The excerpt below was posted on April 8 before the violence of April 10, and contained a discussion of the way commentators have chosen to put political slogans above analysis. I've re-posted it because I think an important debate has to be had about the way academics have engaged with events in Thailand over the last four years. As I outlined in the original post, I believe that easy assumptions were made about PAD because its politics were reactionary and objectionable, and in the influential world of rumour that is the blogosphere, prejudice was heaped up prejudice to create particular images that suited political agendas or biases. Many of the things that were said about PAD could be said about UDD (if news and pictures are taken selectively), but they will not be said for the simple reason that its politics are understandably sympathetically received among commentators. There was hardly any critical discussion about UDD over the last three years other than it was a misrepresented movement of the rural poor etc etc. Such casual representations have left people unprepared for unpacking the role of different factions within the UDD and their competing agendas.
Who could disagree with UDD's official calls for more democracy and an end to amat? That is easy. But understanding what UDD is, and its relation to alternative centres of power, and indeed to old power cliques is harder. ANd understanding to what extent it is transformative, or rhetorical is difficult to ascertain. Also the class composition has largely been assumed, but the early anti-coup movement that provides some of the key cadre for UDD today was Bangkok middle class. And so it goes - there are lots of questions to consider, despite the undeniable fact of the UDD's emergence as a genuine movement of people who rightly feel disenfranchised.
*****************************
"Before the beginning of the current round of protests the UDD disowned militant elements (Sae Daeng among others) that wished to displace the current UDD leadership in order to pursue a more aggressive approach. Such forces it may be speculated were possibly behind some of violence inflicted on the yellow protests in 2008.
Since the protests began, a systematic campaign of targeted attacks (around 20 so far) on government and political buildings has been unleashed as if to demonstrate the viability of an armed path should the current campaign of civil disobedience fail. No doubt it signals to military elements relative impunity for courses of action contrary to government direction. Of course the convenient third hand can be invoked as being behind the bombings, as it was in the assault on the prime minister’s car during the Songkran demonstrations, but the logic of such a claim is weak.
This bifurcation of red shirt (not specifically the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship) strategy, if that is what it is, is hardly commented on by those who now see the reds as the hope of the future and support calls for an immediate election so that a pro-red (and pro-Thaksin) government would come to power (probable but not certain). But the campaign of bombing points at least to one possible unpleasant future should the current government fall. Any new government will have a place for all the old elements of the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite (if we take the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite to be a broad class and not a clique) as long as they are on the right side.
Any campaign of double standards needs to be just that, and whatever the outcome of this current fight, the barracks against double standards shouldn't be dismantled too quickly."
April 16, 2010
April 11, 2010
Brief Report 11/4/10.
Last night as news of the crackdown at Rachadamnern and Dok Wua spread, pictures of the dead were shown on the massive screen at the Rachaprasong rally, to gasps of horror and curses. The mood was both solemn and militant.
This morning I attended the Rachaprasong site and caught Arisman speaking from the stage. Families of those killed were asked to attend the Baan 111 Foundation (the foundation set up in the name of the 111 TRT executives banned from politics in 2007) to prepare court action, national and international against the Aphisit government.
The cars that had lined Ploenjit Road (occupying 4 lanes of 6) last night were mostly gone, and the numbers thinner than yesterday (quite reasonably)- it was a hot morning and numbers swell in the evening. People may have been deployed elsewhere.
I spoke to UDD spokesperson Sean Boonpracong. Some of what I report below comes from him, some from other sources.
The UDD sees the next 24 hours as crucial and the top leadership were in a planning meeting, with Veera as the brains and Arisman as the "best worst boy we have" as a smart tactician.
There are suggestions that some of the violence last night was military on military. Asked about the grenade that hit the military last night, I was informed by a UDD source that some 'watermelon soldiers' were deployed by rival commanders to attack the regiment was that was enforcing the crackdown. The source named the regiments and expected more conflict. This of course is unproven, but if true suggests that there may be more military action later.
I head back to Australia this afternoon so will not be posting on the rallies after this.
Last night as news of the crackdown at Rachadamnern and Dok Wua spread, pictures of the dead were shown on the massive screen at the Rachaprasong rally, to gasps of horror and curses. The mood was both solemn and militant.
This morning I attended the Rachaprasong site and caught Arisman speaking from the stage. Families of those killed were asked to attend the Baan 111 Foundation (the foundation set up in the name of the 111 TRT executives banned from politics in 2007) to prepare court action, national and international against the Aphisit government.
The cars that had lined Ploenjit Road (occupying 4 lanes of 6) last night were mostly gone, and the numbers thinner than yesterday (quite reasonably)- it was a hot morning and numbers swell in the evening. People may have been deployed elsewhere.
I spoke to UDD spokesperson Sean Boonpracong. Some of what I report below comes from him, some from other sources.
