(THAILAND/RELIGION/DEMOCRACY)

AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Back to Thailand

Let me summarize; The Kingdom of Thailand is based on these three institutions The Monarchy, The Sangha and the Bureaucracies (both military and civilian). It is a fact that both the Monarchy and Bureaucracy have always tried to shape the Sangha and turn it into organic to suit their political ambitions and the combination of Monarchy and Sangha always come in handy at times marked by social unrests it is de facto the strongest controlling instrument for the Elite. Some scholars also touches on these issues for the Thais; The Royal Institution, the Patriotism and the Nationalism and at best the first mentioned is the most respected at the moment where as the two latter, as far as I can judge, are instruments masterly played by political parties and with limited connection to the real problems of the Kingdom.

Another significant observation is the everlasting struggle power between the bureaucracy and the military using all powers represents total hindrance of establishing a real democracy in Thailand. As long as the question of corruption all over is never dealt with one and for all by appropriate manners Thailand will never prosper. The Thais in general terms accept corruption and a natural part of the daily life and their admiration for persons, who steal money from them, is proportionally with the amounts of corruption. The front runner is the police.

I will abstain from writing about this first stone of the most important institution The Monarchy. It is not considered to be proper and anyway correct information is not available in Thailand. Any true comment or fact is forbidden published so one needs to go abroad to establish the whole story about the richest Monarchy in the world with more than 8 billion $ in assets and a yearly tax free income in the high end plus the fact that all expenses for the royal household seems to be paid from The Ministry of Thailand. The total amount is more than 7 billion THB per year according to figures published by The Ministry of Finance. This fact is actually unknown to the average Thai, who believes that The Monarchy is self supporting.

However it is for an amateur historian like I am extremely interesting to study the many faces and models of Thai Kings formed by sources from outside of the Kingdom. Again Thailand has hardly its own identity almost everything is copied or imported from abroad, but Thais reluctantly admit this of course that is understandable.

I have previously written about The Sangha, but wish to remind the readers of one important factor only, The Sangha is officially considered as an instrument for ideological indoctrination. Most of the Sangha acts have been state-initiated and enforced demanding that the views of the Supreme Patriarch reflect the political landscape. However the wish from the State to control the Sangha changed during the 1990ties (with the increased development of commercialism and consumerism). Changes in the socio-economic those are necessary to become a modern state and an active member of the global world. As a result the “Thai Buddhism” has now many faces. Another negative development since 1990ties is the participations of monks in conspicuous consumption and commercial activities. In Thai it is called Phuttha Phanit.

Very sadly an increasing amount of monks and monasteries are deeply involved in dishonest business and some monks promoted as super TV stars selling commercial products that are 100 % fraud. So where is the future of the Thai Buddhism?  In which direction is it heading? I can understand that the young generation is not interested in Buddhism and all the fairy tales that have no connection to reality. You teach the new generations science and want them to believe in the serious purpose of the monks at the same time some monks in general terms are not worthy to represent the Buddhism? The well known Monk Santikaro Bhikku wrote an article in “Asia Week” (1999) where he explains that money greed from the monks are eating up the true values of Sangha. To the money greed you can add temples embezzlements, drugs and sex scandals (15 % of the monks are drug addicts).

No wonder that the management of the Sangha Institution is looking for ways how to reinstate the pride, respect and authority of Sangha. My comment: They are facing a task close to the impossible unless they realize that the world is now active in the 21^st century. Read more under the heading Buddhism below. Buddhists traditionally consider monastic life to provide the environment most conducive to advancing toward enlightenment, and the Sangha is responsible for maintaining, translating, advancing, and spreading the teachings of the Buddha. So is the corrupt elite and government officials living in accordance with the teachings of Buddha?

REMARKS on the Bureaucracy

That actually is just a prolonged arm of the previous Absolute Monarchy.

When producing essays/articles about Thailand one faces a problem that is very similar, but 100 % identical to same in Singapore. When Dr. Lee transformed the previous part of The British Empire into a Republic he had a tremendous power, which never made him corrupt but it went straight to his head. Any opposition was swept away from the scene and anybody who did not agree with him or his policies faced problems from losing job to be thrown in jail. No mercy at all was his motto. He made a deal with his people. You give me your soul and I guarantee prosperity. A Faustian sort of deal I guess. Result; even the labor force is well educated almost all bilingual and well trained/mannered. The list of positive results is long but all good things in life come at a price; Civil rights are close to none existing, the press is loud mouthpiece for the Singaporean government, any foreign newspaper or magazine critical of the Republic are banned and even articles from writes abroad can be censured. The government is paranoia and therefore is reinforcing the social cohesion.

So there are some similarities to Thailand, but again we need to make segregation. In this context I refer to Max Weber a scholar of modern sociology, who is considered as one of the best within his field. His theory about methodology is famous, rational means to rational ends, and one important factor is how to estimate or ensure the effect of means. OK I know Durkheim did same, so leave that discussion for a better time.

In order to get to Rational Ends the government will use Rational Means. But how to define the value of each mean is the good part of the equation. In Thailand the major means are a pack of lies, manipulations and to avoid any kind of proper education. No wonder the poor Thais are easy targets for scrupulous politicians.

Considering that the Bureaucracies of Thailand are the backbones of her body to keep her standing, it is very difficult to create a professional government apparatus that can separate personal interest from the ones of the Kingdom. Max Weber studied this and called it “instrumental rationality” which I find a very diplomatic expression. Not too long ago civil servants in Thailand were considered hands of the Monarchy and the change in 1932 did only have limited effect until 1993 where Chinese businessmen removed the generals (hands of the Crown), from the absolute power but only 16 + years have passed, the democratic baby Thai Beauty is yet not able to stand on her own legs and why not?

I can establish these 4 reasons (arguments):

1. The overlooked fact about the situation of the Monarchy. It was so to say “reconstructed” by the present King during the second half of the last century. HMK ascended the throne in 1946 after a period of the throne acting as a symbol only, but did stay in Switzerland until 1951. Upon his return The Bureaucracy launched a PR campaign in order to restore the Monarchy as the centre of Thai politics under military control. The marketing campaign comprised of royal visits all over Thailand plus the establishing of radio and later TV daily coverage of the royal family’s activities. Thailand was at that time under the dictatorship of Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat. He was the one who introduced the law of lèse-majesty as a tool to manipulate political opponents. Why? Because he transformed the law into a matter of threats to the national security if anybody critized the Monarchy. HMK’s role matured and much later Thailand’s motto Nation, Religion and Monarchy was added these words; and democracy with the King as the Head of the State. At present the admiration for HMK is without limits and for good reasons. The King has limited power according to the Constitution, but is an icon of the Thai nationality and identity. The respect for him along with his moral authority has been used when the situation approached a state of anarchy.
2. In the 1980ties and 1990ties the Kingdom was marked by consumerism and political corruption. This was reflected in the Buddhism as this to a very high degree became commercialized. During those years we witnessed an increasing amount of scandals among the monks; sex, drugs and financials even among prominent monks. The examples are many. In 2000 the Abbot of the Thammakai Monastery had a Rolls Royce as his vehicle and he removed 35 million THB from the bank account of donations into his own pocket. At the same time monks started to sell amulets that was said to hold magic power, holy water and so on, all fakes of course but the daily sales could amount to 100.000 THB and during weekend even 1 million. Who took the money? Many temples are today turned into a circus a la Las Vegas only focusing on daily income and with big neon signs informing visitors about which casino to visit.

The Buddhism is slowly but surely losing ground and is in need of adjustments. Any criminal can today be accepted as a monk but has no clue about the true Buddhism but is still “respected” due to his robe. It is no secret that the State (read Bureaucracy) has tried implement discipline and a uniform system to control the Sangha. This of course has represented a huge field for disputes. However many Thais try to keep the Sangha in conservative status it cannot escape modernization that is impossible.

The Sangha fights the negative development of materialistic and social development, where the greed for money and power plus consumerism is a hard battle to face. May I add that the rich elite who have gotten unusual rich based on corruption is a cause of destroying the original ascetic ideals of Sangha. And why do Abbots need to have a new Mercedes, Audi or BMW in his garage plus a luxurious villa?

1. Another central point is the “import” of Western products the most significant Knowledge. But it will be fairer to add the influence of the immigration of Chinese. Who has moved this country forward? The Thais? No. Looking at the history of the Monarchy many initiatives were taken to gain knowledge from western countries how to modernize a nation to the benefit of her citizens.

But under the Absolute Monarchy Period the imported progressive factors contributing to the development of at that time Siam were controlled by the Kings and they kept the profit and control. Knowledge was 100 % linked to the royal power and even when deemed necessary the history of Thailand was rewritten and manipulated never admitting to any failures of Thais even if they had made them. It was at that time introduced to the Thais that any problem in Thailand is the fault of the Farangs while the Kingdom at the same time takes advantage of their investments and knowhow. The relationship between Farangs and the Kingdom has always been, and still is, ambivalent. On one side admiration and the other side repulsion.

Let me state this correct example, in 1912 the King Wachirawuth (Rama VI) invited European Royals to his coronation ceremony. This lasted two weeks and was close to emptying the royal coffins for cash. However later in 1915 he condemned the Farangs and called them low class persons with immoral behavior and ridiculed the Thais who had adopted the Western lifestyle. Double standard accepted and used today as well.

1. Finally Thailand has a problem with the army and the police. It is a well known fact that any officer who violates the laws he is employed and paid for to adhere to will go free. They generally treat the citizens as third class persons and expect them to Wai and crawl on the knees as a sign of respect. However in order to be fair I need to separate between Army and The Royal Thai Police. I have written enough about the army so just these remarks related to the police. This article is written late July 2010. Right now the question about a Police Reform is a heated issue. The Thai Police Force has some major defects, what a nice word for a bunch of corrupt persons. These 3 issues are the criminal investigation system, which seems to be exercised based an outdated methods and what is worse use of torture, next is corruption and 3^rd the fact that the Force has to obey the political masters and power figures more than to care about the Thai citizens. These issues are raised by the Asian Human Rights Commission and if you have some time look at the Internet and read postings from desperate Thais, who are fighting a hopeless battle with corrupt police, who supports the one, who pays the most. I doubt how you can change the mind of so many persons soon enough to meet international standards? Rule number one is, no connection between the police and the elite.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

A stable democracy requires public commitment to democratic norms and procedures, a strong and institutionalized party system, and active pressure groups. Such conditions have yet to be fully developed in Thailand. The major part of Thailand’s history since 1932 is marked by power struggles between the military and politicians. A ‘guardian’ role continues to be advocated by the military, but that role is unlikely to enjoy as much public support as in the past. In discussing the role of the military in the democratization process in Thailand, the interesting questions therefore are: what role does the military have to play in the process of democratization, and under what circumstances will its political role change? For decades the politicians controlling the Power Bases have worn a uniform. However still today the Monarchy is behind the army (but who controls the royal police?)

One of the problems of democratization in Thailand has been that, because of a long period of bureaucratic and military domination, a democratic regime often has difficulty establishing legitimacy in relation to the traditional political culture. Economic and social changes in recent years have produced a new urban, educated middle class which subscribes to the principles of democracy; but the possibility of an effective democratic government could hardly be expected. The Chatichai government (1989-1991) gained legitimacy because it was popularly elected, but it later lost legitimacy because it could not tackle effectively the corruption in the government.

Anand’s government, which succeeded it after the 1991 coup, assumed power without legitimacy because it was appointed by the military junta. But it went on to gain public recognition as one of the most reliable, transparent and efficient governments.

The fact that all democratic regimes in Thailand have been weak and inefficient has affected their legitimacy. And if they cannot improve their performance and accountability, their popular support will be easily undermined.

Among other things, the civilian government must improve its efficiency, accountability and stability. The Thai political experience suggests that the fragility of democratic governments encourages military intervention. To change the military mind-set into a more democratic one, the civilian democratic government must prove itself strong and responsible. Democratic reforms should be carried out gradually. The military and other conservative elements are not in favor of radical changes.

Among the conservative elements are the majority of Thais. Deep down they do not have the ability to form their own model of a true democracy. They are simply not mature and even if they are in the 60ties they are still like kids who are moved and controlled by emotions rather than logics. They have no wish to face realities they prefer a life controlled by strong forces based on the reluctance to assume responsibility for their own life. If things go wrong blame the surroundings, not me I am so innocent. Coming back to Max Weber; The scrupulous politicians or the bureaucracy are in control of the population by their non critical admiration of the monarchy, and the blindfolded attachments to the Buddhism.

They are easy victims of manipulations and indoctrinations due to lack of proper education. To many the major part of their life is a struggle between the modernity and the past. And the past cannot win it is gone forever so it does not help to hope it is the vehicle that can lead to a modernized and democratic Thailand.

A major part of my views are based on studies of the social physiologist David Riesman, who in his book “The lonely Crowd” gives a clear introduction to what is called the development of the social character. All persons are subject to or victims of impacts from culture, traditions, values, social conventions and of course from rituals in the broad sense. I can strongly recommend reading his books. Due to the effects of these impacts we are all “different products” when we enter into the part of life, where school, university and political and social structures start to influence as well.

I would also like to draw your attention to NOMOS, which is an old Greek definition of the total set of laws, traditions, habits and conventions that are the driving force of any society. It will be just a little outside the scope of my narrative, but NOMOS is worth studying if you really want to know, why Am I as I am and why is a Farang a Farang, two different worlds so far apart and yet so close, just we learn to understand each other and why are we not all the same. It takes some time I agree to that. I have spent a major part of my life trying to establish the facts, but still learning!

Thailand has a very low educational standard in general terms; the teachers badly educated, low learning efficiency, lack of discipline and ignoring the needs for the hungry new generation to learn. Thailand cannot afford to have a mediocre educational system it is shortsighted and very dangerous for the development of the country. Another critical factor is the psychological impacts from media and TV. The latter has become the most powerful psychological instrument of our time. The poor standard of many Thai soap operas are keeping viewers in an iron fist mainly showing them fantasies and lies and the viewers do not realize that they are victims of indoctrination. The modern word is Infotainment. Focus on being entertained rather than to learn. These two factors as mentioned should be a subject of worries for the Thais, who want a better Kingdome with a bright future and maybe now start to wonder, why The King never smiles.

The following statements have been published by well respected Thais as well as foreign commentators:

In the facile political taxonomy we use to categorize nations, Thailand is considered a democracy. Yet the country remains, if not a banana republic, a juicy, messy mango republic. Over the past four years, two political blocs, loosely divided in terms of class and geography, have swapped control of government with whirlwind velocity, using ever more creative protest tactics and distortions of democratic institutions to vanquish their opponents.

Quite apart from the king’s extremely fragile health, the palace has made it clear since the 2006 coup that it sides with anti-Thaksin forces. When the anti-Thaksin yellow shirts occupied Bangkok’s international airport in November and December 2008, they did so under an explicit royal banner with all of the protections that such palace endorsement implies. By contrast, the prospect of royal intervention to save the red shirts from the wrath of the military is now remote. In fact, some are starting to wonder out loud if Thailand’s monarchy is now, in fact, part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Decades of national faith invested in an unelected monarch as the ultimate source of authority and salvation in times of crisis has stunted the development of robust democratic institutions. Thailand has put too many eggs into the royal basket and now lacks the institutional wherewithal to constructively resolve political divisions.  There is considerable truth to the old joke that Thailand is the world’s longest lasting fledgling democracy, and that truth owes much to the fact that the symbolic power of the monarch has overshadowed opportunities for elected politicians to manage national affairs.

When the shooting and burning in Bangkok finally subsides Thailand is going to have to rebuild faith in its basic democratic institutions. Cultivating a more respectful attitude to the political choices of its many rural inhabitants would be a good place to start.

Thailand’s political landscape, as brutal as it is apparent today, has been remolded by various factors, internal or external. This could either solidify or further weaken the country’s democracy. All parties concerned need to find a new consensus on the acceptable definition of a democracy and they must respect it once it is found.

