I've been frustrated by coverage in the Western media about the coup in Thailand.

[randomness]

As I commented in someone else's journal--I think a little too forcefully, in retrospect--this has been Exhibit A for what I dislike about Western media coverage: a tendency to view all events as if Western conditions apply, and a readiness to make the story fit a simple narrative.

In response, I share excerpts from today's editorials from the two English-language dailies in Bangkok. (Reading them brings back fond memories; I used to read these papers over breakfast each morning before heading over to work over at bookly's.)

From the Bangkok Post (http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/21Sep2006_news21.php):

"A measure of the national distress was taken yesterday by a quick poll of 3,000 Thais by the Suan Dusit Poll. More than 80% said they approved of the coup by Army commander Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin. While this was only a quick straw poll, it indicated how deeply the former government had dug the country into despair. Only desperation could account for the approval of such undemocratic means as a military coup. The leaders of the anti-Thaksin People's Alliance for Democracy and several leading senators were among those who approved, however reluctantly, of such a previously unacceptable action against democracy.

"The reason for the coup, and the reason for the national despair over a political, democratic solution has a name: Thaksin Shinawatra. No person in Thai history has let down the nation like Mr Thaksin. Elected as a new-breed, populist politician in early 2001, Mr Thaksin lived a meteoric political career. He won the greatest vote percentage in Thai history, the first parliamentary majority ever. Then he proceeded to plunge his country into a divisive, insoluble hell of corruption, intolerance and, above all, cronyism.

"The coup d'etat brought down the Thaksin meteor because Mr Thaksin and his closed band of political allies had left little choice. On the one hand, Mr Thaksin and his favoured Thai Rak Thai leaders had polarised the country far beyond reconciliation. The coup came just 16 hours before the resumption of PAD street rallies, and possible _ likely _ violence between pro- and anti-Thaksin groups. Mr Thaksin and his favoured few ignored or denied attempts by both opposition figures and concerned Thais to bridge their differences."

And from The Nation (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/21/opinion/opinion_30014183.php):

"Thaksin was a seriously flawed political leader who tried to propagate a culture of corruption and deceit that threatened to undermine democracy as we knew it. Throughout his five and a half years in power, the former prime minister was exposed as a greedy politician who was driven by self-interest at the expense of the public good.

"The Thai Rak Thai Party leader proved to be a tyrant who sought to roll back civil liberties, suppress dissent - not to mention his flagrant violation of human rights. All of this was part of his sinister design to dominate and then monopolise political power so that he could indulge in his corrupt practices unimpeded.

"Nobody who loves democracy will be sorry to see him gone."

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm curious whether you have a comment on the Western narrative that frames this as a conflict between urban elites (whose voice the newspapers presumably represent, even leaving aside the potential censorship issues) and the rural poor, who the Western media have said support Thaksin heavily (and which seems to be substantiated by the military's efforts to prevent political gatherings or speach in the rural areas). One version of the Western narrative goes:
Thaksin was corrupt and a bad leader, no doubt about it;
But he had majority support from the country, concentrated in rural areas, so he won elections and would like have won the next election;
The coup is popular with urban elites who hated Thaksin anyway;
But so far the coup has had some empty language about "eventually", sometime after 2007, restoring democracy after they've rewritten the Constitution;
And in the meantime they're dismantling the organs necessary to have a real democracy (no political gatherings, no speach critical of the junta, suppressing some media outlets, controlling others) (and obviously leaving people who hope to have a role in forming the new institutions with no choice but to endorse the coup).

That's more or less the impression I've gotten from reading the NYTimes and CNN. I'm curious as to where you disagree with this narrative.

(Also, as Bedful of Books's comment suggests, it's easy to condemn a leader as terrible (and sometimes right); that doesn't change the fact that non-democratic, military based responses seriously undermine the development of a stable democracy. So unless the democracy had already been broken by Thaksin's corruption (i.e. you couldn't vote him out because he was fixing the elections), I think there's still a great deal to worry about here, even though he was no good.)

--Adam

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

I'm curious whether you have a comment on the Western narrative that frames this as a conflict between urban elites (whose voice the newspapers presumably represent, even leaving aside the potential censorship issues) and the rural poor, who the Western media have said support Thaksin heavily (and which seems to be substantiated by the military's efforts to prevent political gatherings or speach in the rural areas).