The UDD sees the next 24 hours as crucial and the top leadership were in a planning meeting, with Veera as the brains and Arisman as the "best worst boy we have" as a smart tactician.
There are suggestions that some of the violence last night was military on military. Asked about the grenade that hit the military last night, I was informed by a UDD source that some 'watermelon soldiers' were deployed by rival commanders to attack the regiment was that was enforcing the crackdown. The source named the regiments and expected more conflict. This of course is unproven, but if true suggests that there may be more military action later.
I head back to Australia this afternoon so will not be posting on the rallies after this.
April 10, 2010
Some observations on Red Rally at Rachaprasong district 9 & 10 April.
Friday Afternoon
High drama is provided when police amass inside the Police Hospital opposite Zen and Erawan Hotel. Several times it appears they are going to exit and move towards arrest of several red leaders for whom warrants have been issued. Dr Weng for example is often on stage and is a likely target. Small numbers of reds (in the hundreds) block the entraces. No arrests are made. Inside the Royal Thai Police HQ, hundreds of police also assemble, with red shirts standing outside peering in. Near one gate a television is showing the battle at ThaiCom. Everyone watches in silence.
Some of the red guards are thaharn praan or rangers. I meet a group that stands guard outside the police hospital. They are from Pakthonchai, Ratchasima. One tells me that while the government has paid for some rangers to come to Bangkok to guard various sites he and his men are not for hire and have come voluntarily to protect the red-shirts. Asked how this would all end he says, "There must be blood, history is like that.". I've heard this straightfaced comment so many times over the last four years from both sides of the political divide.
Near the medical team a small sign flaps in the wind: "Democracy under construction: sorry for the inconvenience".
On the stage a speaker berates Aphisit for playing 'the back door again' - a reference to his alleged reliance on General Prem, and I assume General Prem's sexual orientation.
Some way from the central stage an empty tent sits in the late afternoon sun. A placard announces it is the meeting place of the Nakrop phra-ong Tam Phitsunalok. Inside a mini-shrine is dedicated to several members of the Chakri dynasty.
As the late afternoon sun fades more people join the rally - probably around 20,000 or so. At around six thirty an ecstatic reception meets returnees from the Thaicom occupation. After seven, the speaker, Jatuporn, tells the crowd, 'there is something sacred, we were protected. When teargas was fired the wind blew back at them.' The crowd cheered. He tells the crowd that he can see in the eyes of the soldiers that they are together with the people. Weng takes the stage soon after and tells the crowd that he gets so many phone calls from the police, saying there will be no suppression of the reds, "The police love democracy and love the reds" he announces
I start to walk up Ploenchit road, and see how far the reds exert control of the streets. At Chitlom intersection the red road block stops traffic. Reds direct traffic right, left or into the rally site. Inside the police box sit three cops. "Oh. we've spoken to the Red-shirts, and they are looking after the traffic."
Saturday Afternoon
Reports of battles at Pan Fa increase tension at the Rachaprasong rally. There is an expectation that troops will arrive.
When the Sky Train is pulled from service, a speaker on a truck at the Henry Dunant rally site announces that there are two trains full of soldiers arriving (they do not). However, riot police are assembled at most intersections and there is an expectation that things will heat up. Down the road the folly of consumerism, in this heated political atmosphere, seems almost pointless. A sign at Zen reads "IT'S MY LIFE: ZEN. SUMMER CRAZY 2010" The relatively deserted shopping strip looks like a used bag from a high end shop.
I speak to a Mr Nuay at the Henry Dunant intersection, near Paragon. Thirty years in Bangkok, he is still registered in Roi-Et. He works as a casual labourer and has joined the rally nearly everyday after work. He has arrived having received an SMS from the watthai network. He shows it to me. "Soldiers are assembling at...." and a list of places I can't recall. He shows me his written out membership form for the Red Shirts. He is here for democracy and justice (words I have heard on both sides of the political divide). His friend, Ms Noi already has a card which proudly hangs around her neck. She paid 30 baht for it; many await their membership cards as there is a long waiting list. Mr Nuay's membership form requires that he outline previous political experience. He has written on it: " Collected Names for Redshirts in Phatum Thani".
It looks like more people are arriving having got the SMS. Some arrive without red clothes, as if caught off guard. Out of bags come scarfs and various other red accessories. I ask Ms Noi about her time at the rally, she says she was involved last year during Sonkgran and hopes that it doesn't degenerate into the same chaos. A street hawker, she tells me that business has been bad ever since Thaksin was kicked out by the military. I ask if Thaksin returns and he has double standards will she rally against him; Mr Nuay jumps in and says: "If Thaksin has double standards then we don't want him".
Speakers on a rally truck are blaring out Nattuwut's speech, he is accusing the military of using live rounds against the people - "You are the soldiers of the king, how can you attack the people?" he asks.
I look up and realise not only is this protest instantly televised, twittered, blogged and digitised, but it is also in front of a live audience. On the walk over bridges, across all the roads, assemble tourists and pedestrians, watching curiously.