The Thais are always looking for persons to blame when things go wrong instead of trying to understand what went wrong and why and then fix the problems. They are always running away from problems and expect others to solve them. They tend to ask Foreigners this question; “You do not understand” What about the Thais trying to get enough knowledge about the roots or causes of problems and then solve them? What has happened to personal responsibility? Or moral values and ethical rules of how to bring up the generations? Gone with the wind? Not too long ago this question was asked; what do you do for your country? This has been replaced by two words; GIVE ME!

Often I do not understand the Thais and maybe it’s because I am a Farang. Foreigners never know what’s going on in Thailand. Even when we think we know, we really don’t. In fact the surer we are that we know the score, the deeper is our ignorance. Why? Because this is Thailand and this country is like a murky stew. There will always be ingredients shimmering beneath the surface that foreigners will never know about. It’s a good thing too sometimes ignorance can be bliss.

ABOUT THAI SOAP OPERAS by BOONRAK BOONYAKETMALA (I know it is a bit old)

With other core value-forming institutions such as religion, education and family apparently weakening for one reason or another, mass communications _ especially television, which is the most domesticated, widespread, free and accessible _ has steadily stolen the limelight as the tutor of the populace’s hearts and minds, old and young. Notwithstanding the television industry’s claim that soaps are strictly for fun, it can be established that the values promoted by them closely reflect the values of heavy television consumers _ values that did not exist prior to their exposure to soaps.

These soaps reflect the duality of Thai society. On the one hand, there is a traditional group of soaps, normally the territory of Channel 7, which are symptomatic of old values such as the centrality of virginity, monogamy, pure romance, personal sacrifice and devotion to the well-being of family and society at large. Targeted to the masses, both in rural and urban areas, such soaps reinforce the best of old, passing values, and therefore relatively heart-warming, though many of their components are outdated by the times.

On the other hand, during the last decade or so, a new genre of soaps has emerged on television, a field pioneered by Channel 3. The storylines often focus on a morally decent and professionally competent female lead who encounters unbelievably fierce fights staged by other female characters, usually to win over a rich, successful, handsome, though somewhat naive man (along with, of course, his money and wealth) by resorting to the dirtiest tricks _ anything from systematic lying to outright murder _ normally used by only the most evil people.  Often, but not always, the devilish female characters are dangerously beautiful, mentally cruel and sexually promiscuous, whose deviant behavior is cheered on by relatives and friends. Sometimes, the female lead is not a virtuous woman, meant to be touched only by the male lead. That is a refreshing ingredient to warm the hearts of middle- and upper-class viewers, female and male alike, each for its own reason.

The controversial War of Angels has combined elements of the two genres, resulting in an extreme conflict of values from the old and modern worlds. Notably, the female lead is an old-fashioned woman falling in love with a decent man who is in the middle of a divorce from a wicked wife. But a single man, portrayed as the meanest womanizer on Earth, rapes her, resulting in pregnancy. She is left with shame and guilt, and made to believe she brought it on herself.

————————————————————————————–

I started with Durkheim so I will close my article with his views on ANOMIE, the lack of norms. The Kingdom of Thailand has a huge amount of citizens, who are without individual ambition but are victims of indoctrinations from influential sources, all mentioned in my article. Durkheim describes what happens to a society where the greed for consumerism, power, money and high expectations of the positive effects from the industrial revolution. The modern Thailand seems lost and does not realize that not all ways laid down in the past, will not lead to the future expected and promised by the Elite and the other significant icons.

ANOMIE occurs when a society lacks of social ethics and when corrupt political elite ensures it always wins even when it ignores the laws and justice of the society it is supposed to protect and earn. The graveness of the situation escalates when a corrupt police force supports the party paying the highest price ignoring the duty to protect the citizens by upholding law and order according to the Constitution.

Thailand is today heavily marked by political and cultural corruption and precisely targeted manipulation and brainwashing by the controlling Elites regardless of nature.

—————————————————–

Ole Casthoej

Chonburi 1st August 2010

The production of this complete series has taken a long time. I have used authentic sources in the form of books, articles all available at bookstores in Thailand. Major sources for my mini-studies have been:

Max Web; The Methodology of the Social Science

Emile Durkheim; Rules of the Sociological Method

Henrik Jensen; Weber and Durkheim

Maurizio Peleggi; Thailand The Worldly Kingdom

John Funston; Divided over Thaksin

Pasuk Phongpaichit; Corruption and Democracy in Thailand

Thanapol Chadchaidee; Prominent Thai Political Thinkers

Pasuk Phongpaichit/Chris Baker; Thai Capital

Pasuk Phongpaichit/Chris Baker; THAKSIN

Pavin Chachavalpongpun; Reinventing Thailand/Thaksin and his Foreign Policy

Mirca Eliade; The History of Religious Ideas

Paul M. Handley; The King never smiles/banned in Thailand

Chris Baker; A History of Thailand

Alvin Toffler; Third Wave and Future Schock

P.A. Payutto: The Pali Canon

Pra Dhammavisuddikavi*); A Buddhist way of mental training

Samme; A constitution for living

*) A.ka. Payutto

Khantipalo Bhikkhu; Buddhism explained

Insight Medication Center; The way out of suffering

Plus unaccounted number of articles from Thai magazines and newspapers.

Suchit Bunbongkarn

Somboon Suksamra

The Western University of Australia; Articles on Social Research

My remarks: Some of the above books about Buddhism designate a high degree of indoctrination and often conflict with internationally well known scholars of Buddhism. Some of the books lack academic approach and seem to be meant for persons, who cannot think for themselves. I have deep respect for the philosophy behind the Buddhism but not always for the disparity of monks, or badly educated men disguised as monks, completely lacking the control of this important instrument that plays a significant role in the kingdom of Thailand. Many monks see the world through the prism of Buddhism so they wear masks, but all masks have cracks not one is perfect. When the gaps show you can see some lacks of understanding the reality of the many aspects and I feel that many monks do not realize they are being used by paranoid politicians or members of the elite as dogmatic instruments. Broader visions are needed but only come with proper education that spans outside the prism as mentioned.

(THAILAND/RELIGION/DEMOCRACY)

AND GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

This is then my final volume of my series about democracy, politics and religion. When I set out to spend time to look further into this important topic I used this text in volume I: The majority of the last decades have offered the World an increasing number of wars, terrorism and violence initiated with backgrounds in extreme beliefs and escalating conflicts between religion, politics and social structures. In Denmark we have increasing problems with the integration of Muslims, often violent clashes and in Thailand we witnessed an amount not witnessed before of violence and escalating problems at the southern part of the Kingdom with the Muslims resulting in more than 4000 deaths. For many years I have wondered why did we get so far, what has happened? So I have started to dig into this question as stated above in order to try to understand at least the fundamentals and then express my conclusions in the form of essays on my blog.

Since the whole issue is concentrated around relevant elements of the overall social structure of a Nation I have used Max Weber and Emile Durkheim as sources and references. They are both considered classical scholars of modern sociology and use methods based on empirical and theoretical analyses. I try to “convert” these into a form easy to comprehend. The basic idea behind the analysis is to establish why there is a difference between what we tell the world we do and our actual actions. Pretend contra reality in other words.

I wish to stress that I in no way intent to insult anybody as my objective is to produce arguments that hopefully can bring some food for thoughts but on the other hand I will voice some strong arguments in order to provoke my readers ( my style), an attitude I find necessary here in Thailand where too many facts about  reality  are hidden under a carpet of spins and imaginations, a picture often shared by my Thai friends in a private tete- a- tete but not voiced in public. I can only guess why but tend to agree with this slogan Amazing Thailand.

In order to ease the understanding I have compared the situation in Denmark to Thailand (politics/democracy/religion) merely as practical examples, but do realize of course that this may not be 100 % correct. When discussing this important issue with my wife we both agree that since the world has turned to be globalized countries tend to lose their identities and we also both agree that it seems that the soul of Thailand has gone lost or at best is difficult to find. It was my intention to finish my series by describing my observations about the conflicting situation in Thailand between the Buddhism and the political landscape also colored by the non critical respect for the monarchy but I realize that most likely I will end up in hot water, very hot indeed, if I try that, so I will refrain from making a full disclosure of my observations based on soon 40 years of religious and philosophical studies. However my series could not be completed without expressing some of my most important views or observations if you like. So here are some interpretations in order to put things straight.

The major philosophy in Thailand is the Buddhist School of Theravada. You may also describe it as the doctrine of Theravada, or the Way of the Elders (espoused the three baskets of the Pali canon Tipitaka). There is from the 13^th century added diffusion from the Mon and Khmer cultures, so the Central Thai Buddhism is a cultural mixture. I am fully aware of the roles of monks and temples in the Thai social system, where the temples formed the frames for education and social activities and I am fully conscious of the background and development of Buddhism of course.

I will voice this viewpoint that 90 % of the population has limited knowledge about the other Buddhist Schools and true origin of Buddhism, they completely have faith in all the messages transmitted to them from monks and institutions that in principle wish to control them (The average Thai will not know that). All nations are as a rule managed by these 3 factors; Power (The Monarchy) Land and Religion. Thaksin has tried (maybe still is) to ensure that Buddhism must be The State Religion not giving the citizens the freedom to choose and having a state religion means to ensure complete control using the temples and monks as political instruments a dangerous move since most monks have no clue about how to manage a country by political power. I do know that many books actually mention that Buddhism is The State Religion but the signals are not clear and thus confusing. The laws have been changed several times mainly in connection with alterations of the constitution.

The true picture about the Buddhism in Thailand is a mixture of the original Theravada School but topped with folk beliefs (mysteries) Gods from India and from China plus elements from other Chinese religions, since China has more than one and they came to Thailand along with the Chinese immigrants. But in general terms I dare to say that the average Thai does not know about this and that is why it is almost completely impossible to have a qualified debate on these paradigms.  It is claimed that in the Buddhism there is no God, but still Gods from India and China are an important part and even the role of His Majesty the King was partly connected to an Indian God. So Thailand shares cultural and religious influences from the whole Far East Region. I refer to information of the Sangha Organization in Thailand that controls the various divisions of The Thai Buddhism.

As many other important factors in Thailand forming the country the Buddhism is an imported product. It is mentioned in many books in Thailand that Buddhism is the oldest religion in the World. This is as many other statements completely wrong. Buddhism is not a religion and even if so not the oldest.

As mentioned in an earlier article Thailand has two taboos The Buddhism and the Monarchy. The lacks of proper education in the Kingdom contributes to the difficulty in modernizing or adjust the Buddhism to the global development and it is in the major interest of the Elite to keep the average Thais in the darkness of the middle age. As for the Monarchy one can ask this question:  The king has long been a symbol of unity in Thailand’s increasingly fractious political and social arena; a trusted icon whenever conflict threatens to spiral out of control. Now, the question on many people’s minds is: Can Thailand’s unstable democracy outlives its beloved king? The role will soon or later be discussed without the fear of facing charges for insulting the Monarchy.

In closing this part of my essay I will quote a well respected Thai Minister of Foreign affairs Kasit Piromya who gave this statement in USA in April 2010:

“The positive sign of Thai political development is the ordinary people now participating in the political process as opposed to Thailand 15 years or 20 years ago, where political actors were confined to the bureaucrats, to some of the business people, to some of the professional politicians, to some of the military officers.” He went on: “Hopefully, with the traumatic violent experiences that we will come through, we can have a democracy that combines representative democracy with a direct democratic participation. More to the tune of Lichtenstein or to the Swiss model combined with the UK parliamentary system.”

Then came the bombshell: “I think we should be brave enough to go through all of this and to talk about even the taboo subject of the institution of the monarchy … Let’s have a discussion: what type of democratic society would we like to be?”  Well said by a highly respected Thai not me!

General remarks about Religions and Democracies.

In this context I will use this term also for Buddhism.

In a true democracy citizens have the right to choose a religion and political conviction. However the premises must then be that citizens have the background enabling them to make the right choice and the background is knowhow based on education.  Education is not only related to schools and universities since all media contribute like radio, TV, newspapers and magazines. Again a complete right to express views and argue about pro et contra is a must without fearing to land in hot water or facing jail. A true democracy cannot function without equal rights and mutual respects for all to express what she or he is thinking about the social frames within which they are doomed to live.

In a real democracy one cannot have a State Religion that will conflict with the meaning of true democracy, but this is of course a basis for conflicts. If a country gives the right for her citizens to choose any religion he or she may prefer the meaning that persons can maintain their own beliefs without any interference from the State or the authorities. In a true democracy all citizens vote and consequently they vote for the Power Apparatus so it is obvious that one person has to admit and respect the rights of others ending with a final solution made by the majority whether one likes it or not. But will the conflict be that a majority will dictate a specific religion that overrules religious freedom? So now we are back to the question of education, since all citizens need to be able to separate the two issues politics and religion they cannot be mixed it is a dangerous cocktail, just look at the development of the Catholic Church in Europe. I do not wish to insult my readers by making references it is very clear what happened. The conclusion was that an individual pays a price for not using his religion as a political platform. At the same time he or she enters into an agreement with his country, a social contract if you wish, where a citizen not only has the right to vote but an obligation to do so. Maybe a moral issue but how can we have a democracy if we do not exercise our voting rights?

In order for a country/state/nation to function properly it is imperative that the citizens clearly understand to segregate religious issues from political views. Needed are the ability/qualifications from the citizens to think in rational ways not by emotions and acceptance of sweet talks from the power bases. But regardless of whether you are in Thailand or Denmark it is not easily done I know that. How many are able to make this separation without getting into moral conflicts? Especially in case of religions acting as a voice for the politicians it is impossible for the lower and not well educated classes to act as expected. I hear many monks talking about politics and maybe this is understandable in Thailand since the Buddhism is solid basic part of the country. And of course scrupulous politicians will take advantage of this opportunity having the monks acting as PR companies. But here is the conflict. When the army is in control the generals can command the soldiers how to vote, this is a proven fact, because it can be verified. But what is the situation with the monks? Are they all supposed to vote for the party that supports the Monarchy or the opposition if they have a free right to decide?

In Thailand it is impossible to avoid these complications which then are a strong hindrance for the Kingdom to ever have true democracy, but most likely a Thai Style Democratic Version based on corruption, vote buying and nepotism, but a true democracy never in my lifetime and many years thereafter.

If I now turn my eyes to the other main religions Christianity and Islam, both having had my undivided attention for decades I can start by explaining the central wisdom for both, but that will be rather time-consuming. The development of democracies in the so called Western World compared to Islamic countries is like night and day. In most of 100 % democratic countries there is a total clear cut between religion and politics. You may find a few exceptions especially in catholic communities and that is no wonder since that Church was based on black mail and fear allowing sinners to pay the Church in order to avoid to go to hell.

Where you find countries with a majority of the populations being Protestants the segregation is 100% clean. However in the latter the amount of citizens refusing to be religious is increasing. The reason could be that the more one is educated the more difficult is seems to believe in fairy tales but maybe much more worrying for the Catholic Church in e.g. Ireland the fans decrease in numbers proportionally with increased incomes.

In Islam the politics and religion are two sides of the same coin, no debate no freedom to think otherwise. Academic studies why this is the case will always be initiated by explaining the miracles of Jesus and Muhammad as in Thailand the story starts by Buddha’s birth and life. In all cases a lot of the writings are based on folk stories and myths completed by religious studies over a long period of time. I take the liberty assuming that the readers of my blog know about these developments so it is easy to conclude that both Christianity and Islam carry within them a set of laws politically and ethically that combine religion and politics. But just to refresh your memory; Jesus grew up in a society completely without political power or influence. He never took advantage of his influence to gain political power. Muhammad’s clear aim for Islam was and is to exercise total power by letting the religious laws serve as political and legal systems as well, the most dangerous cocktail in this world unfortunately overseen by most people.

The big change in the Christian countries takes place when Martin Luther told the Pope that he did no longer agree to his policies and started the Reformation that separated religion and politics and much more importantly laid the basis for the introduction to the Age of Enlightenment  where citizens could make own choices based on education and improved knowledge. They could ask questions, get answers and challenge the power bases ending with the French revolution that was the inspiration to the change of Thailand’s power landscape in 1932, but many Thais do not think about this and the reason for the true meaning of the 3 colors of the flag (Changed in 1917). Another import from abroad, why can Thailand not establish its own identity, why always (almost) copy? One needs to study the background of the bloodless coup in 1932 to realize, that what happened was only a transition of power from the King or the Royal Elite to a group of so called New Men using the name of The Peoples Party, who actually was not supported by popular votes and soon everybody saw the true face of these men; they wanted control of Thailand and access to the shrine with the gold. It started then and has never changed since the greed for money and power.

