Government largesse keeps Thai people power dormant

Thepchai Yong, The Nation, Asia News Network/Bangkok

The October Uprising that toppled the repressive Thanom-Prapas regime 32 years ago gave birth to Thailand's first "people power". And despite some ups and downs during the country's most politically tumultuous period in the aftermath of the uprising, the silent voice of the people could always be counted on to manifest itself loudly in times of crisis.

Even the bloody crackdown three years later, which delivered a deathblow to the student movement that served as the vanguard of political change, failed to wipe out the democratic spirit.

In the socially different environment of 1992, almost two decades later, the middle class rose to a new political challenge and took to the streets to protest against an authoritarian government in the making. The second episode of people power ushered in another era of democracy that culminated in the drafting of Thailand's first reformist Constitution in 1997.

A feeling of euphoria swept the country, as the people celebrated the arrival of a new dawn of democracy symbolized by the creation of constitutional mechanisms aimed at rooting out money politics and corruption -- the primary causes of the political ills that have plagued the country for decades. New systems of checks and balances were also instituted to prevent the return of authoritarianism.

Most important of all, it was a political awakening of the Thai people, with many believing that democracy was finally taking root. People power had proven itself twice, and there was no reason why it would not continue to be a dormant force that would present itself again when called upon or in times of crisis.

But after almost five years of the CEO-style government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand has seen its people power gradually lose its potency. It's an irony that the tendency towards authoritarianism is being tolerated with little dissension at a time when Thailand is supposed to be journeying through its most democratic period.

The Thaksin government's populist policies and the prime minister's CEO style of management have struck the right chord with the population at large. People have become so overwhelmed by government hand-outs and charmed by Thaksin's decisive leadership that they are willing to overlook the damage he has inflicted on the democratic process.

No wonder then that there was little to celebrate as far as people power was concerned on last week's 32nd anniversary of the October Uprising. Instead, participants in the memorial service used the occasion to lament what they saw as a gradual deterioration of democratic rule.

Leaders of labor unions, farmers and student groups that once formed the vanguard of people power admitted Thaksin's populist appeal has had a sedative effect on the public, depriving them of independent thinking and addicting them to government largesse.

Given the current administration's political dominance and a politically pacified populace, they are convinced that the people power that used to help shape Thai politics had already expended itself. Unionists and leaders of grass-roots movements have been co-opted and pro-democracy and NGO activists marginalised.

The press, which was always a major component of people power, has also been compromised.

It can be recalled that during the periods leading up to the two uprisings, in 1973 and 1992, the press played an aggressive watchdog role, holding the powers-that-were accountable. It braved threats and harassment to expose corruption and wrongdoing by politicians and the military.

For the people in those political circumstances, the press was the only remaining mechanism for checks and balances. While others were cowed into submission, the press was the only institution that was independent enough to tell the public the truth about what was going on.

The people's rising discontentment with the power-holders was gradually fueled by what they read in the press. The arrogance displayed in the media by political and military leaders added to the steadily rising tensions.

Tactics used by those in power to try to coerce the press were crude and largely ineffective. Even open threats of retribution failed to dampen the professional spirit of journalists and editors.

The press was credited not only with helping galvanize the discontented masses who eventually drove out two authoritarian regimes, but also for its role in forcing two democratically elected administrations out of office prematurely in the 1990s, through its exposure of mismanagement and corruption.

However, through subtle but well-coordinated tactics, the Thaksin administration has effectively disarmed the media, just as it has emasculated the pro-democracy forces. The hard-hitting journalism that was the hallmark of the mainstream media has given way to self-censorship.

Political pressure and financial enticements have led them to play down and sometimes even overlook allegations of wrongdoing and conflict of interest against political leaders. Readers are left with only superficial -- and in many cases, deliberately toned down -- news coverage of the administration.

Without a free media to hold the powers-that-be accountable in a professional manner, any hope that the public at large will be able to force change, through the ballot box or by taking to the streets in another display of people power, will be just an illusion.

Although people power is far from dead, it may require another really rude awakening before it is able to play a meaningful role in the current political context.

But such a political awakening is very unlikely to come about, at least not as long as the sedative effect of Thaksin's populist policies persists.