Several monks gather near Henry Dunant rally site. They are reluctant to speak. One simply replies to my query, as to why he had come, with: 'Double Standards, Democracy, Justice'. It appears these are reasons so self evident as not to require explanation. And that perhaps is how the reds are winning this, as the confidence of their cause is carried by many people for whom the issues are so elegantly simple.
The expected stand-off at Henry Dunant, doesn't seem to happen. I wander back to the the main stage. Pick up trucks parked along the main road blare out some as yet unblocked red radio stations - a speaker says " we do not have to fight the police, they are family'. On the central rally stage Jaran, the former Human Rights Commissioner, is speaking. He tells the growing crowd that victory has already been achieved just by sticking it out this long.
I keep walking up to Chitlom intersection. It has been reinforced with taxis and cars acting as a blockade. There are around 500 red-shirts applauding one of their members putting plastic bags over police cameras that hang from walkovers. He walks from one to the next, climbing over the rails and leaving the cameras recording the inside of plastic bag. One person tells me they don't want the police to see how few people are here yet, otherwise they will come and disperse them. I figure that is not the likely reason and go and ask the people's censor directly. His response: "they cut our news, we cut theirs". He says the decision was collective, but doesn't want to speak too much to me, eying me with reasonable suspicion.
At around 3.30 further up Ploenjit Road and under Ploenjit station there are around a thousand red-shirts surrounding hundreds of riot police and border police. The maroon scarfs of the border police indicate they are from Khonkaen. The riot police are the "Riot and Control Suppression Unit, Division Two."
For the next two hours or so, I watch a rarity in ones life. Fruitful fraternisation with the police. Exhausted and perspiring they are told to sit and stand alternately. Several of the police are chatting with red shirts, off to the side in intimate conversation. A young man calls out repeatedly for the red-shirt women to flirt with the police to 'make their hearts more red'. A woman in her fifties turns round and says, "I am already married, but if I have to..." The police giggle along.
It has been commonly reported that the police are quite warm towards the red-shirts. This is obvious, although I observed from this rally that the border police were much friendlier than the riot police.
At around 4.30-5 Pm a Red-shirt leader called Nisit Sinsuphai arrives at the Ploenjit rally to great applause. He moves to the front of the riot police, wa-ing and warmly hugging a number of the frontline police. For the next thrity minutes he is involved in negotiations; when he announces everything that the police will retreat, the red shirts open a channel for the police to depart. But it doesn't happen. Some people are getting impatient. One man starts to call for the police to take off their riot gear and join the people, he is asked to calm down by a red-shirt steward. Someone over a microphone announces. "We don't use emotion, be calm. The police are not our enemy. If they were not here, we would be attacked by the soldiers". A young man yells at the police "You should all be sent to the South for a tour of duty." He is immediately surrounded by ten to twenty people who push him away. He is body searched for weapons and his bag opened and his ID checked by red-shirts. It appears rally stewards are very cautious about secret agents out to stir trouble. After five minutes his identity is cleared up; he appears to be an agitated red member. The once hostile crowd pat him on the shoulder, telling him to calm down and he is left alone.
Light relief comes in the form of a small group of students dressed in white shirts and blouses who walk down the channel made for the police to depart. They are wearing red accessories. The crowd cheers them. It looks like they are a delegation. They speak to the police, asking them to be non-violent and to remember that "we are all Thai". I learn later that they are law students from Thammasat and Chula. They explained to me that they accidentally walked into the channel and when they were cheered on they kept walking right up to the police. Afterwards, red-shirts surrounded the students taking photos, calling to them "Wonderful, superb".
Negotiation continues, until finally Nisit puts his hands in the air again, gesturing the peace symbol. The crowd cheers. Once again a channel is made for the police to depart. This time it looks like it will really happen. He hugs several police, and is all smiles.
And they do depart. So many are there it takes some time, but until the last one is gone, the crowd cheers, reaching out to shake hands. Police enthusiatically return the gesture, all smiles and relief. Some people are crying with joy. I ask Ms Daow, a middle-aged woman from Suphan Buri why she is crying. "I feel such generosity, that we did not fight with each other, that we are Thai together. The police are good."
I ask several police how they feel about leaving. One says he is glad because it means there was no violent incident. I ask if he is supportive of the reds, and he says he is 'in the middle', his colleague calls out, 'we are red', he replies, 'no we are neutral', the verbal tussle ending in laughter.
___________________________________________________________________
When I came to write this up, I learn from the news that things were not so peaceful elsewhere. Soldiers and Redshirts have clashed at several sites, and rubber bullets have been shot and there are many injured.
