GWR
22-11-05, 12:15 PM
Book Review: The impurity of protest - by Ron Morris
Review of Democracy, Shaken and Stirred by Win Lyovarin and translated by Prisna Boonsinsukh
Winner of the SEA Write Awards 1997 and Thailand National Book Award 1995
See the whole of Ron's Review at the link below:-
http://www.2bangkok.com/2bangkok/thaimediaproject/DemocracyShakenandStirred.shtml
My own thoughts:-
Some folk have suggested that this book lacks any real atmosphere. I guess it would be interesting to know if that is an impression gained from reading the original Thai version, or an indirect observation of the fact that translation is often a very impressionistic artform.
I enjoyed this book for its direct & indirect references to some elements of factual (& perhaps mythic) Thai history. I don’t intend to review the book as such, but I would like to ask other interested posters a question.
When reading this as a set university book, what other thoughts might Thai students take away from it other than the very obvious one that in Thai politics it is all too easy to be drawn off at a dangerous tangent by those who view politics purely as a business tool?
This book sometimes makes for depressing reading, as the author also seems to have suffered the same crisis of confidence often expressed by other 70s activists. Khun Win manages to achieve some degree of optimism at the end - although the reader won't find any statement in the book that clearly demonstrates the basis of his hope.
I tend to put things in the simplest of terms. That’s partly because I believe that excessive political analysis has a tendency to compromise ordinary people’s very real long-term needs. The events of the 70s read like this to me:
New ideas of social justice arrive with the burgeoning media in Thailand.
Students pounce on these with the kind of glee that might accompany a new videogame. Political experiments immediately ensue; some of which are genuinely injurious to the economy.
But beyond that, there is still the 1932 generation in power.
Far from being satisfied with the very real gains they have made, the militarized elite become insecure about these students - seeing them (& perhaps rightly so) as hell-bent on revenge.
And of course, they are egged-on by the USA's proxy war in Asia. It becomes a game of who can grab for the ‘terror phase’ first.
Having long been indoctrinated with a very machiavellian belief in playing political chess with the masses, the military inevitably win the race in a most brutal way. It could have turned out the other way - but note it has only turned out the other way in countries who had been subjected to these new political theories for a much longer length of time. (And judging by modern day Vietnam, these experiments have achieved almost nothing in the longer term.)
The message I take away from this book is that mounting a successful campaign against any entrenched ruthless elite needs a great deal more patience & care than was evident in the 70s. The 70s generation disillusioned themselves by trying to take shortcuts; and now many of them have given up the longer term struggle in favor of comfortable positions in organizations who seek to paper over the cracks in modern Thai society. In fairness, at least they tried. But they were led (probably by events in neighboring countries) to believe their struggle wouldn’t take that long.
One might view the 70s events as having a great deal in common with the the UK's Chartist Movement, which fell apart rather rapidly when no immediate fix manifested. Likewise, the 70s & early 80s proved to be almost lethal for radical Thai politics. I suspect real political progress will remain on the slowtrack for decades to come, but there are a few encouraging signs. I imagine we will see the development of some rather more non-conformist types of Buddhism; and these will gradually begin to erode some of the links between the complacent Buddhist Orthodoxy and the current ruling elite. Just as in Europe, these religious movements will eventually spawn social movements which will seek to represent the views of ordinary folk from outside the hopeless mess of Thailand’s two hugely unrepresentative assemblies. In this way, the established system of politics may be forced to adapt. This will all take considerable time; especially since there now appear to be almost no ‘movers & shakers’ amongst Thai youth.
Having not achieved the very quick fix they sought, it appears that the 70s generation have turned sour on us. They too have developed a kind of contempt for the uneducated rural masses. Huge shame! If they had only said to their children, ‘Look, we failed. We expected too much, too soon. The longer haul of more gradual development will be a sounder route’. But it appears that the message they have passed on is ‘Look, we failed because rural Thai people will never have the capacity to challenge the military-backed elite. But look at how successful we have become in business & NGOS’. This is (of course) a ‘Let’s shut the door & play videogames’ philosophy, which has already started in on the ‘dumbing down’ of Thai society; and which provides an excellent environment in which the sly Shinnawatras can operate so ruthlessly & profitably, with almost total impunity.