In the Western world and in Arabic countries we find solid documentation that religions can be used as the political power controlling instrument. The amount of conflicts this scenario creates is a daily eye-opener to all of us, just look at Pakistan and Afghanistan. I do not need to explain that in details. No democracy can be established in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan because Islam has no rule for a democracy as Islam itself by the Shia Laws represent the political dictatorship.

The conclusion is that you need to change Islam and its laws before you can establish democracy and who believes that? The wars by USA and NATO in some of the Islam countries are a useless demonstration of military supremacy and waste of lives and money, they will never be able to support a Western democratic system.

May I refer to Samuel Huntington’s book “The Clash of Civilizations” in which he demonstrates that 75 % of all wars take place between Muslims and non Muslims and internally between Islamic States. He mentions in his book that Islam draws its boundaries in blood. (You may also read his book “The Soldier and The State”). Muslims are also deeply involved in terror, violence and a profound disrespect for human rights.

Why did the West not learn that lesson already in 1923 when Kemal Ataturk was the first to westernize the Ottoman Empire, which then became Turkey? Why did we all not learn including Thaksin and his Elite that it is almost impossible to change the cultural landscape by misusing a religion or a philosophy like the Buddhism to reform the Kingdoms political, institutional, cultural and social issues?

Ole Casthoej

Chonburi

Thailand

August 1^st 2010

To be continued in volume VI

THE KINGDOM WITH MANY CONFLICTS

INTRO

My first visit to the Kingdom of Thailand dates back to 1970. In 1996 I moved here from Singapore and in between 1970 and 1996 I have paid numerous visits mainly for business purposes working for Danish companies with subsidiaries in the Kingdom resulting  in a certain knowledge (in all modesty) about the region even from a distance. What I have done is to compare the developments between Malaysia, independent since 1963 and Singapore, which became independent in 1965. However it must be noticed that Singapore got partly independent from United Kingdom (British Commonwealth) in 1959 but along with Malaysia and then in 1963 it is on its own.

Malaysia is (as Thailand a constitutional monarchy) based on solid education and a focused industrialization now produces a GDP of more than 14.500 USD per capita. The Republic of Singapore has since the independence managed to be the 4^th richest country in the world and the GDP p.c. exceeds 50.000 USD. Thailand has a mere GDP p.c. of 8.000 USD but had the same chances to move ahead, but did not succeed, why? In 1965 Singapore had a GDP per capita of 511 USD, Malaysia 700 USD p.c. and Thailand 140 USD. So again the figures are; 1965/2009 Singapore 511/50.000, Malaysia 700/14.500 and Thailand 140/8.000. In comparison here are the figures for Denmark; 2.244/56.115; progress in percentage is: Singapore 9686, Malaysia 1971, Thailand 5614 and Denmark only 2400.

If we now take a look at the government style, Singapore did have a very strong and committed leader for a period of 31 years (1959 to 1990) Dr. Lee, who transformed the republic into a modern state as a financial center for the region, and Malaysia had Dr. Mahathir was the leader for 22 years (1983 to 2003). He changed the previous agricultural country into a modern industrial state. Dr. Lee was completely free of corruption where as Dr. Mahathir became “unusual rich” but both countries had long term stable governments in contradiction to Thailand, she had most of the period in question military dictatorship with absolutely no focus on Thailand but on personal benefits only.

So why was it not possible for The Kingdom of Thailand to join the club and move forward to the benefit of the nation?

THAILAND

As for the “management” of The Kingdom of Thailand the picture looks completely different and most likely you will find the reasons for the missing out of many golden opportunities, lost due to the very special Thai culture representing barriers for advanced development and an acceptable form of democracy. May I quote Mr. Kukrit Pramoj a previous PM of Thailand who said this:” In Thailand we talk non-stop about politics and democracy but we don’t have it”. He measured the Thai democracy against the background of Brahman divinity in the Chakri Court, acts as vote buying from politicians and the many coups by the military that all seems to represent the wishes of the Thais.

Following the drastic change in 1932 the bureaucracy that had been established by the Kings took over a defined part of the power base, leaving still enough for the monarchy. The bureaucracy was better known as “The Servants of the King” and consisted entirely of persons from the aristocracy. The members, the elite, were almost all ethnic Chinese capitalists.

However they did try to modernize the Thai society but adhered to the principle of “a system of subordination legitimated by Thai cultural values” The system is for a foreigner very complex to understand since it is hardly understood by the Thais themselves, the overall mentality is like a big bamboo tree bending with the shifting directions of the wind, could I name it “Thainess”?

I take it that there is no need to go through details of the history of Thailand from 1932 to 2010, so I will focus on some major significant characteristics and developments.

The period in question is on one hand marked by serious attempts to modernize the Thai society. Many important issues needed to be redefined in order to move from a Buddhist Kingdom to a modern state that fits into the new set of rules for the modern now global world. On the other hand the resistance from parts of the power bases (military and police) to accept this and the reluctance from many Thais to adjust the discipline of living a modern life based on traditions outdated and unrealistic myths. In general terms the poor standard of education, including teachings of Buddhism represents barricades for a broader understanding. With a narrow academic schooling how can one maintain a serious and constructive debate?

The social structure is in extensive terms linked to Sakdina, which are actually directions for social order. It defines the hierarchy and has strong links to the legal system an often unfair situation to persons on the lower steps of the social ladder. It is a weakness as well that it shapes the “rights” for the Elite to hold the highest positions in the country regardless of the complete lack of national interests. However the majority of Thais still accepts this system being more than 600 years old and thus totally out of tune representing a hindrance for Thailand to move on.

The 3 major institutions forming the base for Thailand are The Monarchy, The Sangha and The Bureaucracy. The entire leadership is concentrated around these boundaries and form the way Thailand is governed, the rules for moral and finally the Thai culture. To many scholars think that this mix or cocktail can present the establishment of a true democracy and maybe the Thais do not want that?

I often doubt that the average Thais understand the actual meaning of the paradigms. Sakdina e.g. is the right for the Nobles to exploit the poor people and access to wealth. The kings had until 1932 all rights and access that he had to split with the new Elite after 1932. The Elite has consequently just taken over the role of the king and use this “right” in scrupulous manners, the latest example is Thaksin. The true meaning of Sangha (a Pali word) is a nation/state/community with common goals and visions.

Do you already see the basis for conflicts between the many and opposite sets of interests? I do.

If we now turn to the National Flag of The Kingdom we face a copy of the French Tricolor. However the Thai Flag’s 3 colors symbolize; the red is the blood of life, the white the Buddhism and the blue the monarchy. If we now assume that the red color actually represents the nation we get to the final question; how are the true ideologies of Thailand? Can we define the national coherence? The most important is of course the Nationalism. The inspiration to the motto of the Kingdom came from England where the motto read God, King and country.

At that time the English King was also the head of the church. The Thai King Waitirawuth introduced this tradition (Rama V Memorial Day and Chakri Day). I shall not tire you with details of the many conflicts this understanding have produced, but let me mention the text of the understanding of the Thai nationality laid down by the National identity Board in 1979:

“Preserve the Nation, defend independence and democracy, protect religion, treasure and preserve the monarchy, eliminate socio-economic disparities, eliminate suffering and nourish well-being, assimilate interests, maintain rights and freedom, create unity and integrity, uphold the identity of and promote the decent culture of the Thai people”.

———————————————————————

During the years from 1932 to 2009

Thailand has witnessed 10 successful military coups and 7 that failed. No need to mention the number of governments and Prime Ministers I guess. However during the eras of military ruling a significant shift was made introducing the mixing of power and politics with business. The smart generals established close relationships with large business by ensuring fat contracts e.g. holding positions as chairman of the board in return for other favors. This new development set of in the 1960ties but found a more permanent basis in 1973 where the army accepted the necessity to transform Thailand into a parliamentary ruled nation.

It was a splendid cooperation since both parties realized the need of each other. It should be noted that the rapid financial development of the Kingdom from 1960 and on was in greater terms based on recommendations from (among other parties) the World Bank again an issue since Thais often have the tendency to criticize foreign influence and advice.

Since this new policy was implemented it helped the Thai economy boosting, but there are other contributing factors, the important being the access to loans from off shore banks. Even most of the banks in Thailand took advantage of this possibility borrowing enormous amounts of loans in USD, which again the made available to Thai companies. I will not comment on the financial bubble in 1997 just kick in these thoughts, which again (sorry about that) the majority of the Thais fail to understand. During the decade of financial opportunities the national investments shifted from production (exports) to areas like entertainment (low class soap operas, meaningless news on brainless pop singers and movie stars e.g.), real estate, services, golf courses, brainwashing media, IT, fashion shops and with limited focus on investments in production companies. The bubble in 1997 was caused by the greedy Thai investors, who thought that access to capital is not an issue and having no clue about risk management. But who cares when the next financial need is facilitated by funds from corruptions and similar thefts? It was clearly a fault of Thailand’s financial management team that the crisis turned up.

However it is a fact that during the 1980ties a lot of investments were made in the exporting industries and in the tourist areas. More than 1 million persons per year moved from rural areas to urban areas increasing the domestic consumption.  But the better the national economy the harder the disputes related to whom should benefit from the increase of wealth. In my view this is the focus point and reason for a majority of the problems of Thailand; Control of the jar filled with honey. It is a hard job to find adequate examples of honest politicians. Of course there are some, but in principle they have limited influence and hold no power strong enough to change the political landscape. To be honest means to speak your mind and the truth and that is not listened to with the same attention if Thais are offered lies disguised as beautiful pictures and promises of the golden land. Dreaming is easier and since the general level of education is poor, scrupulous politicians have an easy game that can be compared to take candies from kids.

BACKGROUND

FOR THAKSIN’S

PERIOD

I will use Thaksin as one example of business icon, the perfect example of the mastering of the money policy, who came to power mostly due to the dissatisfaction with the political landscape in 2000/2001, having all the chances to change the country once and for all to the better for her citizens, but who mismanaged his opportunity due to unlimited greed for money and power. As a result he was toppled by the army in September 2006.

From 1970ties to 2001 Thailand’s economy grew. There were some bumps on the way, no wonder, but in general terms the Kingdom prospered. In 1997 the change of the constitution was welcomed by all Thais. The aim was to get away from “money politics” to be replaced by true and transparent democracy; it was the Nation’s the Thai’s constitution to pave the road to equal rights and a fairer distribution of wealth. The agenda was ambitious implying changes of the capital flow and access, to add increasing power to the Prime minister’s office, creation of semi-juridical power to bodies on the lower governmental ladder in order to check and balance the provincial budgets, community rights over local natural resources, improved education and liberalization of media. Later it was agreed to move 35 % of the national budget (central administration) to 70.000 local elective Tambon administrations that was a courageous move I dare say. On the negative side were the usual criticism of corruption and the lack of professional financial control by the major banks and financial institutions that was a major course for the financial collapse in 1997.

ENTERING THE STAGE

So the scene was set when Thaksin took over as the CEO of Thailand in 2001 having won the so- called democratic election after having bought a majority of 11 million votes and removed many rivals from the scene. Prior to the election he had established his army Thai Rak Thai and organized it prepared for war. Being one of the richest business tycoons he had access to unlimited finances and he took advantage of this fact and was in a situation that allowed him to employ the best qualified key staff and compose a team of experts’ unseen at that time in Thailand. His master plan and strategy were perfect no discussion about that.

The day when he seated himself in the chair as the new CEO of Thailand there was no end to all the superlatives from almost all sides inside and outside of Thailand. It was a new era in the political circus of Thailand that a winner ended up with the CEO cap based on appeals to the rural population of Thailand. He had 3 major arguments that he hammered into the heads of the masses;

1. Criticism of the politicians to use their position to enrich themselves
2. A change of the role of the bureaucracy that did not understand that Thailand needed to be managed like a company with focus on the bottom line and increase of her share capital.
3. The need to modernize politicians and bureaucrats. Thailand was losing momentum to other Asian countries and did not understand the importance of being an active participant in the formation of the global world.

He was so right. The acclamations had no ending. He then added a bold promise:” I want to make it possible for persons with drive and initiative to skip their jobs and start their own business like I did and I will ensure adequate financing if you make me the next PM”. Some scholars have been wondering who wrote all his speeches.

EXIT FROM THE POLITICAL THEATER

On September 19, 2006, the Thai army staged a coup toppling the elected government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Soldiers sported yellow royal ribbons and the military junta claimed that it was staging the coup to protect “democracy with the king as the head of state’’. It certainly was not protecting democracy, but most Thais believed that this was indeed a “royal coup”.

The coup came after Mass Street demonstrations against the elected government by the royalist and conservative Peoples Alliance for Democracy (PAD), in which many PAD members and leaders of the so-called Democrat Party had called for the king to sack the elected prime minister and appoint another one. Later, the yellow-shirted PAD took on a semi-fascist nature, using extreme nationalism and having its own armed guard. The PAD used violence on the streets of Bangkok

Why Thaksin was toppled is easy to understand even if many were surprised to witness a military coup, the first since 1991.  I shall not insult the intelligence of the readers by repeating all the events that took place since the coup in 2006 ending with the uproars in April, May and June in Bangkok. However the war is not over, Thaksin has lost a few battles but he has not been defeated and my gut feeling is that we this autumn will face a cascade of new internal conflicts. I hope I will be proven wrong, but I smell a linking between Thailand, Burma and Cambodia being financed by Thaksin and his allies, maybe not the entire Kingdom of Thailand but a major part of it.

If I try to summarize my observations about the Thaksin era the pictures would look like this:

• Thaksin had his network very strong and taking roots in the rural parts of Thailand
• He was fighting against the Monarchy’s network that proved to be stronger
• This network comprised The Courts, The Military and a major part of The Elite
• He wanted deep down to transform Thailand into a Republic with him as the President
• His ultimate enemy was clearly defined and all his attacks aimed and focused on that
• He totally ignored all the principles of the 1997 constitution and his Elite Supporters showed a remarkably social ignorance.
• His greed and ambitions overshadowed his good decisions and lead to his downfall

CONCLUSIONS

Thaksin represented at the start of his premiership a truckload of new thinking, new ways and new opportunities for his voters, the rural population and he was most likely the first PM to establish direct contact with them. Furthermore he delivered what he had promised during the election period. That was all fine and dandy at the start.

In 2001 he faced a court trial being charged having concealed the true value of his assets when moving into the Chief Pilots office. He was acquitted by the court by a 8 to 7 vote. After the verdict had been published the chairman of the court, Mr. Prasert Nasakul, said this:

“An aspiring politician can never identify the public interest if he or she still clings to self or vested interests. The heart of political reform is to nurture politicians who uphold sound moral principles and aspire to observe stricter DHAMA than other laymen. What the ACCUSED did show was that he is a product of the past. He still thinks and acts the same old way, like any other businessman in the Thai Style capitalist system. He only propagated that he had achieved enormous business success through honest means, but he never explained exactly why he managed so a success in a short period of time. Nor did he explain how he would solve the conflict stemming from his own fortune and that of the country. Politicians who are inclined to put their selfish interests before the public interests cannot be expected to make a positive contribution to the society they are supposed to serve”.

This statement is very accurate, but still the Thais continued to vote for a schizophrenic manipulator and liar to represent their beloved country. So will the many voters be prepared to share the responsibility for all the damages done that have set back Thailand many years? Destroying the hopes for establishing real democratic principles by allowing cronyism to flourish?

Thaksin had all chances to transform his country into a modern state with focus on education and Thai values attracting foreign investments. He could easily had won a series of free elections had he used his accumulated business set up to the benefit of the Kingdom. Instead he and his wife showed their real faces that have roots in the police and we all know how simpleminded they are, the most corrupt part of the population and extremely dangerous. When shitty persons use their power to control a country this is on the brink of anarchy. Thais may know that but claim they are helpless an attitude I sincerely distance myself from.