Friday Afternoon
High drama is provided when police amass inside the Police Hospital opposite Zen and Erawan Hotel. Several times it appears they are going to exit and move towards arrest of several red leaders for whom warrants have been issued. Dr Weng for example is often on stage and is a likely target. Small numbers of reds (in the hundreds) block the entraces. No arrests are made. Inside the Royal Thai Police HQ, hundreds of police also assemble, with red shirts standing outside peering in. Near one gate a television is showing the battle at ThaiCom. Everyone watches in silence.
Some of the red guards are thaharn praan or rangers. I meet a group that stands guard outside the police hospital. They are from Pakthonchai, Ratchasima. One tells me that while the government has paid for some rangers to come to Bangkok to guard various sites he and his men are not for hire and have come voluntarily to protect the red-shirts. Asked how this would all end he says, "There must be blood, history is like that.". I've heard this straightfaced comment so many times over the last four years from both sides of the political divide.
Near the medical team a small sign flaps in the wind: "Democracy under construction: sorry for the inconvenience".
On the stage a speaker berates Aphisit for playing 'the back door again' - a reference to his alleged reliance on General Prem, and I assume General Prem's sexual orientation.
Some way from the central stage an empty tent sits in the late afternoon sun. A placard announces it is the meeting place of the Nakrop phra-ong Tam Phitsunalok. Inside a mini-shrine is dedicated to several members of the Chakri dynasty.
As the late afternoon sun fades more people join the rally - probably around 20,000 or so. At around six thirty an ecstatic reception meets returnees from the Thaicom occupation. After seven, the speaker, Jatuporn, tells the crowd, 'there is something sacred, we were protected. When teargas was fired the wind blew back at them.' The crowd cheered. He tells the crowd that he can see in the eyes of the soldiers that they are together with the people. Weng takes the stage soon after and tells the crowd that he gets so many phone calls from the police, saying there will be no suppression of the reds, "The police love democracy and love the reds" he announces
I start to walk up Ploenchit road, and see how far the reds exert control of the streets. At Chitlom intersection the red road block stops traffic. Reds direct traffic right, left or into the rally site. Inside the police box sit three cops. "Oh. we've spoken to the Red-shirts, and they are looking after the traffic."
Saturday Afternoon
Reports of battles at Pan Fa increase tension at the Rachaprasong rally. There is an expectation that troops will arrive.
When the Sky Train is pulled from service, a speaker on a truck at the Henry Dunant rally site announces that there are two trains full of soldiers arriving (they do not). However, riot police are assembled at most intersections and there is an expectation that things will heat up. Down the road the folly of consumerism, in this heated political atmosphere, seems almost pointless. A sign at Zen reads "IT'S MY LIFE: ZEN. SUMMER CRAZY 2010" The relatively deserted shopping strip looks like a used bag from a high end shop.
I speak to a Mr Nuay at the Henry Dunant intersection, near Paragon. Thirty years in Bangkok, he is still registered in Roi-Et. He works as a casual labourer and has joined the rally nearly everyday after work. He has arrived having received an SMS from the watthai network. He shows it to me. "Soldiers are assembling at...." and a list of places I can't recall. He shows me his written out membership form for the Red Shirts. He is here for democracy and justice (words I have heard on both sides of the political divide). His friend, Ms Noi already has a card which proudly hangs around her neck. She paid 30 baht for it; many await their membership cards as there is a long waiting list. Mr Nuay's membership form requires that he outline previous political experience. He has written on it: " Collected Names for Redshirts in Phatum Thani".
It looks like more people are arriving having got the SMS. Some arrive without red clothes, as if caught off guard. Out of bags come scarfs and various other red accessories. I ask Ms Noi about her time at the rally, she says she was involved last year during Sonkgran and hopes that it doesn't degenerate into the same chaos. A street hawker, she tells me that business has been bad ever since Thaksin was kicked out by the military. I ask if Thaksin returns and he has double standards will she rally against him; Mr Nuay jumps in and says: "If Thaksin has double standards then we don't want him".
Speakers on a rally truck are blaring out Nattuwut's speech, he is accusing the military of using live rounds against the people - "You are the soldiers of the king, how can you attack the people?" he asks.
I look up and realise not only is this protest instantly televised, twittered, blogged and digitised, but it is also in front of a live audience. On the walk over bridges, across all the roads, assemble tourists and pedestrians, watching curiously.
Several monks gather near Henry Dunant rally site. They are reluctant to speak. One simply replies to my query, as to why he had come, with: 'Double Standards, Democracy, Justice'. It appears these are reasons so self evident as not to require explanation. And that perhaps is how the reds are winning this, as the confidence of their cause is carried by many people for whom the issues are so elegantly simple.
The expected stand-off at Henry Dunant, doesn't seem to happen. I wander back to the the main stage. Pick up trucks parked along the main road blare out some as yet unblocked red radio stations - a speaker says " we do not have to fight the police, they are family'. On the central rally stage Jaran, the former Human Rights Commissioner, is speaking. He tells the growing crowd that victory has already been achieved just by sticking it out this long.
