders from power which silenced the “people’s coup”, that was opposing the government. And everything has been safer now.

Some may causally throw out that Ben Franklin line “those who would sacrifice security for freedom deserve neither”, but think about this. Most people in Chiyaphom don’t care. Most people in Lampong don’t care. Most people in Thailand don’t care. Now if we were talking about the Royal family that would be a different issue. But most people already know that no matter what government is allowed to exist when the military returns the reigns, nothing will change for them. Their lives will continue along, as good or as bad as it was before. So the protests, which mostly interest a higher social class than most of Thailand only brought them the fear that comes with deaths in the street. This is different from Egypt or Burma. In Burma, if you’re Muslim right now, your life could be in danger if you catch the attention of a high ranking monk. So many uncounted atrocities are happening in that country because of the harsh and repressive social order. In Egypt, an equally powerful, but less favorable military has sided with a regressive government that is in many ways worse than the Mubarak regime. But the junta in Thailand is not randomly attacking any one social group, or siding with anyone in particular unfairly. They have taken some unsettling measures, like calling people into camps and making them promise not to speak out against the military, but it isn’t random people. It’s former government officials and others who have enough sway to restart the violence. They are putting peace over freedom (classical liberal freedom), which doesn’t sound good to Americans in particular (I’m not crazy about it myself), but we don’t always get to dictate to another country what is ok and what isn’t. We also shouldn’t sensationalize a real issue in an actual country because its gives us a better news headline. Thailand isn’t one of your thirteen districts. Sorry. 

On a side note, the only time I saw the Three finger salute was when my orientation leader raised it to get us to be quiet so he could give us direction. We laughed. Hopefully no one thought he was making some grand statement.     
Edit: Just want to be clear, my issue is with the sensationalism of media coverage on Thailand, and not any particular group. I hope that doesn't get lost in the post.  

     

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.