I shall complete this series with observations about the interaction between Buddhism and the democratic development of the Kingdom in a coming article, realizing this subject is sensitive so most likely it will take some time.

Chonburi on July 5^th 2010

THE KINGDOM WITH THE MANY CONFLICTS

However much I try doing my best it will be very difficult committing all my thoughts and observations about these paradigms to writing. The reasons are many; differences in culture, social structure, educational level but maybe most importantly the hesitation from many Thais to enter into a constructive and fruitful dialogue. Often I fell like Sisyphus putting all my verbal arguments up as a basis but almost at all times at no avail. To a majority of Thais comments that are not positive about Thailand are not welcome regardless of the honest opinions offered. Secondly it is almost “forbidden” in Thailand to offer western views on vital factors in the social structure forcing you to get access to solid and accurate information outside, mainly from Singapore. It is strange that many Thais at all times feel free to offer criticism of many western aspects often based on feelings only not on academic studies and with limited knowledge of right or wrong,  but a Farang cannot enter into a serious debate about Thailand, he will be blocked since he often represents views based on rational thinking.

I shall try my very best presenting my arguments and views with roots from information and books available to all Thai citizens.  I do know of course that not many read them which again makes an academic discussion close to impossible because we do not exchange arguments based on same level of know-how, which often is a cause for tremendous frustration.

Furthermore I will take advantage of my now many years living and working in 20+ countries with different political, multiracial, cultural and social structures as well as traditions.

CONCLUSIONS

When the heat was on in April and May 2010 resulting in the street fights in central Bangkok I produced a series of 6 articles to my blog about Thailand and Democracy. They are in Danish and meant for my families and friends to get a closer look behind the scenes. The 6 articles start of course with the situation in Thailand up to 1932 and end with a description of the very unhappy picture in May 2010. I had planned to translate my papers into English, but did not do it. Now in June 2010 the whole subject has become of extreme interest to me simply because I too often hear from my friends and associates this question; we are not happy with the actual situation, what can we do?

I consequently offer my observations in the naïve hope that some of them can act as food for thoughts then at least I have done something not just sitting on my hands watching the downfall of a country that is now my home for 14 years and hopefully many more to come.

I will here take the risk writing down my conclusions about the subject. They are based on a lot of research about the political landscape of the Kingdom and not on rumors, folktales or market gossips.

I have studied the backgrounds leading to my conclusions for many years and in the broadest possible way not on a subjective basis.

You may find them rough but they are not painted or swept under the Thai carpet of pretending;

THE KINGDOM of Thailand is badly in need of the following;

• The elite in Bangkok needs to find ways, even compromises for sharing the power, to ensure political stability and clearly define of the type of democracy suitable for Thailand .
• The so called Western liberal democracy is not appropriate for Thailand; the difference is to be found in the Thai culture. The Thai culture presupposes the values of the West. But she must move ahead with the democratization process even if painful, and find a democratic system suitable for her. It must be noted that in general terms the Thais uphold individuals over principles and do not welcome changes.
• Thailand needs to find her own way in the new world where the development in the globalized universe moves fast.
• Thailand is in need of a management team with visions focusing on progress for her.
• Thailand needs a complete new concept for the political power structure (government), and long term plans for finance, education, dealing with the poor citizens, reshaping of basic laws for justice not favoring the elite and finally a model for National Identity and Pride.
• Thailand needs a fiscal democracy and a check and balance of public spending
• Thailand needs to stop maintaining taboos that are a complete out of touch with the intentions in establishing a democracy fit for her. The taboos are mainly the Monarchy and the role of the Buddhism in general terms.
• The Thais need a change of attitudes if they want to be active participants in shaping the new global world.
• Thailand needs to clarify the roles for the Military and the Police in politics and social structure
• Thailand needs a fairer distribution system of welfare to comprise the urban areas

In my humble opinion above mentioned is a dream/Utopia that will never be fulfilled and why not?

Regardless of political color (red, yellow or pink) all political parties in Thailand carry within themselves the seeds for their own destruction. They are all infested with the unlimited greed for money and power and these diseases eat them up from within. In general terms they are destructive for a just social structure.

The few examples of excellent leaders we have witnessed over the last 20 years have been removed from the scene and by this action the country has been taken back to a morass eating all progress made and hindering any chance for the Kingdom to take an active role in the global fight for survival.

1. A soon as a new government is in place step number one is to form an endless amount of committees to investigate corruption in all forms and similar diseases, but I have failed to see that any attempt try to get the root of the evil.
2. The power struggle has one aim only to get access to the states coffin with gold and steal as much as possible while in power because the next coup or election maybe is just around the corner. It is almost as rare to find a politician with focus on the interests of the Nation as to see snow in Bangkok. To me it seems that the politics trying to form Thailand in reality is destructive for the Thai Nation and are creating more problems than they solve.
3. The original ideas behind the introduction of democracy for Thailand were fine, but the soil was not well prepared so the seed could not excel as planned. The preparations needed were never introduced and I think it may never happen (unless of course in case of a revolution) because the real power base of Thailand does not want it. On the surface Thailand have a “managed democracy” and all attempts trying to tell the naïve population the opposite has no connection to reality.
4. Thailand fails at this moment to poses proper National Identity or National Coherence. I cannot find the overall constructive social ideology acceptable to the majority of her citizens.
5. The Thais do not all realize that their country is deeply divided and that the sad situations in April and May were signs of a class war more than just demonstrations to promote the financial criminal Thaksin’s interest. The conflicts are very deep indeed and the crises are far from over. The fights were actually very close to the proletariats war against the capitalists.
6. In general terms for the majority of the population the Lighthouses are The Monarchy and The Buddhism. The true meaning of democracy is in reality unknown but still however to many synonymous with chaos, which was why Thaksin used the term “managed democracy” but sadly for Thailand his attempts to steer the ship in the right direction was replaced by channeling the public funds to his private bank accounts as well as the ones for his family and closets associates. So in his years of heading the country my description would be “State controlled Capitalism” in a society where one power person decided who is a winner and who is a loser. The losers were easy to attract they just needed a little cash and dog and pony show and they did as expected namely to move into the trap. On top somebody forgets that the free market forces can ruin your agenda.
7. So with a lot of reluctance I have to accept the Thai version of Democracy, all lies from one end to the other. The management executed based on primitive instincts of all kinds. No wonder Thailand is situated in deep crisis when these instincts replace responsibility. The majority of her population cannot read the signs on the walls. This is my simple version.
8. A more academic would read; the type of democracy we know in the West is not suitable to Thailand. In a true democracy all voices must be heard and there are often too many political parties pulling in different directions splitting up the nation and present a hindrance for economical progress. Furthermore the cultural backbones are very different and have a stronghold in the Thais that is alien to Western culture.
9. Thailand is better of with a strong leader either a Monarchy or a Military Junta provided these will lead the Nation with focus and her interests. The Thais need one strong power base to issue the guidelines and keep them controlled. It is called Autocracy. I refer to the English philosopher Thomas Hobbe and his perspectives of a social contract theory, however the Thais prefer a governor or a father, who gives them warmth and assumes responsibility for their well being a childish attitude dangerous to a true democratic development that needs responsible participation from citizens.

I did arrive at these conclusions but I need more articles to prove my points so please bear with me that you have to spend more time reading my next articles in order to get more understanding about how I arrived at above mentioned conclusions.

In closing the actual article I will just mention this one example;

In 1999 the leaders of all free countries in the world was asked to come up with a proposal for a composition of the best government in the world. It gave food for thoughts that the leaders nominated Chuan Leekpai number two after the Dutch PM Wim Kok as the Prime Minister. The survey was conducted by The World Economic Forum by. That was the verdict or result from foreign countries, in Thailand however Leekpai lost to Thaksin in 2001, where Thaksin bought the majority of his 11 million votes. Did you get the point?

Next article number IV/B will follow within short

Chonburi 26^th June 2010

Before moving into my views on the subject; “Conflicts between Religion and Politics/Democracy” it will be necessary to establish the meaning of the word democracy since it comes in many versions. The original translation is that democracy is a political system or form of a government of a nation carried out by persons directly elected by the people or by elected representatives of the people. Actually the global break down of democracies looks like this; Representative Democracy, Parliamentary Democracy, Liberal Democracy, Constitutional Democracy, Direct Democracy and Social Democracy. These are the most relevant but there are more fractions. In consequence the conflicts I am talking about will be in tune with a specific kind of a political system.

The freedom movement in Europe started by the French Revolution

Since the first Greek philosophers started to form the ideal State, the development from ancient time, over the middle ages, the following centuries to actual time has undergone natural changes influenced by wars, economies, religions and introduction of dictatorships disguised as “Peoples Democratic Republic” and as a result the official number of electoral democracies is now 122, but I am not sure if this is 100 % correct. For example Afghanistan is included in the list. And then just another observation why is it that the majority of Arab countries are not democratic?

And just to wrap up a few things; we need to separate the Concepts State and Nation. As for the State these three options are actual Monarchy, Aristocracy and Democracy. The dangers are evident since Monarchy often ends up in tyranny/dictatorship, Aristocracy may turn into Oligarchy and Democracy often ends up as tyranny of the majority. In order to put perspectives in my optic it has been necessary to reread Plato, Hegel and Rousseau.  To ensure that we understand the important differences between the State/Country we live in where the rules should be produced by the Nation (People) and that these rules allow the citizens maximum of freedom under responsibility. The Nation normally represents a group of persons sharing same values; culture, ethics, moral, language, history and often more importantly religion/beliefs.  Unfortunately these two institutions are often confused, but a Nation (People) is governed by the State/country. It can also be argued that a group of people are glued together by national feelings or same identity, the latter slowly disappearing as a result of the increasing globalization.

Without a balanced interaction this division cannot work. Today this balance for so called developed countries is the distribution of wealth generated by the Nation (people) in form of taxes and a fair amount of social welfare. In consequence both parties have rights and obligations; you may even call it a social-contract.

I will now divide my observations in two parts, one for Denmark and one for Thailand since these two countries represent excellent examples to illustrate my views. I will concentrate on major differences since it will be impossible to include all.

DENMARK AND DEMOCRACY

Denmark is the oldest kingdom in the world and has a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. We have a mixed market capitalistic economy that ensures the highest amount of social welfare in the Worlde. Some call it income equality a concept I happen to disagree to when the social costs exceed available financial resources.

In Denmark where true democracy (representative and social) was introduced in 1849, we describe and define the meaning of these conceptions as follows:

To a Dane the most important principle is that we are all born as equals. Some will inherit influence and power or fortunes not made by them, so they are never respected before they have proved own abilities. Our conception includes of course the Royal Family, it is also considered as normal citizens with special obligations in return for the State to furnish them with extravagant allowances. The royals are our global marketing team helping Denmark to keep its Brand as the oldest monarchy in the world and to show what real democracy is about. No hysterical adoration or worshiping, but admiration and mutual respect.

One example: On June 21st a Danish newspaper published an article describing the English Crown Prince as completely stupid. He is actually stupid and a disgrace for his country. The journalist and I are free to express our opinions without any fear of being sued for libel.  The Crown Prince will just inherit his role as a King only because his mother is the Queen, not because he is qualified to be the head of the state one day. It is understandable that a major part of the English population wants Prince William to be the new King and everybody knows it. No secrets. All media regardless of nature have fundamental rights to freedom of expressions.

In Denmark all members of the royal family has a nick name. The Queen is called Daisy and today you can even buy her as a teddy bear

The Danish Queen as a Teddy Bear (Daisy).

Denmark has 3 princes, the Prince Consort Henrik married to the Queen and their two sons Crown Prince Frederik, who is nicknamed Frede and Prince Joachim is called Jokke. We have an open debate about whether Frederik has the format to be next King, he is considered to be too much lazier fair in his attitude where is Jokke is more majestic in his manners and appearance. All media can discuss this openly of course since we do love and respect the royals, because they are so down to earth and as all other royal families all over the world they have a dramatic line of ancestors; murderers and thieves, tyrants and despots, how otherwise could you become a King if not by slaughtering your rivals and when necessary even members of your own family? Intrigues, plots, wars and family feuds were all part of the power struggle the final ambition to be KING with unlimited power.

When we welcome our Queen we greet her with respect and we stand up.

Nobody in Denmark is born with the right to decide about the laws or other frameworks for our Nation, we all have the same right. We elect persons by 100 % free elections, no corruption or vote buying, we have total right to free expressions as long as we do not harm third party. This right also includes comments even critics of the monarchy. The right of freedom of expression, criticism and self-criticism are driving forces in a true democracy. Exercising these rights properly ensure development of The State and thus The Nation and give the citizens complete insight in the political landscape.

We also have the right choosing a religion at our discretion not dictated by the State and religions are never mixed with politics and can never be used as a political instrument. As for the political scene all persons can influence the system by voting but one needs to ensure that he/she does not vote for a system that will violate the rights and freedom as just described. You may call it a moral obligation or ethical duty. And important is the fact that we never mix religious beliefs with politics. To exercise this properly we need rational thinking and reasoning generated by a proper education.

But we do have a load of negative issues as well. Denmark is not a paradise but a State fighting to keep a certain amount of nationalism and a minor place in the global theater where the established rules and regulations are under constant influence of the power nations and the need for a united front. One major problem for The Kingdom of Denmark is that the costs for social welfare have exceeded the income or budget available, and as a result Denmark now has to obtain international loans to bridge the gap. This negative development has resulted in a disintegration of some of the most important values that used to form a vital part of the Danish Society. It is often everybody’s fight against everybody replacing a united front if I may use that expression. Maybe one day I will produce some essays about Denmark to the benefit of my Thai network.

This year 2010 Denmark “employs” 800.000 persons (out of a total population of 5.3 millions) to take care of the State Denmark and her obligations towards the society and the costs of are paid by help of taxes from the private industries. These 800.000 have in actual sense very limited value for the society and in general terms demanding more benefits and too often the government agree in order to ensure votes. A dangerous situation actually caused by the tyranny of the majority a clear downside of our democracy a hot issue these days because this development cannot continue.

We have in many respects crossed the line for a solid and just balance between State and Nation. The general interest for politics has decreased and too many are more focusing on parties that will as minimum keep or at best increase social welfare and very little attention is paid how to generate the income needed. The memberships of EU and NATO today contain so many different and often complicated laws and rules that the average person cannot comprehend them. Denmark is facing increasing influence from various networks often with conflicting interests, but fare more important a serious threat from the structure of global economy.

The membership of EU has forced us to adjust many national interests in exchange for progress whether we like it or not.

Finally we are facing problems adjusting to multicultural developments especially with the Muslims and the absence of political will or power to solve the problem once and for all. The new global picture demands different and much more solid qualifications from the political leaders, who often are more occupied issuing false promises in order to keep the comfortable seat in the parliament or government than to work hard on the development of the Danish State and Nation.  So the four important issues are Monarchy, Religion, Politics and Freedom of expression.

This series continues in chapter IV Thailand and Democracy a very serious subject!

SOME CONCLUSIONS

RELIGIONS

At a certain point in time most religions needed to get organized. Since I have lived the major part of my life in Europe I better use some examples from this continent.

The organization was formed in an easy and understandable manner: The Supreme Head or CEO, Bishops or Executive Management and the Priests and clerks the staff. A framework for how to carry out the vital functions was established and was solid and firm leaving no open doors. The product was clearly identified based on one idea (one only/our concept/understanding) and the marketing plans were carried out. The major marketing vehicle, due to the communication tools available at that time, was of course the Church and during services the priest/speaker would present the whole package from belief to how to cope with the all circumstances in the society. It was education (sometimes indoctrination) and the level of information was always kept at a level ensuring that the Church’s powerbase was never questioned.

The main focus for the priests was at all times to ensure that the actual developments in the world and the local society were never allowed to question the basic rules of the Church and its teaching. The attempts from groups like the Gnostics to debate about the speculative and mythological cosmology which represents a huge world of dualism between spirit/materiel, light and darkness, God and the world were never accepted and history can show extreme sad examples of the methods exercised by the Church to remove any potential rival from the monopolistic market.