I keep walking up to Chitlom intersection. It has been reinforced with taxis and cars acting as a blockade. There are around 500 red-shirts applauding one of their members putting plastic bags over police cameras that hang from walkovers. He walks from one to the next, climbing over the rails and leaving the cameras recording the inside of plastic bag. One person tells me they don't want the police to see how few people are here yet, otherwise they will come and disperse them. I figure that is not the likely reason and go and ask the people's censor directly. His response: "they cut our news, we cut theirs". He says the decision was collective, but doesn't want to speak too much to me, eying me with reasonable suspicion.
At around 3.30 further up Ploenjit Road and under Ploenjit station there are around a thousand red-shirts surrounding hundreds of riot police and border police. The maroon scarfs of the border police indicate they are from Khonkaen. The riot police are the "Riot and Control Suppression Unit, Division Two."
For the next two hours or so, I watch a rarity in ones life. Fruitful fraternisation with the police. Exhausted and perspiring they are told to sit and stand alternately. Several of the police are chatting with red shirts, off to the side in intimate conversation. A young man calls out repeatedly for the red-shirt women to flirt with the police to 'make their hearts more red'. A woman in her fifties turns round and says, "I am already married, but if I have to..." The police giggle along.
It has been commonly reported that the police are quite warm towards the red-shirts. This is obvious, although I observed from this rally that the border police were much friendlier than the riot police.
At around 4.30-5 Pm a Red-shirt leader called Nisit Sinsuphai arrives at the Ploenjit rally to great applause. He moves to the front of the riot police, wa-ing and warmly hugging a number of the frontline police. For the next thrity minutes he is involved in negotiations; when he announces everything that the police will retreat, the red shirts open a channel for the police to depart. But it doesn't happen. Some people are getting impatient. One man starts to call for the police to take off their riot gear and join the people, he is asked to calm down by a red-shirt steward. Someone over a microphone announces. "We don't use emotion, be calm. The police are not our enemy. If they were not here, we would be attacked by the soldiers". A young man yells at the police "You should all be sent to the South for a tour of duty." He is immediately surrounded by ten to twenty people who push him away. He is body searched for weapons and his bag opened and his ID checked by red-shirts. It appears rally stewards are very cautious about secret agents out to stir trouble. After five minutes his identity is cleared up; he appears to be an agitated red member. The once hostile crowd pat him on the shoulder, telling him to calm down and he is left alone.
Light relief comes in the form of a small group of students dressed in white shirts and blouses who walk down the channel made for the police to depart. They are wearing red accessories. The crowd cheers them. It looks like they are a delegation. They speak to the police, asking them to be non-violent and to remember that "we are all Thai". I learn later that they are law students from Thammasat and Chula. They explained to me that they accidentally walked into the channel and when they were cheered on they kept walking right up to the police. Afterwards, red-shirts surrounded the students taking photos, calling to them "Wonderful, superb".
Negotiation continues, until finally Nisit puts his hands in the air again, gesturing the peace symbol. The crowd cheers. Once again a channel is made for the police to depart. This time it looks like it will really happen. He hugs several police, and is all smiles.
And they do depart. So many are there it takes some time, but until the last one is gone, the crowd cheers, reaching out to shake hands. Police enthusiatically return the gesture, all smiles and relief. Some people are crying with joy. I ask Ms Daow, a middle-aged woman from Suphan Buri why she is crying. "I feel such generosity, that we did not fight with each other, that we are Thai together. The police are good."
I ask several police how they feel about leaving. One says he is glad because it means there was no violent incident. I ask if he is supportive of the reds, and he says he is 'in the middle', his colleague calls out, 'we are red', he replies, 'no we are neutral', the verbal tussle ending in laughter.
___________________________________________________________________
When I came to write this up, I learn from the news that things were not so peaceful elsewhere. Soldiers and Redshirts have clashed at several sites, and rubber bullets have been shot and there are many injured.
April 8, 2010
Double Standards and Political Positions
Double Standards and Political Positions
"Whoever has been killed in this manner [unnaturally], their relatives may bring their grievances to the prime minister, because we have central [agencies] that can go down and ensure justice, but [I] believe that [the relatives] will not be so brave because today the majority of those killed have experience [in the drug trade]"
Thaksin, responding to criticism that innocent people were being killed during the war on drugs.
See full discussion at
http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Data/FileUpload/296/WP102_09_MConnors.pdf
*******************************************************
The Reds have a bandanna; from memory it says "everything I do is wrong and everything you do is right". It is a perfect statement of the double standards the reds have attempted to expose in Thai society.
That double standards exist is doubtless. But they are not the double standards of colours, but of class, hierarchy, connection and position. They are diffused throughout the system and were as rampant under Thaksin as they were/are under any government. They are systematic and are not the product of one leader, although leadership has a role in determining how acceptable they are.