The trick with ‘ideals’ is surely not to let them burn out too quickly. That way, you miss the ‘Amazing’ pyrotechnic display of revolution (no great loss in my opinion); but you also miss burning down the house.
There does seem to be a suggestion in both the book & Ron's review that both he & the author are now of the opinion that there is something rather ''UnThai' about protest. I think this is rather absurd, but does at least demonstrate the fact that Thai middle-classes have an innate distaste for the mob (unless they are funding it). Poor farmers have always had to struggle, and we do them a disservice by suggesting their efforts are always in vain; and always subverted by more educated elites. Organised religions have always tried to monopolise culture and bend it towards their desire for social stability at any cost. Name one country in which the organised religion has wholeheartedly endorsed a 'levelling' social movement. In all countries, there are individuals who realise that organized religion is inadequate in the face of social problems; and who are prepared to step outside their religious mores once in awhile. Many Thais have actually shown themselves more than willing to separate their religious life from their desire for social justice. And it's ridiculous to suggest (even in Thailand) that nothing has been acheived through 'mob' protest. However, there is a longer term need is to patiently engineer protests in a more productive manner. Something that Chumlong failed to realize as he urged on folk to 'storm the barricades' in a last ditch attempt to be 'cooler' than his military academy enemies. Sondhi seems intent on the same destructive ''machissmo' approach. And Chuwit loves nothing better than courting rather mindless controversy. Better protest leadership than the current klatch of clowns is desperately needed.
It's interesting to note that despite Khun Win's notion that protest taints the protester, there doesn't appear to be any lack of willing & educated candidates ready to be tainted. Of course, the poor of Isaan are already 'tainted', as far as many middle-class Thais are concerned. Thus, like the 'untouchables' of India, they have very little to lose by protesting.
Protest will always be impure, so patience is essential to filter out the more negative elements. We should learn to enjoy the more beneficial 'slow fix', and see the 'quick fix' as a dead-end of dependency & psychosis.
Review of Democracy, Shaken and Stirred by Win Lyovarin and translated by Prisna Boonsinsukh
Winner of the SEA Write Awards 1997 and Thailand National Book Award 1995
See the whole of Ron's Review at the link below:-
http://www.2bangkok.com/2bangkok/thaimediaproject/DemocracyShakenandStirred.shtml
My own thoughts:-
Some folk have suggested that this book lacks any real atmosphere. I guess it would be interesting to know if that is an impression gained from reading the original Thai version, or an indirect observation of the fact that translation is often a very impressionistic artform.
I enjoyed this book for its direct & indirect references to some elements of factual (& perhaps mythic) Thai history. I don’t intend to review the book as such, but I would like to ask other interested posters a question.
When reading this as a set university book, what other thoughts might Thai students take away from it other than the very obvious one that in Thai politics it is all too easy to be drawn off at a dangerous tangent by those who view politics purely as a business tool?
This book sometimes makes for depressing reading, as the author also seems to have suffered the same crisis of confidence often expressed by other 70s activists. Khun Win manages to achieve some degree of optimism at the end - although the reader won't find any statement in the book that clearly demonstrates the basis of his hope.
I tend to put things in the simplest of terms. That’s partly because I believe that excessive political analysis has a tendency to compromise ordinary people’s very real long-term needs. The events of the 70s read like this to me:
New ideas of social justice arrive with the burgeoning media in Thailand.
Students pounce on these with the kind of glee that might accompany a new videogame. Political experiments immediately ensue; some of which are genuinely injurious to the economy.
But beyond that, there is still the 1932 generation in power.
Far from being satisfied with the very real gains they have made, the militarized elite become insecure about these students - seeing them (& perhaps rightly so) as hell-bent on revenge.
And of course, they are egged-on by the USA's proxy war in Asia. It becomes a game of who can grab for the ‘terror phase’ first.