However one can say about any religion that is actually a certain form for a view of the world and each religion may have it own concept. Each concept will outlay its views and specify how the adherents should live their lives based on a firm decision on the actual situation for human beings and a list of priorities of the importance of maintain the existence, e.g. The Ten Commands, and it is obvious that most religions have limited connection to rational thinking. The result is of course that adherents believe and need not any proof of reality.

The major problem today for most major religions is the adjustment to the new world. The question is important since it is necessary to keep the herds in proper place because the herds are the customers and in order to get cash you need to sell the products they will pay for. That is why most religions have turned into cool cash machines but just as important they became the most vital instrument for political control based on the state/religion principle.

Some of these facts lead to the big split in Europe (The reformation). The fight was fierce for getting out of the greedy claws of the Pope in Rome and the right to voice different views on the organization of the Church and its power control plus different views on the liturgies, rites and culture. The strong personalities, the driving forces behind the movement won.

If I look at the present state of affairs for Religions as a whole I find it is about time to change what I will call the concepts to meet the actual and realistic approaches of the world in 2010. Maybe shift the basics to be more in line with pragmatic philosophy. The Church must be open for constructive dialogues and ready to let down the fences and leave outdated and old myths in which the modern and well educated generations do not accept as facts.

Today some nations are still governed by a strict combination of state and religion and again I voice that this is an old fashioned system mainly due to the fact the Church in reality is controlled by scrupulous leaders using faith as a political instrument and leaving no freedom for the citizens to make other choices, this situation we find e.g. in Italy at the moment controlled by a CEO who suffers from schizophrenia. Most likely he is embedded with the Mafia that again coheres with Rome.  But much more dangerous is the fanatic leader of Iran Ahamadinejad, who will create severe problems not only to the Middle East but to the World.

PHILOSOPHY

If we now turn to countries not controlled by a religion, we are talking about democracies. The meaning of democracy is “a society controlled or ruled by people”. But much more important is a total amount of freedom in almost all aspects, but executed under personal responsibility. The question now turns up being if believing in reasons, that all things have a supreme reason and reasons form knowledge, can replace religious beliefs? My answer is a solid yes, of course. It is a human right to be skeptical and that believing in objectivism will give more perspectives in lives than basing this on outdated and often ridiculous fairy tales applying mainly to persons, who are at the best naïve.

Maybe a better way to explain this is to use the phrase contemporary philosophical realism. It eases the understanding that the roots for realism are found in the basic Greek philosophy. (Plato). The term realism then can be added in front of Religion, Philosophy, Logics, Mathematics and Physics we just need to agree to the exact meaning of realism. Or we may add natural realism and then touch on metaphysics as well (Kant).

For those interested I strongly recommend to read Ayn Rand and her book “Atlas shrugged”

Could we all agree that the most important for a human being is to establish facts about our identity, the purpose of existence, knowledge and moral? Add then real values, ethics and the purposes and we are closer to total concept that according to my humble opinion is a preferable set of conducts than religion.

HISTORY

It can be said that history is a representation of our past written down in a certain organized order. It is interesting since almost all events are a result of choices made based on constraining structures and circumstances. I pay a lot of attention to the latter since it gives more insight knowing about them since they play a vital role when considering a choice. You may also state that history is an attempt to explain the chain of events from as many viewpoints as possible, but this is based on the assumption that these are as accurate as possible and not folktales, creations or fictions or “interpreted”.

All attempts to get reliable pictures from the past regardless of being speculative or metaphysical is to find e.g. patterns or repeating circles and are of course an everlasting basis for academic debates. Since only human beings produce the history the question of a human being’s nature is more than relevant. Are we able to form our own set of rules or are we bound or influenced by our history?

So as a closing remark to my plan trying to express my views on the main topic Conflicts between Religion and Democracy I will advocate that it is necessary to touch on the related issues (Religion, Philosophy and History) otherwise it is not possible to comprehend the whole picture.

I will continue my essays in chapter III

Chonburi 18^th June 2010

Ole Casthoej

The majority of the last decades have offered the World an increasing number of wars, terrorism and violence initiated with backgrounds in extreme beliefs and escalating conflicts between religion, politics and social structures. Certain fractions are using religion as an instrument to get to power and to expand this into violence, terror and wars.

I agree to the facts that the history of the World has become multi polar and multi civilizational chancing almost all dimensions of our existence and carrying with them extreme potentials for pervasive and dangerous conflicts rooted in different cultural entities.

For many years I have wondered why did we get so far, what has happened? So I have started to dig into this question as stated above in order to try to understand at least the fundamentals and maybe based on my findings it will be possible to think about ways to put an end to dictatorships trying to control the World by a very dangerous cocktail, the mixture of political ambitions and extreme religious ideas that represents a serious threat to maintain a peaceful world. This avenue will most likely be impossible to travel as I would like, so it may be easier to focus on the prevailing circumstances in many countries having conflicts between democracy and politics.

These very important issues represent an often fruitless debate or rather arguing causing serious problems or conflicts even often wars between nations. Most debates start with a presentation of arguments in order to support either personal or national views and of course arguments are important since they in reality are trying to establish which views are better than others. Since however we often do not know which conclusions may be better or more valid than others my opinion is that we do not carry out a solid homework before entering in to sometimes nonsense discussion often based on strong feelings rather than on academic grounds.

Rule number one when presenting arguments is to find the answer to this question: “What is it I am trying to prove?”  And then just as important: “What is my conclusions?”  So maybe it is a good idea starting presenting the definitions of religion and politics/democracy. I do realize of course that this relationship is extremely complex and often contentious.

However I need to mention right now that living in Thailand I have a lot of focus on these concepts since Buddhism often is used as a political instrument confusing the Thais in separating and dealing with this question and to me that is a dangerous cocktail which history has proven. I shall try to keep this at a certain distance until I get to the conclusions.

In order to present my views and observations in a presentable way I shall divide them into these headings

• RELIGIONS
• MYTHS
• MIRACLES
• PHILOSOPHY
• HISTORY
• CONCLUSION/RELIGION
• CONCLUSION/PHILOSOPHY
• CONCLUSION/ HISTORY
• DEMOCRACY
• POLITICS
• A STATE OR NATION
• OVERALL CONCLUSION (S)

RELIGIONS

Since I actually do not believe in any religion I will voice my personal opinion based on my experiences from living in many different countries each with a major religion plus a few others of different observation, so I have had splendid opportunities to come to this conclusion that in general terms religion today is a source of serious problems rather than to serve the original purpose. Will it be correct to state that the major religions today can be divided in two major groups, the exclusive aspects meaning a specific religion is exclusive for one selected herd and only offered to it and the second group is the one representing the extremes using the sword as a mean of persuasion?   It may not be so simple due to the fact that the World has around 4300 various faith groups indicating that my attempt to simplify the issue may not be acceptable, I admit to that.

Maybe I can try this division; Group one; Religion is to believe in and worship a God, that the world was manmade and controlled by a Manpower by the name of God. Some argue that religion is a search for the truth within ourselves, about our soul our being. To  me there is a fraction of faith groups (second group) living by rules and a philosophical system of principles for how to exist with dignity and respect with a maximum of personal freedom in a free country. A religion tries to explain the major questions of life; one holy dimension comprising of being, significance and truth and furthermore 4 essential basic points; A God or deity, soul or spirit, life after death and guidelines for worshipping. Buddhism is an exception as this philosophy has no God or deity.

MYTHS

However there are other aspects closely connected to religion and that are myths. In principle they differ but they have overlapping issues.  One can also voice, that most of all major religions are based on a long series of myths, since at the time of the founding nothing was written down, but explained and retold for generations. I do realize that we can get into a serious discussion about the connections between these two issues since they are strongly interactive. There are many contrasts as well as contradictions.

I know of course that the origin of myths is related to the question of identity, the personal as well as the national. Descartes used a methodology taking the face values of the myths and peel them of lay by lay until he got to the essence how did we get our identity? The major obstacle is that some of the lays are lies, manipulated facts, wishful thinking or fabrication. Descartes was looking for the Big Bang in human beings. If you find the correct answer this will represent the key to control and this was known by e.g. Karl Marx, who confirmed that the rulers, the capitalists and elite control their herds by help of religion.

Furthermore it is accepted that 90 % of all folktales are based on myths and traditions, we all know our national history garnished with tasteful dressings of fairy-tales, mysterious or secret societies, ghosts, spirits and mystery religions. The product range is deep and wide.

MIRACLES/SUPERSTITION

However I cannot accept extremes like superstitions, miracles or other fantasies since they are not based on evidence, experience, knowledge or science and often they become hard to overcome when beliefs become strong. Even today in the 21^stcentury these phenomena are found almost all over the world except maybe for countries with a high educational level.

Again we find a long list of accepted categories; resurrection of dead, cures, exorcism and controlling the nature. A good example is the miracles by Jesus. However today I do think it is a fact that scholars almost all agree that the so called “miracles” are figurative. But again these years we see a lot of attempts to produce extremely popular films and books about mysteries and secrets from the past and actually some are serious attempts to try to uncover never solved enigmas.

PHILOSOPHY

I prefer this set of studies covering the fundamental nature of our existence since it offers an open-minded discussion and invite for long lifetime studies of your mind, the right values, reasons and reality related to scientific proffs as well as our existence based on logics and rational thinking. To me philosophy is strongly connected to science and these two elements form the guidelines for a life filled with enlightenment, education and valueable knowhow in contradiction to some of the major religions that will dictate and control your life. So for me it is easy, I believe in the proofs from science and the rules for existence as framed by the big philosophers. The combination is so strong leaving no space for religious dreams of manipulations, but I emphasize that I do respect worshippers even if I do not agree with them.

There are very few myths connected to the combined philosophy/science and more importantly you are constantly offered the opportunities to ask questions and raise doubt and will get correct answers based on evidence not stories that are 2500 years old and cannot be proved to be true. A life lived by a comprehensive system of views or ideas about the human nature and the world of reality we exist in is preferable. But I also know that it can be difficult to explain this to some persons, it is often as trying to talk common sense to a kid two years old or to your mother in law.

HISTORY

The histories of religions and myths are the biggest collection of adventures topped with mysteries and many are actually more like folktales and often nice reading, but with limited connection to reality. The search for these connections have been a goldmine for authors and film producers, recently Dan Browns books and films known by most by the actual list is long. The TV channel Discovery as well as National Geographic have for years looked into some of the most important legends such as The Arch of Covenant, The Ten Commandments and many other mysteries. We are all looking for the answers between fiction and reality. Which is which? My personal favorite author is Umberto Eco, who takes the readers back in time and bases his stories on a more solid foundation as he is using the social structures and the at that time prevailing national circumstances thus offering much more perspective than just some sensational arguments.

But this search is not new even Plato was looking to find the truth about Atlantis. So regardless of nature, religion and other faith groups have had and still have tremendous influence on our history?  But of course before and after Plato the actual development clearly demonstrates that religions and all non-religious movements have often melted together in a super crucible and the mixtures blended with politics.

One can then ask if a religion or faith has always been a free choice or dictated by power or circumstances. Can a religion form a base so strong that it dictates the rules of a nation? Or can a religion be used as an instrument to subdue a nation? How can faith at the same time represent freedom, dignity, free choices, respect for traditions and myths, rules of the society and exactly point out what is right and what is wrong? In this context please let me refer to the French sociologist Emil Durkheim and his conclusions about faith as a social phenomenon.

Furthermore during the many years of studies of the concepts in question I have learned that in principle the base for almost all religions or any other faith group has been the wish for ultimate power and to maintain control of same in order to keep a society together and ensure a stylish lifestyle. All wisdom kept closely and with secrecy by tribe leaders or a clergy represented knowhow and thus control. This system was used from very small communities to nations, the powerbase kept intact and the information or distribution of knowledge manipulated to ensure the powerbase. The system is still being used in many religions in order to maintain the power base.

In all fairness I need to ad that the utilization of power executed by political leaders, who want the best for their country or for religious heads, who represent positive beliefs is of course more than acceptable. My worries connect to extreme scenarios displayed these year by certain fractions in Islam or by priests who take advantage of their position as we have seen in the Catholic Church in Europe and in some cases in Buddhist societies as well. Shameful for both but much more shame to those, who use their influence to manipulate their herds.

Already Socrates talked about this issue and he named the manipulators The Sophists. Today this role has been taken over by almost all communication media including Google and the advertising/marketing industries. The group is question is using their knowhow to create power and utilize the ones with less knowledge. Gone with the wind are all decent principles to be replaced with greed for power and money.

To be continued in PART II

Ole Casthoej

Chonburi on 16^th June 2010

Årene fra 1973 og frem er fyldt med gentagelser af de mange foregående års magtkampe, det er samme skuespil og grundlæggende uenigheder om en deltagerplads i konkurrencen til rettighederne om fordelingen af korruptionsmidlerne, som de store stillinger i samfundet giver adgang til. Det er med beklagelse jeg igen skal fremhæve dette argument, men mit researcharbejde og erfaring bekræfter denne påstand fra min side. Den står naturligvis for egen regning og såfremt jeg kan modbevises, er jeg modtagelig for saglige argumenter.

Men heldigvis er der en positiv undtagelse, den vender jeg tilbage til nemlig 1980erne.

Der er derfor ingen grund til at omtale eksakte begivenheder, dem kan I læse om mange andre steder. Derimod vil jeg prøve at komme nærmere ind på nogle af de bevægegrunde, der har udløst disse begivenheder. Men først skal det bemærkes, at studenternes oprør i 1973 svar startskuddet til nye partier, flere fagforeninger, nye deltagere i politik mange med det formål at politisere landets befolkning, der skete mange ting på én gang og måske i et tempo, der ikke harmonerede med mentaliteten, dette sagt uden malice, hvordan kan et samfund vendes eller opdrages på kort tid via demokratiske midler?

I årene fra 1973 og stort set op til i dag (april 2010) har der været mange militære kup, mange regeringer, diktatoriske, semi ditto og ”civile” plus at nationens konstitution er ændret flere gange end du skifter undertøj. Hovedtræk for 1970erne og 90erner er interne opgør blandt andet i militærets rækker og usikkerhed overfor evnerne til at styre den hastigt stigende udvikling. De ledende generaler må have indset nødvendigheden af at ændre strategi, men deres uddannelse sigter jo ikke just mod den type opgaver, og der var stigende utilfredshed med deres faste ”rutiner”, der blandt andet indebar en forventning om, at mindst 25 % af landets samlede udgifter skulle tilfalde dem. Vi taler om beløb på mindst 30 milliarder DKK pr. år, der hvor generalerne har beklædt næsten alle ledige poster faldende til 12 milliarder DKK i ”normale” år.  Tallene er kun fra de offentlige kasser, til dem skal lægges alle private bidrag. Igen skal jeg minde om, at landet har en betydelig undergrundsøkonomi og meget lave sociale udgifter. Tallene er offentliggjort.

Fra midten af 1960erne træder der nye aktører ind på nationalscenen, den ene gruppe benævnes ”jao pho” der nærmest kan oversættes som ”lokal gudfader”. Dette er en omskrivning af det korrekte udtryk, nemlig mafia.  Lokale forretningspersoner med større selskaber indtager en betydelig rolle i lokalsamfundet. De begyndte at udbygge netværket, langsomt men systematisk. Landets fremgang, den stigende industrialisering og politiske opvågning spiller dem gode kort i hænde og den chance udnyttes til at få politisk indflydelse. Lokalsamfundet er domineret af dem og gør, hvad der bliver sagt og ”the godfathers” starter med at lade sig vælge, først lokalt, senere for et distrikt for at ende i Bangkok. Dermed blev de i stand til at binde business og politik sammen i et hidtil uhørt omfang, hvilket militæret ikke just var begejstrede for, mafiaen har som bekendt sine egne spilleregler, der på visse områder overstiger militærets.

Ikke alene miksedes nu en cocktail bestående af business og politik, men selve ideen blev en stor forretning i sig selv. De smarte politikere inddrog ”the godfathers” ved at lade dem stå for en gros indkøb af stemmer mod til gengæld at tilbyde dem indflydelsesrige poster i administrationen.