Daniel Unger’s piece in Asia Times “Bewildered in Bangkok” also brings up another double standard, and that is of truth: The ease with which news is twisted and turned to suit political agendas. This issue is fundamental because it goes to the question of the place of honesty in social change, and the way in which views of the past are set by prejudice upon prejudice. This post is about issues raised by Unger's piece, rather than the cut and thrust of current events.
An example of the way partisanship has yet to deal with recent events is provided by PAD in 2008.
The ultra nationalist royalist politics of the People’s Alliance for Democracy during protests in 2008 made it difficult for commentators to countenance objective treatment. Little was said of the violence inflicted against the protestors – or if it was it was’ self-inflicted’, it was’ provoked’. Figures are unclear but it seems 6 PAD supporters were killed and hundreds injured. The scurrilous discussion on websites of whether the picture of a mutilated leg of a PAD supporter was real or doctored completely overlooked the fact that PAD supporters were actually subject to attack and anonymous intimidation. Indeed some commentators called for and supported a crackdown because PAD were ‘fascist’, and supported police action against PAD. Incidental acts of violence by PAD supporters were turned into examples of a systematic campaign of violence by the PAD. The use of photographic images to promote these agendas was pervasive. An arms cache found in government house, after PAD ceased its occupation was immediately assumed to have been PAD's, without any evidence. On these matters I remain uncertain, just as I am to believe various claims about current events.
Now it is clear that the PAD has terrible politics by the standards of liberal democracy, and its opportunistic use of nationalism and royalism was dangerous and suited to undemocratic purposes. Some of its abrasive and dehumanizing rhetoric from the stage was fearful. It is clear that it had support in high and unsavoury places. But do such facts require that interpretation be completely directed to demonization? Are inconvenient facts to be set aside lest they get in the way of presenting the news as one wants to see it? Is it also a case of everything they do is wrong, everything we do is right?
Indeed I would argue that if PAD was of a leftist persuasion, interpretations of its actions would have been different. The occupation of the airport would have been seen as a brilliant strategy of the angry masses desperate to bring down the government. Random acts of violence would have been seen as the work of the ‘third hand’ attempting to discredit the movement.
The mythic image of PAD now built up around a few totemic images borders on erasure of its origins in a pre-coup context fighting against Thaksin in order to return Thailand to a liberal political path – and by liberal, yes I mean elitist, with the accompanying inequalities entailed in the 1997 constitution.
A long road has been travelled since 2006, and the dynamics of the struggle have transformed, but the same logic of interpretation remains in place. And while the faces may look the same, four years has changed and hardened thinking and strategies.
PAD was and is regularly indicted for treating people who support Thaksin as ignorant and gullible. Such claims by some people in PAD have been made and quite vulgar ones at that. But the basic claim during 2006 was that without access to information and impartial analysis (yes, laughable coming from the Manager newsgroup), people could not make informed judgements. Anyone who listened to this discussion on the PAD stage would have been struck by how “media studies” the discussion was. Actually, such a claim is common to most political persuasions (Marxist included), and that is why most practical politics comes down to vanguard and strategic leadership to win people to a particular view of the world on the basis of where they are. Of course there are anarchists and populists (mediums of the popular will) out there who imagine some transcendent will of the people finding spontaneous expression if it happens to suit the way they also see the world. Another view common to many political persuasions is that political struggle is political education, and its best source. The question, of course, is the content of that political struggle. PAD and UDD obviously see this differently too.
Making sense of the last four years is not fundamentally a dispute about who did what when, and who shot first, who shot second– these empirical matters will never find settlement in the turmoil of the present, and they will keep, for a long time, the trolls in the cyber world busy wearing finger tips thin. The real dispute for those not in a position to influence events is where this conflict began and where it ends and for what purpose and future. On such matters a more honest discussion is a better option than mudslinging and sloganeering.
What is at the heart of the matter is not strategy or violence (since these can always be conveniently massaged and explained away in partisan circles) but rather the question of politics and the side one takes in that. Is it possible to explain one’s position, even non-position – without being taken for a lackey of Thaksin’s or the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite? At the moment, no. Where that space will emerge in the current contest is unclear.
Before the beginning of the current round of protests the UDD disowned militant elements (Sae Daeng among others) that wished to displace the current UDD leadership in order to pursue a more aggressive approach. Such forces it may be speculated were possibly behind some of violence inflicted on the yellow protests in 2008.
Since the protests began, a systematic campaign of targeted attacks (around 20 so far) on government and political buildings has been unleashed as if to demonstrate the viability of an armed path should the current campaign of civil disobedience fail. No doubt it signals to military elements relative impunity for courses of action contrary to government direction. Of course the convenient third hand can be invoked as being behind the bombings, as it was in the assault on the prime minister’s car during the Songkran demonstrations, but the logic of such a claim is weak.