Funny you should mention that. This from "today's" (it's already the 22nd there) Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/even-rural-voters-desert-friendless-thaksin/2006/09/21/1158431842926.html):

"For much of this year of political turmoil, Thailand has been a nation divided, with rural voters supporting Mr Thaksin and the urban elite baying for his blood. But a Bangkok Post poll released on Thursday showed rural voters were now more in favour of the military's swift, bloodless action than their city counterparts.

"Of rural voters 86 per cent agreed with the coup, compared with 83 per cent of Bangkokians, and 77 per cent of provincial voters believed the coup would improve the political situation, versus 72 per cent of city voters."

(Caveats: the Sydney Morning Herald is another one of those Western media outlets; the poll didn't have a huge sample and was taken very soon after the coup.)

I'm curious as to where you disagree with this narrative.

In the Thai press, there is a significantly different narrative. I'm not sure I buy it completely, either, but rings a bit more true than the one I'm reading in the Western press.

It goes something like this: There had been political deadlock during the last few months, during which Thaksin had crossed the one bright line in Thai politics by trying to undermine the last major obstacle to his rule: the monarchy. Ultimately, there was a showdown, and as is always the case in Thai politics, all showdowns with the King are won by the King.

The King is venerated in Thailand to a degree which is unimaginable in a Western country--and possibly in any country outside Thailand--and I feel there is some sense in which Thaksin overreached, underestimating the power the monarch still has in Thailand, despite the fact that so little power he has on paper. I'm not sure how Thaksin failed to grasp that.

My suspicion is that King himself did not have a direct role in the coup. Once the generals had moved, he accepted it, which pretty much makes the whole event final. bookly said to me yesterday that once the King was on board, everyone in the countryside would be happy. The polling really appears to bear this out.

You can see how this narrative might be difficult to explain to anyone without some experience of Thai culture and politics. It's not a situation of "Well, they don't really have a democracy, the King runs everything"...because he doesn't, actually. But you cross him at your political peril. Generals and politicians have all learned this, some of them the hard way. After the '92 coup and democracy demonstrations, where protesters were shot in the streets of Bangkok by the military, the King held a nationally-televised audience with both the army general in charge of the repression and the leader of the opposition protests literally kowtowing before the throne while the King berated them for not coming to some kind of compromise. At least Thaksin avoided that fate.

Whether this is situation is healthy or not is unclear to me, but it's certainly not what I'm reading in the Western press.

i.e. you couldn't vote him out because he was fixing the elections

To a significant extent, that was the case, because of extensive vote-buying in the provinces. To be fair, here's a fair bit of vote-buying on all sides, but since Shinawatra has a fortune valued in the billions of US dollars, and has shown a great readiness to out-spend everyone else buying rural votes, he clearly profited from the situation.

Nonetheless, even though I think "democracy had already been broken by Thaksin's corruption", I still also think "there's a great deal to worry about here". I just don't think those things are the ones that the Western press are worrying about.

[redhound.livejournal.com]

One thing that I think makes a difference as to whether the state of Thai politics is worrisome (and one which I really can't tell from what I've been able to see) is to what extent the king's clout attaches to Bhumibol personally as opposed to the monarchy in general. My understanding is that Bhumibol has only really exerted his authority to resolve major political crises, which is arguably a good role for a constitutional monarch to play in a growing democracy*. If the next monarch possessed the same influence and was more interested in directing day-to-day governance, that might be troubling for democracy.

*I am reminded, for example, of Gore's comment that there is unfortunately no step in our system between a Supreme Court ruling and violent revolution. It would be interesting if in such situations we turned to, say, Karen Washington, Queen of the United States (who, like her forebear, f&%ks the sh!t out of bears).

[bookly.livejournal.com]

From what I understand, the king's clout attaches to the current king more than to the monarchy in general. While no one will say anything directly, my feeling is that only one of the king's children has any chance of holding the same power over the people, and she's female. (There's a story there, but I won't go into it...) On the other hand, I suppose the real power here is over the military, and I can't make any real comments on that score.

r_ness said, 'I still also think "there's a great deal to worry about here".' One of my big worries is what will happen when the king passes away. Even if the military don't support the next king, I don't think the situation will be pretty.

[dr-memory.livejournal.com]

FWIW, my old friend badsmurf lives in Bangkok these days, and pretty much concurs on all grounds.

Two minor edits which don't really change the sense of the comment:

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

"despite the fact that so little power he has on paper" should read "despite the fact that he has so little power on paper"

"here's a fair bit of vote buying on all sides" should read "there's a fair bit of vote buying on all sides".

(That first error makes it look like I'm channeling Yoda.)