Den anden gruppe, der fik indflydelse på landets demokratiske udvikling var eliten af forretningsfolk med hovedsæde i Bangkok, der hurtigt forstod spillets regler og at udnytte dem optimalt. En større koncern med internationale netværk byder på guldrandede muligheder både for begge parter. Generalerne sikrer favorable vilkår for koncernen, der som tak åbner for gavebutikken for generalen og hans netværk.

Som et resultat fik begge grupper betydelig indflydelse på udformning af politik, etablering af partier, der alle har udgjort en pression mod ændringer af konstitutioner og det parlamentariske system, der forekommer at være meget kompliceret og ikke er så gennemskueligt for de dårligst uddannede personer. De kloge på bjerget forstod imidlertid, at uden deltagelse fra disse to grupper, var det vanskeligt at regere landet.

Det skal kort anføres, at samspillet mellem landets rigeste koncerner og deres rollefordeling i det nødvendige “samarbejde” med regering og militær, er et emne, der bør belyses særskilt, idet den såkaldte semi-demokratiske udvikling i Thailand er tæt knyttet til dette forhold.

En person som Thaksin er et godt eksempel på en forretningsmand, der gik ind i politik med henblik på at få en post, fra hvilken han langsomt kunne øve indflydelse og få gennemført ændringer, der lettede adgangen for hans forretningsimperium at sikre sig særdeles lukrative kontrakter. (Berlusconi i Italien er et godt eksempel fra Vesten). Med en koncern bestående af 50 selskaber var der mange attraktive poster, der kunne tilbydes dem, han havde brug for i et netværk, der kunne manipulere med hele landets administration og i kraft af sin store formue kunne han ansætte de bedste eksperter fra Vesten, fordi en del af den kompetence han havde brug for, ikke fandtes i Thailand. Han er det mest eklatante eksempel i nyere tid, men listen er lang.

Et andet forhold, der har haft stor betydning i perioden, er dette; Regeringslederen vælges ikke direkte af vælgerne, men udpeges af det sejrende parti. Denne ændring i landets forfatning er sket med klar henvisning til, at H.M.K. er landets øverste og befolkningen kan ikke vælge en leder, han vil jo så i princippet være en konkurrent til kongen. I forfatningen fra 1932 stod der ikke, at den person, der får flest stemmer ved frie valg, er den der skal være landets regeringschef, men lederen udpeges altså af det vindende parti, eller en koalition af partier. Endvidere står der i forfatningen, at lederen af regeringen ikke nødvendigvis skal være parlamentarisk valgt. De sejrende kan altså udpege landets PM. Dette er sket flere gange og for det meste i de perioder, hvor militæret har haft magten.

Det er ikke nogen hemmelighed, at posten besættes efter en masse forhandlinger bag lukkede døre og der tages ikke det mindste hensyn til folkets røst, det er stemmekvæg, der handles med som på kvægtorvet. De stemte, de fik penge, dermed skylder vi dem ikke noget, basta. Landet har altså haft regeringschefer, der var uønsket af folket, men det tjente formålet at få den bedst mulige studehandel på plads. I regeringen har der siddet personer, der var dybt involveret i narko, prostitution, gambling og ting, der er langt værre, men der var brug for dem, og de stemmer, de repræsenterede, for at få magtbalancen bragt i orden.

Jeg sprang 1980erne over. Fra 1980 til 1988 hed landets regeringsleder Prem, for hvem det lykkedes at lede landet under 3 skiftende regeringer. Prem var general og én af de bedste dette land har haft og er højt respekteret. Han var altså ikke valgt, men udpeget, og han forstod at få de valgte medlemmer af parlamentet med sig i en række processer, der skulle styrke den demokratiske tankegang. Han er én af de meget få premierministre, der er 100 % ”clean” og han udnævnte kun personer til store stillinger baseret på deres kvalifikationer og opnåede resultater.

GENERAL PREM

I hans regeringstid indførtes en række nationaløkonomiske stabiliserende tiltag samt en ændret udenrigspolitik og det skal omtales at kongen bidrog aktivt med gennemførelsen af fornuftige og nødvendige tiltag. Landet havde i Premperioden en betydelig fremgang på næsten alle fronter.

Det kan derfor ikke forbavse at der i hans regeringsperiode var flere kupforsøg (fra militæret) mod regeringen samt mindst 4 attentatforsøg mod ham. I dag er han leder af det specielle råd, der assisterer kongen og dermed en erklæret fjende nummer eet af Thaksin og den røde hær.

Det er kendetegnende for hele perioden set under eet, at det ikke er lykkedes for noget parti eller person at etablere politisk forståelse eller skabe fraktioner, der kan gennemføre et demokratisk system, der gavner landet altså heller ikke for Prem. Han blev væltet ved et valg i 1988 og efterfulgtes, som forventet, af en gennemkorrupt leder, der blev afsat ved et kup i februar 1991 og så kørte den velkendte karrusel igen, alt back to normal.

Lad mig genopfriske det parlamentariske system/regeringsmodel i Thailand. Denne er 100 % baseret på det engelske Westminster System;

• Et statsoverhoved
• Regeringsleder
• Kabinet (regering)
• Parlamentet består af;
• Senat (overhus) 150 medlemmer
• Repræsentanternes hus (Underhus) 480 medlemmer

For militæret har det været en facadeforestilling, at folket vælger medlemmer til underhuset, for vi har jo demokrati, men at militæret havde ret til at besætte 75 % af senatets medlemmer og dermed sikre sig hals- og håndsret over hele systemet. I dag er dette billede lavet om. 76 af senatets medlemmer skal bestå af en fra hver af landets 75 provinser samt én fra Bangkok, de andre 74 udpeges. Det er interessant at et senatsmedlem ikke behøver at tilhøre et politisk parti.

Perioden, jeg beskriver, er gennemgående kendetegnet ved dette mønster; Vi har et parti, en person eller en gruppe, der ønsker at komme til magten. Under demokratiet kan dette kun ske gennem et valg. Så vi kan generelt om den beskrevne periode nedfælde denne fremgangsmåde;

1. Starter med verbale angreb mod den siddende regering, personlige angreb om magtmisbrug, stemmekøb, tilsvining af potentielle rivaler med alle midler.
2. Efter valget forhandlinger om regeringens sammensætning, fordeling af de lukrative poster.
3. Periode med at regere landet, men med fokus på at fjerne modstandere i statsejede selskaber eller statskontrollerede aktiviteter (f.eks. lotterier), udskiftning af chefer, der tilhørte oppositionen.
4. De politikere, der ikke fik en god post, eller slet ingen, rotter sig nu sammen og begynder at angribe toppen, uanset at denne kommer fra egne rækker.
5. Begynder at undersøge alle ulovligheder, som de nuværende stillingsindehavere begår og skaffer dokumentation fra alle niveauer mod kontant betaling eller løfter om, at når den nuværende magtbase er fjernet, står der en god stilling parat til dem eller forfremmelser og tilsvarende.
6. Gruppen begynder nu højlydt at agitere for et regeringsskifte med henvisning til alt det snavsetøj, der er fundet i vasketøjskurven omtalt under pkt. 5.
7. Øger presset med alle midler for at få et nyt valg.

CHUAN LEEKPAI

Thailand fik i 1992 den første premierminister, der ikke kom fra eliten, men fra beskedne kår. Hans parti Democratic Party vandt valget og han blev også landets første leder uden opbakning eller ”indsættelse” af militæret. Han var ærlig og gennemførte en række gode tiltag til gavn for landet; stabilisering af økonomien og decentralisering af administrationen til de lokale områder. Han blev væltet i 1995, men kom tilbage som PM i 1997, da Chavalit måtte træde tilbage og var PM til valget i 2001. Han blev hånet af general Chavalit, fordi han kom far meget beskedne vilkår og havde været ansat advokat og ejede ikke fast ejendom. Denne offentlige kritik kom fra en general, der blev PM, og som regnes for den dummeste person, der har beklædt denne post, og det siger ikke så lidt. Som flertallet af generaler i dette land (der er 1400) købte han sine stjerner ved hjælp af korruption og magtmisbrug.

THAKSIN

Som et eksempel på, hvordan en forretningsmand med store ambitioner, griber dette an, vil jeg bruge Thaksin som periodens mest omtalte, elsket og hadet politiker såvel i Thailand som i udlandet.

Han har et godt udgangspunkt, flot karriere i politiet, etablerer en IT virksomhed, bliver næsten eneagent for IBM og starter med at sikre sig kontrakter med staten. Han går hurtigt ind i telekommunikationsindustrien og opnår ekspedit en monopollignende position. Han ved, at han kan tjene flere penge, hvis han sikrer sig en politisk platform, for han har i denne fase været nødt til at betale et netværk, der minimerer hans fortjeneste. Han går aktivt ind i politik i 1994, men først uden at være valgt, han udpeges som udenrigsminister. I 1996 overtager han posten som leder af partiet PDP. Ved det første valg i 1996 taber han. Han lader sit parti indgå i en koalition med vinderen af valget og får en position som stedfortrædende premierminister, i september opløses regeringen og Thaksin er manden bag. Ved valget i november samme år taber hans parti stort, får kun eet mandat.

I 1997 bliver Thaksin igen deputeret regeringsleder under premierminister Chavalit. Da krisen indtræder devalueres Thai Bahten, og det er vist meget korrekt at antage, at Chavalit havde hvisket i Thaksins øre, hvad der skulle ske, for han garderede sig og tjente vist omkring 2 milliarder DKK på den information. Der rejstes påstande om dette forhold fra oppositionens side, men sagen blev ”dysset” ned.

Thaksin var nu blevet milliardær, med en magtbase og monopol i telekommunikation og andre media og han stiftede så sit parti ” Thais elsker Thais” der ved valget i 2000 vandt en stor sejr og han indtog førersædet. Der er mange tiltag under hans 4 års regeringsperiode, der fortjener omtale; bedre styring af landets økonomi, forbedret uddannelse, sundhedsvæsen, kontrol med energisektoren/energipolitik, økonomisk bistand til fattige landsbyer, bedre social struktur, minimering af narkotika kartellerne og bedre relationer til udlandet.

På denne baggrund fik hans parti en endnu større sejr ved valget i 2005, der havde den højeste valgdeltagelse i Thailands historie. Men medaljens bagside blev præget af hans negative handlinger; autoritær ledelse, korruption, bedragerier og forræderier mod fædrelandet, mediekontrol, magtmisbrug, majestætsfornærmelser, skattesvig, overtrædelse af menneskerettighederne, brutal fjernelse af miljøaktivister og rivaler; syndelisten er alenlang. Han blev afsat ved et kup i september 2006.  Han blev sandsynligvis væltet,  fordi andre var af den mening, at han og hans elite nu fået nok af landets pengekasse. Men der er mange andre årsager til kuppet. I foråret 2006 havde Thaksin udskrevet valg, der blev boykottet af alle andre partier, men Thaksin erklærede sig for vinder, indtil kongen meddelte ham, at et valg med kun eet parti som deltager, ikke var i overensstemmelse med landets konstitution og derefter lidt senere blev erklæret for ugyldigt og dermed var banen kridtet op.

Thaksin begik en strategisk brøler. Han havde i troen på, at han nærmest var Thailands Mesias overset monarkiets rolle. Det thailandske monarki er verdens rigeste og dets investeringsselskab landets største og mest indflydelsesrige. Dets netværk er internationalt omspændende og er en magtfaktor, der ofte overses fordi det opererer diskret.

Thaksin og hans venner var hensynsløse og kyniske udnyttere af alle situationer, der kunne resultere i positiv likviditet for dem og i perioder kunne de skalte og valte, som det passede dem. Vi skal til Filippinerne og Indonesien for at finde tilsvarende ledere, uagtet at en af Asiens mest korrupte ledere, Dr. M i Malaysia var Thaksins store forbillede. På toppen af alt dette er det nu bekræftet, at de rygter, der cirkulerede i de dage om, at Thaksin havde planer om at omdanne landet til en republik med ham som præsident (Thaksinland) er korrekte.

Vi kan sammenligne hele dette billede, stort set, med Italien og Berlusconi. De brugte/bruger samme rollehæfte. Og tilfælles har de, at der er flere beundrere end modstandere, Thaksin var meget populær blandt landets fattigste.  Og så denne kommentar, det lykkedes i Thaksins regeringsperiode for “eliten” at fjerne 400 milliarder THB fra statskassen, lidt af en rekord, men han er jo også en succesrig forretningsmand, der ledede landet som var det hans personlige ejendom.

Som en tak til Chavalit for hans advarsel om den forestående devaluering i 1997 er den tidligere general og PM nu formand for Thaksins ny parti i Thailand.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

I de mange indlæg om et emne, der er interessant, har jeg nu været omkring de mange typer regeringslederes, landet har haft siden 1932. Diktatorer, der hensynsløst misbrugte deres magt, semi ditto, indsatte ”dukker” styret af militæret, ærlige eksempler samt den nye moderne, strømlinede og polerede type, som Thaksin repræsenterer.

Sammenfaldende er jeg kommet til dette resultat;

Uanset politisk hudfarve synes stort set alle partier at bære kimen til ødelæggelse af et demokratisk system i sig selv. De er befængte og deres magtbegær og umådeholdne pengesyge æder systemet op fra a til z. De er også ødelæggende for alle retfærdige sociale strukturer. De få, der har villet det godt, fjernes og med dem tages skridt, der fører landet tilbage i en sump, der opsluger fremskridt, der lige nu udgør en alvorlig hindring for, at Thailand kommer med som aktiv spiller i den globale udviklingskamp. De mange partier nedsætter et utal af råd og kommissioner, der skal belyse korruption og tilsvarende sygdomme, men ingen af dem sigter mod at tage fat, der hvor sygdommene kommer fra. Det er en konkurrence om adgang til ufortjente penge og magtpositioner, der kun skal gavne kandidaten selv uden at skele bare eet eneste sekund til nationens interesser. For mig ser det ud som om den politik, der føres i Thailand i virkeligheden er ødelæggende for samfundet og skaber flere konflikter end den løser.

De oprindelige tanker om at indføre demokrati i landet, krævede en forberedelse af jordbunden, så der senere kunne høstes. Dette skete aldrig, den samlede konstallation af magthaverne, ønskede det ikke, inderst inde. På overfladen har Thailand efter min opfattelse et “styret demokrati” alle forsøg på at fortælle det modsatte har ikke rod i realiteterne.

Thailand mangler national sammenhængskraft og jeg kan ikke se, hvem der kan løse denne opgave. Der er oplagt mangel på en konstruktiv ideologi, der appellerer til flertallet. Mine mange års ophold i landet har lært mig, at generelt set udtrykker mange stor mistillid til landets administration, men med fokus på ”dem i Bangkok”, hvorimod der er ret stor sympati for de nære/lokale administrationskontorer, og årsagerne hertil er indlysende. Igen må jeg henvise til de stærke rødder i den thailandske kultur, der ikke nemt lader sig ændre og det er derfor svært for en udlænding at forstå et sæt af moralske værdier og opfattelser af samfund/nation, der er meget fjernt fra vesterlandsk tankegang.

Det er tankevækkende at Chuan Leekpai i 1999 i en vurdering af hele verdens ledere blev udpeget som nummer to efter den hollandske leder Wim Kok. Undersøgelsen blev foretaget af World Economic Forum, der bad en række udvalgte respondenter om at sammensætte en drømmeregering og pege på lederen. Det var udlandets dom, i Thailand tabte Chuan til Thaksin, alene heraf ses forskellen tydeligt.

Andre observationer er, at den thailandske befolkning i bund og grund er paternalistiske, for dem er Kongehuset og Buddhimen de afgørende pejlemærker. Det er ikke tilfældigt, at synonymet for demokrati er kaos. Derfor anvendte bl.a. Thaksin vendingen “styret demokrati” men desværre for Thailand var målet for rejsen ikke det, han lod dem tro, men den korteste vej til sine egne banker. Måske en bedre term ville være ” Statsstyret Kapitalisme”?  Et samfund, hvor overhovedet afgører, hvem der er samfundets vindere og tabere ? Taberne er nemme at lokke, de skal bare have en sang og en dans plus kontanter, så er de i fælden. På toppen en erkendelse af, at frie markedskræfter ødelægger den lukrative dagsorden.