This bifurcation of red shirt (not specifically the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship) strategy, if that is what it is, is hardly commented on by those who now see the reds as the hope of the future and support calls for an immediate election so that a pro-red (and pro-Thaksin) government would come to power (probable but not certain). But the campaign of bombing points at least to one possible unpleasant future should the current government fall. Any new government will have a place for all the old elements of the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite (if we take the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite to be a broad class and not a clique) as long as they are on the right side.
Any campaign of double standards needs to be just that, and whatever the outcome of this current fight, the barracks against double standards shouldn't be dismantled too quickly.
Can the red movement guarantee that any pro-Thaksin government it brings to power will be subject to ruthless and necessary accountability? If so, how? What has it done to build alternative political organizations for parliamentary power, so that the forms of popular participation now evident are maintained to ensure future governments exercise power democratically and submit themselves to checks and balances that are constitutionally sanctioned (assuming a rewriting of the current constitution or its replacement)?
I have attended both yellow and red demonstrations over the last four years, I’ve always been struck by a similarity of purpose among those sitting below the stage: fair government. Certainly, the red movement has over the last year found a mobilizing idiom in class that has introduced a much needed element into Thai political discussion, and which is fundamentally going to impact future Thai democratisation. If the level of popular organizing can outlast the crisis that has brought it in to being, Thai democracy will be stronger for it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
For detractors – no I do not support a crackdown on the reds
No I do not grovel at the feet of the monarchy
No I do not share tea regularly with PAD leaders
No I do not want the return of royal liberalism and virtuous leadership
No, just because I have not repeated every possible disclaimer does not mean I subscribe to its opposite.
Yes, I support the repeal of the current constitution
Yes, I support the repeal of lese majeste laws
Yes, I support the immediate release of all those imprisoned under those laws
Yes, I call for retrial of all cases conducted under law built on the back of a military assumption of power.
UPDATE THURSDAY AFTERNOON - the imposition of a state of emergency has led to blackouts on media coverage....it is clearly important that people get the right kind of news and Prachatai.com., one of the few balanced and diverse news sites in Thailand, clearly is not the right kind of news.
"Whoever has been killed in this manner [unnaturally], their relatives may bring their grievances to the prime minister, because we have central [agencies] that can go down and ensure justice, but [I] believe that [the relatives] will not be so brave because today the majority of those killed have experience [in the drug trade]"
Thaksin, responding to criticism that innocent people were being killed during the war on drugs.
See full discussion at
http://www6.cityu.edu.hk/searc/Data/FileUpload/296/WP102_09_MConnors.pdf
*******************************************************
The Reds have a bandanna; from memory it says "everything I do is wrong and everything you do is right". It is a perfect statement of the double standards the reds have attempted to expose in Thai society.
That double standards exist is doubtless. But they are not the double standards of colours, but of class, hierarchy, connection and position. They are diffused throughout the system and were as rampant under Thaksin as they were/are under any government. They are systematic and are not the product of one leader, although leadership has a role in determining how acceptable they are.
Daniel Unger’s piece in Asia Times “Bewildered in Bangkok” also brings up another double standard, and that is of truth: The ease with which news is twisted and turned to suit political agendas. This issue is fundamental because it goes to the question of the place of honesty in social change, and the way in which views of the past are set by prejudice upon prejudice. This post is about issues raised by Unger's piece, rather than the cut and thrust of current events.
An example of the way partisanship has yet to deal with recent events is provided by PAD in 2008.
The ultra nationalist royalist politics of the People’s Alliance for Democracy during protests in 2008 made it difficult for commentators to countenance objective treatment. Little was said of the violence inflicted against the protestors – or if it was it was’ self-inflicted’, it was’ provoked’. Figures are unclear but it seems 6 PAD supporters were killed and hundreds injured. The scurrilous discussion on websites of whether the picture of a mutilated leg of a PAD supporter was real or doctored completely overlooked the fact that PAD supporters were actually subject to attack and anonymous intimidation. Indeed some commentators called for and supported a crackdown because PAD were ‘fascist’, and supported police action against PAD. Incidental acts of violence by PAD supporters were turned into examples of a systematic campaign of violence by the PAD. The use of photographic images to promote these agendas was pervasive. An arms cache found in government house, after PAD ceased its occupation was immediately assumed to have been PAD's, without any evidence. On these matters I remain uncertain, just as I am to believe various claims about current events.
Now it is clear that the PAD has terrible politics by the standards of liberal democracy, and its opportunistic use of nationalism and royalism was dangerous and suited to undemocratic purposes. Some of its abrasive and dehumanizing rhetoric from the stage was fearful. It is clear that it had support in high and unsavoury places. But do such facts require that interpretation be completely directed to demonization? Are inconvenient facts to be set aside lest they get in the way of presenting the news as one wants to see it? Is it also a case of everything they do is wrong, everything we do is right?
Indeed I would argue that if PAD was of a leftist persuasion, interpretations of its actions would have been different. The occupation of the airport would have been seen as a brilliant strategy of the angry masses desperate to bring down the government. Random acts of violence would have been seen as the work of the ‘third hand’ attempting to discredit the movement.