Having long been indoctrinated with a very machiavellian belief in playing political chess with the masses, the military inevitably win the race in a most brutal way. It could have turned out the other way - but note it has only turned out the other way in countries who had been subjected to these new political theories for a much longer length of time. (And judging by modern day Vietnam, these experiments have achieved almost nothing in the longer term.)
The message I take away from this book is that mounting a successful campaign against any entrenched ruthless elite needs a great deal more patience & care than was evident in the 70s. The 70s generation disillusioned themselves by trying to take shortcuts; and now many of them have given up the longer term struggle in favor of comfortable positions in organizations who seek to paper over the cracks in modern Thai society. In fairness, at least they tried. But they were led (probably by events in neighboring countries) to believe their struggle wouldn’t take that long.
One might view the 70s events as having a great deal in common with the the UK's Chartist Movement, which fell apart rather rapidly when no immediate fix manifested. Likewise, the 70s & early 80s proved to be almost lethal for radical Thai politics. I suspect real political progress will remain on the slowtrack for decades to come, but there are a few encouraging signs. I imagine we will see the development of some rather more non-conformist types of Buddhism; and these will gradually begin to erode some of the links between the complacent Buddhist Orthodoxy and the current ruling elite. Just as in Europe, these religious movements will eventually spawn social movements which will seek to represent the views of ordinary folk from outside the hopeless mess of Thailand’s two hugely unrepresentative assemblies. In this way, the established system of politics may be forced to adapt. This will all take considerable time; especially since there now appear to be almost no ‘movers & shakers’ amongst Thai youth.
Having not achieved the very quick fix they sought, it appears that the 70s generation have turned sour on us. They too have developed a kind of contempt for the uneducated rural masses. Huge shame! If they had only said to their children, ‘Look, we failed. We expected too much, too soon. The longer haul of more gradual development will be a sounder route’. But it appears that the message they have passed on is ‘Look, we failed because rural Thai people will never have the capacity to challenge the military-backed elite. But look at how successful we have become in business & NGOS’. This is (of course) a ‘Let’s shut the door & play videogames’ philosophy, which has already started in on the ‘dumbing down’ of Thai society; and which provides an excellent environment in which the sly Shinnawatras can operate so ruthlessly & profitably, with almost total impunity.
The trick with ‘ideals’ is surely not to let them burn out too quickly. That way, you miss the ‘Amazing’ pyrotechnic display of revolution (no great loss in my opinion); but you also miss burning down the house.
There does seem to be a suggestion in both the book & Ron's review that both he & the author are now of the opinion that there is something rather ''UnThai' about protest. I think this is rather absurd, but does at least demonstrate the fact that Thai middle-classes have an innate distaste for the mob (unless they are funding it). Poor farmers have always had to struggle, and we do them a disservice by suggesting their efforts are always in vain; and always subverted by more educated elites. Organised religions have always tried to monopolise culture and bend it towards their desire for social stability at any cost. Name one country in which the organised religion has wholeheartedly endorsed a 'levelling' social movement. In all countries, there are individuals who realise that organized religion is inadequate in the face of social problems; and who are prepared to step outside their religious mores once in awhile. Many Thais have actually shown themselves more than willing to separate their religious life from their desire for social justice. And it's ridiculous to suggest (even in Thailand) that nothing has been acheived through 'mob' protest. However, there is a longer term need is to patiently engineer protests in a more productive manner. Something that Chumlong failed to realize as he urged on folk to 'storm the barricades' in a last ditch attempt to be 'cooler' than his military academy enemies. Sondhi seems intent on the same destructive ''machissmo' approach. And Chuwit loves nothing better than courting rather mindless controversy. Better protest leadership than the current klatch of clowns is desperately needed.
It's interesting to note that despite Khun Win's notion that protest taints the protester, there doesn't appear to be any lack of willing & educated candidates ready to be tainted. Of course, the poor of Isaan are already 'tainted', as far as many middle-class Thais are concerned. Thus, like the 'untouchables' of India, they have very little to lose by protesting.
Protest will always be impure, so patience is essential to filter out the more negative elements. We should learn to enjoy the more beneficial 'slow fix', and see the 'quick fix' as a dead-end of dependency & psychosis.