Det er også en tanke værd, at den gadekamplignende situation, der hersker i Bangkok i disse dage, hvor denne artikel skrives, kan betegnes som proletariatets opgør mod kapitalismen, finansieret af en i hvert fald tidligere mangemilliardær Thaksin. Karl Marx ville sikkert gøre sig sine tanker og omgående revurdere dem.

Jeg må altså acceptere den thailandske version af demokrati; løgn og latin fra ende til anden, alt styret baseret på primitive instinkter, der kendetegner en nation, der er i stor krise og ikke hverken vil eller kan se skriften på væggen. Det er den grove version, den mere akademiske vil lyde sådan; Den type demokrati vi kender i Vesten egner sig ikke til et land som Thailand. I et demokrati er der for mange stemmer, der gør krav på at blive hørt, der er for mange politiske retninger/ideologier, der ikke nødvendigvis fører til økonomisk fremgang, men trækker i modsatte retninger. At køre Thailand som en forretning mislykkedes for Thaksin, der var alt for mange modsatrettede interesser på spil, store kultur og sociale forskelle, og stadigvæk er den demokratiske tankegang meget ung i landet.

Den thailandske mentalitet ville trives med en diktatorisk leder, der på alle måder var besjælet ved tanken om, at styre landet ind i en positiv udvikling, men det er jo desværre ikke en demokratisk tankegang. Autokrati (styret enevælde) var det så slemt? Hobbes forslag om borgernes kontakt med staten var da ikke så dårlig?

Denne aktuelle serie består af 6 artikler, nemlig disse 5 anførte plus den aktuelle nummer V;

http://www.occo.asia/blog/index.php/2010/04/klassekampen-i-thailand-april-2010/

http://www.occo.asia/blog/index.php/2010/04/demokratiet-i-thailand-del-iintroduktion/

http://www.occo.asia/blog/index.php/2010/04/demokratiet-i-thailand-del-ii1932baggrund/

http://www.occo.asia/blog/index.php/2010/04/demokratiet-i-thailand-del-iii1932kuppet/

http://www.occo.asia/blog/index.php/2010/04/demokratiet-i-thailand-del-vi1943-1973/

For at komplettere mine observationer om Thailand henviser jeg til min blog, på hvilken jeg tidligere har placeret en række artikler om hverdagen i Thailand.

Jeg medgiver, at mine observationer er skrevet ned baseret på indtryk fra mange kilder. Jeg er klar over, at dette vitale emne for Thailand kan belyses på en mere akademisk basis, et arbejde jeg sagtens kan producere, men det bliver lidt for tørt, der er for mange tal og referencer. På den den anden side kan jeg ikke afvise, at det vil illustrere emnet mere nuanceret. Men min metodik for disse 6 artikler har ganske enkelt været at tilstræbe i kortest mulig form at beskrive hovedtrækkene og baseret herpå komme med en vurdering af tendenserne og de dertil knyttede konsekvenser.

Thailand er er disse år i en dyb identitetskrise og jeg kan som tidligere anført, ikke lige nu skimte løsningen, situationen her ultimo april 2010 er uoverskuelig.

CHONBURI

25. april 2010

Jeg er klar over, at jeg har kastet mig ud i en længere opgave. Men jeg er blevet grebet ved tanken om, at en del af denne frivillige tesis-lignende opgave kan bidrage til at få bare en anelse mere indsigt i en kultur, der i mønster og struktur er så vanskeligt at få hold på.

For at komme kompasset rundt kræves der en god portion hjemmearbejde, det er ikke noget nyt, men det er overraskende, at det er så svært at få struktur på de delelementer, der tilsammen skal udgøre helheden.

Lad mig så komme med den kommentar, at Thailand for det meste overlever på at kopiere, der er desværre ikke mange ting, Thais selv kan. Så grundlaget for det ublodige kup i 1932 var baseret på kopier af franske, tysk/engelske og kinesiske modeller, der ikke har været tilstrækkeligt tilpasset den meget specielle kultur dette land har og derfor må siges at have fejlet. Over perioden er det hele endt med, at landet har et Thai socialt og kulturelt tilpasset demokrati, et stort træ, der svinger med den til enhver tid herskende vindretning. Det er et komfortabelt og uforpligtende synspunkt, der ikke kræver den store indsats. Men når disse ironiske kommentarer er glemt,  står tilbage et billede, der er meget korrekt, nemlig at Thailand ikke har kunnet anvende vestens demokratiske/politiske modeller, der i 1930erne havde undergået en betydelig udvikling og tilpasning, der havde fjernet sig milevidt fra de oprindelige modeller, men det blev også overset, idealerne var i centrum, slagordene på plads, de politiske løfter uden jordforbindelse.

Det er for tidskrævende og for belastende for læsernes tålmodighed at beskrive udviklingen på en logisk facon, dertil er det materiale jeg bruger for divergerende, omfattende og fyldt med faktuelle fejl. Men jeg prøver så at anvende denne fremgangsmetode;

Der synes at være to hovedretninger, den ene er holdet af politiske power-spillere, den anden er den politiske struktur/kultur. Den politiske arena er domineret af 4 aktører, der hver for sig mener at spille hovedrollen; kongehuset, militæret, de større politiske partier og endelig den thailandske befolkning. I min pure ungdom var jeg aktiv på Det ny Teater i København og fik et godt kendskab til opgaverne både foran, på og bag ved scenen. Den har som bekendt en drejeskive/drejescene, og som jeg ser udviklingen i det thailandske politiske dukketeater, drejer scenen rundt med vilkårlige intervaller og i rampelyset befinder én af de omtalte 4 hovedaktører sig, soler sig i projektørlyset, medens de 3 andre utålmodigt afventer deres tur og hvis ventetiden er for lang, sørger de for at scenen skifter til deres fordel. Til dette skuespil er der intet rollehæfte, ingen fastlagte replikker og ingen instruktør, men masser af publikum, hvor prisen for billetten er betalt via statskontrolleret og accepteret korruption.

Kongehuset/magten

Uagtet at det ikke er så velset at omtale det thailandske kongehus, så er der trods alt historiske fakta, ingen kan komme uden om og en beskrivelse af landets udvikling vil lide under manglen på sober beskrivelse af landets dominerende magtbase.

Siden Arilds dage har enten konger eller despoter regeret denne verden, det gælder også Thailand. Langt de fleste kongedømmer i dag er et konstitutionelt monarki, der forstår at tilpasse sig til udviklingen, det ses i f.eks. i de nordiske lande. Og mon det ikke er kongehuset, der altid er den udfarende kraft? Det er jo i virkeligheden dets eneste mulighed, for historien har jo bevist faren ved, at en person har al magt, underforstået at hvis man fjerner denne person, har man overtaget chefstolen. Landets kongehistorie er rig på dramatik og har haft både gode og ikke så gode stillingsindehavere. Mere end nogen anden kongeslægt har Chakri dynastiet præget Thailand med opfattelsen af, at den regerende konge er en reinkarnation af en højt respekteret Buddha og dermed er i besiddelse af al verdens visdom og evnen til at forene alle gode ting og hensyntagen til samtlige landets interesserer, forenet i én og samme person. Det kan vist betegnes som overmenneskelige krav, men Hans Majestæt Kong Bhumibol, har magtet denne opgave som verdens længst siddende regent og har gennemlevet de mest kritiske år efter fødslen af det nye Thailand. At han også er verdens rigeste monark og Thailands mest velhavende person, skal jeg komme tilbage til på et senere tidspunkt.

Kongen vælges af et særligt råd (Privy Counsil), der dermed i virkeligheden er det, vi herude kalder for ” the king-makers”, dvs. at det kan forstås sådan, at rådet vælger en konge, der tilgodeser dets primære interesserer, der ikke nødvendigvis behøver at falde sammen med landets.

Kongen har ret til at pege på sin efterfølger. Og her er en kendsgerning ikke mange kender. Kongen har nemlig ikke alene udpeget sin eneste søn, men en af sine døtre også, nemlig prinsesse Sirindhorn.

Jeg skal blot minde om, at uanset hvilke af de tre andre aktører, der for en periode indtager hovedrollen, kan dette kun lade sig gøre med accept fra landets ubestridte nationale samlingssymbol.

Militæret

Som omtalt i kapitel III startede magtkampen om landets chefpost dagen efter kuppet den 24. juni 1932. Militæret indtog den holdning,  at kun det kunne sikre landet sikkerhedsmæssigt og politisk stabilt med henblik på at skabe den nødvendige platform for at realisere målsætningen for kuppet. Den kamp har nu varet i snart 78 år og jeg kan ikke få øje på en slutning. I årelange perioder har landet været et 100 % militærdiktatur med brutale ledere, der hensynsløst henrettede deres modstandere og stjal af landets pengekasse med en grådighed uden grænser. Den værste var general Sarit.

Militæret sikrede sig, at det havde ret til at udpege regeringslederen samt medlemmer til landets senat og repræsentanterne hus med 75 % af alle medlemmer, ordet demokrati var en kæmpejoke. Sagt på en anden måde, militæret sikrede sig indflydelse på alle bestemmende poster indenfor den lovgivende, udførende og dømmende sektor. Det fik en stor opbakning fra eliten i den kinesiske forretningsverden, der betalte store summer for at kunne arbejde uhindret med at opbygge landets førende virksomheder. På samme tid besatte generaler næsten alle bestyrelsesposter i statsejede selskaber, herunder som eksempel Thai International Airways.

Dette billede var på skærmen til omkring 1990. I begyndelsen af 1990erne var der stigende utilfredshed med ”generalernes klub” og presset blev så stort at magten blev afgivet til folket i 1997, hvor landet fik en ny (igen) konstitution.

Politiske partier

Der er ikke tradition for at forme politiske partier på samme grundlag, som vi kender det i vesten. I Thailand stiftes partier, der skal varetage meget specifikke fraktioners interesser og det er interessant at bemærke, at vælgerne er meget personorienterede,  langt mere end i det politiske program. Tit skifter kandidater parti fra det ene sekund til det andet, men får stadig mange stemmer, hans vælgere følger ham. Det har derfor været et stort problem at holde partidisciplin, hvilket ofte ses i forbindelse med afstemninger, hvor en minister kan stemme for et forslag, der indebærer en økonomisk fordel for ham, uagtet at hans parti i princippet er i mod forslaget. Der er heller ikke meget demokrati i partierne, deres ledere bestemmer ofte hen over hovedet på medlemmerne efter princippet, jeg alene ved.

Folkets magt/indflydelse

Jeg tror landets borgere kan inddeles i 2 grupper. De uddannede, der selv kan forme deres meninger og stemmer derefter, når der udskrives frie valg, den anden gruppe, de ringest uddannede, hvis indsigt i basal politik og demokrati er ikke-eksisterende og som derfor sælger deres stemme til den højestbydende politiker. Dette er en meget grov inddeling, det ved jeg godt, der er mange nuancer og visse steder en spirende bevidsthed om, at den nuværende struktur står for fald, hvilket situationen i Thailand/Bangkok i marts og april måned 2010 tydeligt dokumenterer. Folkets magt er stigende også i forbindelse med rådigheden over alle moderne kommunikationsmidler. Lad så være, at vi kan diskutere om Thaksin ved valget i 2005 fik 19 millioner stemmer, hvoraf de fleste var indkøbte til lejligheden, de var en magtfaktor ingen kunne overse.

Politisk kultur

Den store politiske manege er præget af 800 års dominans fra eliten og dermed en struktur, der er vanskelig at slippe af med. De fleste Thais er ikke dybere engageret i politik set på landsplan, men langt mere i og omkring det nære samfund. Og der er jo ingen, der kan forklare det store billede, som alle skal være aktive deltagere i, og det skaber en kultur, der præges af passivitet og ofte på basis af en tidshorisont af få timers varighed. Det er ikke en joke.

Majoriteten af landets vælgere er ikke politiserede og interesserer sig meget lidt for det, der foregår i det politiske teater, jeg skal nok lade være med at kalde det for hverken det Kongelige eller Det Ny, men nok nærmere Stærekassen eller Gamle Scene. Den kender vi, her er vi tilpassede, behersker spillereglerne og der kræves ikke meget af os. Der er altså ikke en politisk bevidsthed eller ansvarsfølelse overfor samfundet, jeg kan ikke få øje på mange nationale samlingsmærker/ikoner, jo eet, der snart falder ned som et stjerneskud.

Der er altså dybe konflikter mellem de kulturpolitiske opfattelser af eliten og befolkningen i de rurale områder.

Thai kultur

For at gøre det samlede billede mere komplet må nødvendiges tilføjes et par elementer mere, nemlig buddhismen, der spiller en altdominerende rolle, herunder de mystiske begreber, der knytter sig til denne filosofi (overtro/ånder/mystik) samt det generelle holdningsmønster, der kendetegner Thais, det mest velkendte ”Mai Pen Rai” oversat ”Det betyder ikke noget”. Når det ikke betyder noget for mig, er det altså ikke accepteret, jeg skal/kan ikke tage stilling til det, for gør jeg det, har jeg pådraget mig et ansvar. Hertil skal tilføjes et par andre karaktertræk, der er lidt fremmed for landets gæster;

Thais er nødt til at have facade, ansigtet udadtil, illusioner og lystløgne. Deres beundring for de ledere, der beriger sig på samfundets bekostning, deres accept af politiets umættelige likviditetsbehov og endelig deres hierarki, som de helst ikke taler for meget om, men som er grundlaget for samfunds sociale struktur og afrundet med deres enestående vilje til kun at reagere på følelser, rationel tankegang er ikke højt på ønskelisten.

Jeg stiftede bekendtskab med landet første gang i 1969 og har besøgt Thailand senere mange gange mest i forbindelse med forretninger. Jeg havde i perioden 1973-1991 meget tæt kontakt med det etablerede internationale netværk og siden 1996 er jeg permanent registreret som bosiddende her og jeg betaler skat. De mange år har givet en del indblik i det rigtige Thailand og jeg kan derfor understøtte det synspunkt, at landet har sin egen meget særprægede demokratiske opfattelse, der ikke umiddelbart kan sammenlignes med den form, vi kender i Danmark.

Fra 1943 frem til 1973

Baseret på foranstående grundlæggende betragtninger tager jeg så fat på at beskrive demokratiets udvikling. Fra de foregående artikler om emnet har jeg skrevet, at indtil 1930 var landet stort set et agrarsamfund, og militæret var i forhold til bønderne et moderne og velfungerende apparat, styret af eliten, og det var naturligt at magten lå hos dem. Efter en kort årrække med skiftende ledere tog hærchefen Phibun og hans kolleger magten i 1938 og indførte de facto et militærdiktatur. Deres beundring for fascisme og nazisme var stor og deres modstandere blev henrettet for et godt ord. Der var ikke nogen sympati til overs for de tanker Pridi havde opbygget sin konstitution på, de nye magthavere så med langt større beundring på Japan, der tilbød at modernisere Thailand.

Ændringen af landets ledelse medførte også en meget hård kurs overfor den store og dygtige kinesiske elite af forretningspersoner, der blev udsat for afpresning, ekstra skatter og en nationalisering af store områder som olie/benzin, ris og tobak, i princippet en anti kinesisk stramning, hvor japansk-thailandske interesser blev fremmet, et meget uheldigt skaktræk fra Phibuns side, for landet kunne ikke klare sig uden det kinesiske samfunds knowhow. Denne aktion kom til at sætte dybe spor i samfundet.

I 1939 ændrede Phibun landets navn fra Siam til Thailand, idet Siam var et kinesisk navn.

Samarbejdet med Japan førte til, at Thailand indgik en forsvarsalliance med dem og som følge heraf erklærede USA og England krig i januar 1942. Jeg skal ikke komme nærmere ind på krigsårene, blot omtale at Phibun trådte tilbage i 1944 da han kunne skimte, at Japan ville tabe krigen, men han vendte tilbage igen som regeringsleder.