The mythic image of PAD now built up around a few totemic images borders on erasure of its origins in a pre-coup context fighting against Thaksin in order to return Thailand to a liberal political path – and by liberal, yes I mean elitist, with the accompanying inequalities entailed in the 1997 constitution.
A long road has been travelled since 2006, and the dynamics of the struggle have transformed, but the same logic of interpretation remains in place. And while the faces may look the same, four years has changed and hardened thinking and strategies.
PAD was and is regularly indicted for treating people who support Thaksin as ignorant and gullible. Such claims by some people in PAD have been made and quite vulgar ones at that. But the basic claim during 2006 was that without access to information and impartial analysis (yes, laughable coming from the Manager newsgroup), people could not make informed judgements. Anyone who listened to this discussion on the PAD stage would have been struck by how “media studies” the discussion was. Actually, such a claim is common to most political persuasions (Marxist included), and that is why most practical politics comes down to vanguard and strategic leadership to win people to a particular view of the world on the basis of where they are. Of course there are anarchists and populists (mediums of the popular will) out there who imagine some transcendent will of the people finding spontaneous expression if it happens to suit the way they also see the world. Another view common to many political persuasions is that political struggle is political education, and its best source. The question, of course, is the content of that political struggle. PAD and UDD obviously see this differently too.
Making sense of the last four years is not fundamentally a dispute about who did what when, and who shot first, who shot second– these empirical matters will never find settlement in the turmoil of the present, and they will keep, for a long time, the trolls in the cyber world busy wearing finger tips thin. The real dispute for those not in a position to influence events is where this conflict began and where it ends and for what purpose and future. On such matters a more honest discussion is a better option than mudslinging and sloganeering.
What is at the heart of the matter is not strategy or violence (since these can always be conveniently massaged and explained away in partisan circles) but rather the question of politics and the side one takes in that. Is it possible to explain one’s position, even non-position – without being taken for a lackey of Thaksin’s or the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite? At the moment, no. Where that space will emerge in the current contest is unclear.
Before the beginning of the current round of protests the UDD disowned militant elements (Sae Daeng among others) that wished to displace the current UDD leadership in order to pursue a more aggressive approach. Such forces it may be speculated were possibly behind some of violence inflicted on the yellow protests in 2008.
Since the protests began, a systematic campaign of targeted attacks (around 20 so far) on government and political buildings has been unleashed as if to demonstrate the viability of an armed path should the current campaign of civil disobedience fail. No doubt it signals to military elements relative impunity for courses of action contrary to government direction. Of course the convenient third hand can be invoked as being behind the bombings, as it was in the assault on the prime minister’s car during the Songkran demonstrations, but the logic of such a claim is weak.
This bifurcation of red shirt (not specifically the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship) strategy, if that is what it is, is hardly commented on by those who now see the reds as the hope of the future and support calls for an immediate election so that a pro-red (and pro-Thaksin) government would come to power (probable but not certain). But the campaign of bombing points at least to one possible unpleasant future should the current government fall. Any new government will have a place for all the old elements of the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite (if we take the bureaucratic-aristocratic elite to be a broad class and not a clique) as long as they are on the right side.
Any campaign of double standards needs to be just that, and whatever the outcome of this current fight, the barracks against double standards shouldn't be dismantled too quickly.
Can the red movement guarantee that any pro-Thaksin government it brings to power will be subject to ruthless and necessary accountability? If so, how? What has it done to build alternative political organizations for parliamentary power, so that the forms of popular participation now evident are maintained to ensure future governments exercise power democratically and submit themselves to checks and balances that are constitutionally sanctioned (assuming a rewriting of the current constitution or its replacement)?
I have attended both yellow and red demonstrations over the last four years, I’ve always been struck by a similarity of purpose among those sitting below the stage: fair government. Certainly, the red movement has over the last year found a mobilizing idiom in class that has introduced a much needed element into Thai political discussion, and which is fundamentally going to impact future Thai democratisation. If the level of popular organizing can outlast the crisis that has brought it in to being, Thai democracy will be stronger for it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
For detractors – no I do not support a crackdown on the reds
No I do not grovel at the feet of the monarchy
No I do not share tea regularly with PAD leaders
No I do not want the return of royal liberalism and virtuous leadership
No, just because I have not repeated every possible disclaimer does not mean I subscribe to its opposite.
Yes, I support the repeal of the current constitution
Yes, I support the repeal of lese majeste laws
Yes, I support the immediate release of all those imprisoned under those laws
Yes, I call for retrial of all cases conducted under law built on the back of a military assumption of power.
UPDATE THURSDAY AFTERNOON - the imposition of a state of emergency has led to blackouts on media coverage....it is clearly important that people get the right kind of news and Prachatai.com., one of the few balanced and diverse news sites in Thailand, clearly is not the right kind of news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