England og Frankrig tilgav aldrig, at Thailand havde tilsluttet sig aksemagterne og det var en yderst kompliceret affære at klare krigserklæringen mod USA, der endte med et kompromis, fordi den thailandske ambassadør havde ”glemt” at aflevere erklæringen.

I årene efter krigen fik USA og Thailand etableret et godt samarbejde, idet USA havde brug for landet som brohoved mod den store kommunistiske trussel, der havde indtaget South East Asia. USA havde brug for en stærk profil og Phibun var deres mand og han blev genindsat som regeringsleder i 1948 og blev afsat ved et kup i 1957. Han havde i sin periode fortsat sine anti kinesiske aktioner og iværksatte tilsvarende mod muslimerne i de 4 af Malaysias nordlige provinser, der var blevet overladt til Thailand af Japan i 1942. Hans regeringsledelse var desværre for svag og hans nærmeste medarbejdere fik lov til at udføre korruption, der tog til i omfang og til slut også vakte kongens mishag. Landets daværende politichef var åbenlys leder af handel med opium.

Den nye stærke mand hed Sarit, der også var feltmarskal. Han huskes i dag som den leder, der i sin periode bedrog landet for en sum på 80 milliarder THB omregnet til nyværdi. Men han var den, der brugte sin magt til at indføre nye liberale former for nationaløkonomi, han opfordrede udlandet til at investere i sit land, han iværksatte initiativer med henblik på at forbedre landbrugets vilkår og han satte en del kræfter ind på at få et nyt og bedre undervisningssystem.

SARIT

Han er beskrevet som en general, der følte at landets forsøg på at indføre demokrati havde fejlet og at kun en stærk militær ledelse var svaret. Hvad hele landet først erfarede efter hans død var, at han i virkeligheden var datidens mest korrupte leder, og når han i den grad kunne skjule sine lyssky transaktioner skyldes det, at kun meget få var vidende om dem og da han kontrollerede alle budgetter og dermed landets cashflow var det en nem opgave.

I 1963,  ved Sarits død,  overlades magten til en anden stærk mand og da USA begyndte at investere i Thailand og sikrede sig baser her i forbindelse med de eskalerende problemer i Indokina, voksede Thailands økonomi som aldrig før. Frem til 1973 var landet altså ledet af stærke personer, enten generaler eller af dem indsatte og kontrollerede regeringschefer. Men alle havde overset virkningen af den økonomiske fremgang koblet sammen med forøget viden og i 1973 gjorde studenterne så oprør. Dette har jeg beskrevet i en tidligere artikel.

Året 1973 er så afslutningen på de stærke mands æra, der begyndte i 1943. Der var altså ikke meget demokrati at få øje på. 60 års militært styre sætter sit præg, der er en hel generation af Thais, der er vokset op med frihed udadtil, men uden reel indflydelse på landets vilkår og som passive tilskuere til generalernes umættelige appetit for kontanter, korruption og nepotisme. Til denne skueret kan du tilføje et helt batteri af stærke krydderier, hvor produkterne hedder snigmord, attentatforsøg, manipulationer, magtmisbrug, listen er lang.

Der var enkelte gode ledere af og til, men de havde beskeden indflydelse og fik kun lov til at dele krummerne ud fra de riges bord, når de havde afsluttet deres måltid. I 60 års perioden voksede landets befolkning fra 16 til 39 millioner og der var en særdeles positiv udvikling i bruttonationalproduktet og en meget lav inflation, hvilket dengang havde en væsentlig bidragsfaktor nemlig Thais præference for landets egne produkter. Der henvises ofte til denne periode som den ideale model for landet, der ikke købte mange importerede varer, men kunne overleve fint uden. Det var altså dengang, men der er stadig en væsentlig faktor, der gælder endnu, nemlig at over 50 % af landets samlede økonomi er undergrundsbaseret, ingen skat, moms og regnskaber og store summer ud af landet. At forsøge at tale om et retfærdigt samfund, hvor alt fordeles på bedste demokratiske måde er utopi. Thais trives i bedste velgående og vil aldrig acceptere andre modeller, i hvert fald ikke efter min vurdering, men jeg kan jo sagtens blive modbevist, en dag.

Thailands stigende industrialisering koblet sammen med store indtægter fra turisme og domestik købekraft forøgede på samme tid størrelsen af ”accepteret” korruption samt alle de metoder pengene suges ud af syltetøjskrukken på, men systemet er en betydelig hindring for udviklingen af demokratiet.

CHONBURI

19.april 2010

Det er ikke ubegrundet, at tankerne om et kup i Thailand mod det enevældige styre blev født i udlandet og hvad er mere naturligt end at hente inspiration i Frankrig? Som omtalt i forrige artikel, var det en selvfølge for eliten at sende sønnerne til Europa enten England eller Frankrig. I 1920erne havde en del thailandske studenter gjort sig en del tanker om, hvorledes det ville være muligt at ændre på det politiske landskab i deres fædreland. Lad mig omtale gruppen, der bestod af Pridi Banymyong (leder), Prayoon Phamonmontri, løjtnant Luan Pibun Songkram, løjtnant Luang Tasnai Niyomseuk, Thua Laphanukrom, Nab Phaholyothin og Luang Siri Rajmaitri. Gruppen var i Paris, hvor de unge studerede lagde grunden til det fundament, der nogle få år senere skulle ændre århundreders magtstruktur i landet, der dengang hed Siam. Deres udgangspunkt var at stifte et parti ” The Peoples Party”. Deres plan var enkel, og den baserede sig på 6 hovedpunkter;

• Opretholdelse af national uafhængighed i alle henseender, eksterne og interne
• Sikre nationalt sammenhold og landets sikkerhed ind- og udadtil
• Ved hjælp af fuld beskæftigelse at bidrage til samfundets økonomiske udvikling baseret på en overordnet nationaløkonomisk plan
• Garantere lighed for alle
• Garantere fuld uafhængighed og frihed til alle borgerne under forudsætning af at dette ikke ville kollidere med de foranstående principper
• Endelig at sørge for uddannelse til alle borgerne

En gennemførelse af denne samlede plan skulle føre Siam frem til åndelig og materiel fremgang.

Pridi og gruppens andre medlemmer vendte tilbage til Siam i 1927 og deres planer tog form. Sammen med en række mellemstående officerer og civile personer sikrede de sig støtte fra blandt andre militære generaler og den 24. juni 1932 gennemførte de let og elegant det ublodige kup og kongen støttede helhjertet kupmagerne.

En time efter kuppet startede en magtkamp, der aldrig siden har været standset permanent kun ved korte elle længere pauser i form af våbenhvile. Den naturlige leder af en ny regering, der jo ikke var valgt af folket, ville være Pridi, lederen af folkets parti. Men han fik omgående kamp til stregen af den ung officer Pibun, der mente, at posten skulle tilhøre militæret. Som et nødvendigt kompromis valgtes en 3. Person, men Pridi fik rollen som den, der skulle finpudse og eksekvere 6 punkts planen og nu havde landet en konstellation, der i princippet har holdt sig siden, nemlig at militæret bakker op om et parti, der er populært indtil dette parti har fået penge nok fra den nationale skattekiste, så byttes rollerne.

De kommende år vil jeg tillade mig at betegne som en butik, der indeholder og sælger BR legetøj. Det er børnene, der bestemmer, hvad de ønsker, frit valg på øverste hylde af de foretrukne varer, som forældre og bedsteforældre betaler.

Men lad mig vende tilbage til udgangspunktet, hvorfor ønskede gruppen at ændre samfundet i Siam? Pridi og de andre havde haft en del politiske indtryk inden de tog til Paris. Pridi havde kæmpet hårdt for at sikre sig en god uddannelse, han studerede jura, han fik et stipendium og drog af sted. I studieårene havde han haft kontakt med en del militære folk, der luftede tanken om et kup, så Pridi var ikke ukendt med ideen, men den fik en del næring i Paris, hvor en prins studerede på samme tid og forsøgte at indføre en mini kongedømme i byen med ham som overhoved og det bragte sindede i kog og førte til konflikter. Desuden havde han haft nær kontakt med de fattige bønder og forstod deres problemer. Han var tæt på at være kommunist. Han var ikke ukendt med, at kongen var landets rigeste person, som kredsen omkring ham nød godt af, uden måske at yde ret meget af værdi til samfundets udvikling. Lyder det bekendt?

Unge mennesker på 25, som han var (født 1900) må hente inspiration. Nærliggende for ham var samtaler med hans professorer, der underviste i nationaløkonomi og brugte den franske revolution som model, dernæst var Pridi enig med Karl Marx i, at en ændring af samfundet nødvendiggør en ændring af rettighederne til produktionsmidlerne, og naturligvis var han optaget af ændringer i de eksisterende forhold mellem ejerne af jorden og bønderne. Pridi blev Thailands først nationaløkonom.

Men i virkeligheden var Pridis tankegang at tage det bedste fra alle samfundsøkonomiske modeller/filosofier og sammensætte disse til sit første udkast for en midlertidig konstitution, der blev hans første pålagte opgave efter den 24.6.1932. Hans hovedinspirator var i virkeligheden den kinesiske revolutionære leder Sun Yat-Sen, der i 1911 havde tegnet modellen til landets frigørelse fra Quing dynastiet. Han blev i Kina betragtet som nationens fader, ergo en rollemodel for Pridi. Begge var af den opfattelse at demokratiet skulle hvile på et partidiktatur, ligesom de brugte en slags tre-trins-raket som handlingsplan for det store sceneskift. De havde sikkert også set godt på erfaringerne fra Rusland.

Sun Yat-Sen

Kort efter magtskiftet skete det, alle kunne have forudset. 4 magtgrupper startede en indædt kamp for at sikre sig den afgørende indflydelse; den gamle konservative elite, den seniorstyrede del af militæret, en ditto bestående af junior militære personer, samt en ny fraktion for demokrati, ledet af Pridi. Han første udkast til en national overordnet plan tog sigte mod essentielle, men betændte områder; nationalisering af store landområder, en statsstyret industrialisering samt et forbedret uddannelsessystem med sigte mod at reducere elitens og militærets dominerende roller i landets bureaukrati.

Resultatet var til at forudse, han blev stemplet som kommunist og allerede i 1933 kom næste kup, der blev efterfulgt af et nyt og magten skiftede hænder og denne håbløse situation fortsatte ind i 1935, hvor kongen tog på sygeophold i udlandet, abdicerede og en ny konge blev udpeget. Han levede i Svejts og havde ingen ønsker om at flytte til Siam, så landet havde en periode på 15 år med en konge, der ikke var på tronen i Bangkok. I 1935 indførtes en streng censur for enhver form for media, herunder den vigtigste nemlig ytringsfriheden.

De følgende mange år lededes landet af militæret. Hvad mange har glemt er, at de fleste daværende chefer var beundrere af Mussolini og Hitler og lad os endelig ikke tale om forholdet til Japan. Det bedste, de gjorde var at ændre landets navn fra Siam til Thailand, de fries land, det var i 1939 og skulle signalere uafhængighed. I disse år indførtes regler for landets borgere, der minder en del om dem, Hitlerjugend anvendte.

Når der i årene op til anden verdenskrig var mange stridigheder i landet, var en af årsagerne, at militæret var af den opfattelse, at verden stod overfor kommende problemer af en sådan karakter, at kun militæret kunne varetage landets interesser på betryggende vis. Efter min opfattelse var det en ren facade. De benyttede enhver lejlighed til at demonstrere deres fastholdelse af, at de var langt bedre til at administrere landet end en civil, demokratisk regering.

Det første frie valg blev afholdt i november 1933 med kun 10 % deltagelse af de stemmeberettigede og valget var en klar sejr til Pridi og hans regering.

I årene efter 1932 indtog Pridi mange regeringsposter, udenrigsminister og finansminister og han fik indført valgret for kvinder, ændrede beskatningssystemet til fordel for de fattigste, etablerede landets første bank og grundlagde et af landets bedste universiteter i den periode, da han var indenrigsminister. Han fik ikke nemme vilkår, der var naturlig modstand mod hans planer, hvilket er forståeligt, ingen vidste meget om konsekvenserne ved nye tiltag, bedre bevare det, vi kender. 3 gange måtte han i eksil, den sidste kom han aldrig tilbage fra, han døde i Frankrig i 1983.

Pridi

Det er meget trist at ikke mange Thais har kendskab til den person, der er fader til landets demokrati. Hans anseelse i udlandet var langt større. Han havde ved sin død flere udenlandske ordner end thailandske. En profet er som bekendt ikke altid agtet i sit hjemland.

I 1945 kom kongen Rama VIII til det nye Thailand fra Svejts, og han var konge i 8 måneder. Han var født i 1925 og altså kun 10 år gammel, da han blev konge og 20 da han kom til landet. Han blev modtaget med jubel, så godt ud, var et hjertevarmt menneske og Thais tog ham til sig med åbne arme, landet havde atter en konge i Bangkok. Den 9. juni 1946 blev han fundet skudt i sit værelse i paladset og så startede et uværdigt kapital, der indtil nu er uden slutning, nemlig jagten på hans mordere. Jeg skal ikke beskrive det samlede handlingsforløb, der først endte – udadtil – i februar 1955 med henrettelse af 2, der var blevet fundet skyldige, samt en dom over Pridi som medskyldig, og det lykkedes ham at flygte ved hjælp af velmenende personer her i blandt en del udenlandske. Mordet er stadig ikke opklaret, men er et emne, der helst ikke berøres.

Son afsluttende bemærkninger om Thailands første demokrat, vil jeg prøve med denne plus/minus liste. Starten af den nye samfundsstruktur var naturligvis præget af mangel på erfaring og betydelig usikkerhed, der er grobund for magtkampe og stridigheder både eksterne og interne, de sidste uden tvivl i flertal. Selvom Pridis party havde sejret var det splittet i fraktioner, der bekæmpede hinanden. Der var altså svagheder i partiet, der var ingen nationale studier eller undersøgelser, der kunne bekræfte handlingsgrundlaget, alt i begyndelsen tog udgangspunkt i teorier og boglig viden.

Den militante del af gruppen, der medvirkede i kuppet så hellere militære strategier med faste holdepunkter og handlingsplaner end at spørge befolkningen om dens ønsker. De militante var helt klart nervøse for, at alt ville køre af sporet uden deres faste hånd på forløbet. En anden svaghed var, at partiet, folkets parti kun stilede efter af have statsmagten. Kongen havde jo haft både monarkiets og statens magt samlet i én person. Ved at afgive 50 % af magten efterlod han et vakuum, som militæret omgående fyldte ud.

Så babyen, The Peoples Party, kom dårligt fra starten og (undskyld udtrykket) de facto udviklede sig til siamesiske tvillinger, den ene ledet af Pridi (civile fraktion) den anden ledet af general Pibulsongkram (militær fraktion). Partiet afgik vist ved en stille død under anden verdenskrig.

Endelig befolkningens opfattelse af ændringen. Efter 800 års uafbrudt central kongemagt må den have været særdeles usikker, uøvet og slet ikke parat til at påtage sig det ansvar, som borgerne har i et demokratisk styre.

Pridi følte, at han ved at introducere et bedre system for de fattige, der havde været behandlet dårligt af eliten, kunne ændre positivt på landets samlede økonomi og bringe velstand til de dårligst stillede, altså igen en socialpolitisk, ditto økonomisk model begge baseret på ukendte modeller begge fra teoretiske vurderinger uden meget hold i virkeligheden.

Derfor kom det hele så dårligt fra start og jeg kan ikke skimte mange signaler på, at det har forandret sig til det bedre over årene. Jeg ser landet som et test laboratorium, hvor udviklingshjulet roterer fint om sin akse i et lukket rum men uden at komme ud af stedet.

Allerede før kuppet i 1932 var det en kendsgerning at en Thai blev kun rig hvis han var en del af eliten, netværket, der styrede samfundet, altså kongehuset og militæret, efter 1932 kom netværket til at også at omfatte den politiske elite. Cirkus møllehjul blev startet.

Chonburi 18. april 2010