It is like listening to people on Daily Kos talking about Bush or Freepers talking about Clinton. The hatred consumes them so much. The Nation, in an editorial, gives us their view on the rural and urban poor, and potentially anyone else who voted for Thaksin:
After all, the telecom tycoon-turned-politician is the embodiment of the worst possible malady that could afflict a fledgling democracy like Thailand. An autocratic leader who bankrolled his way to the highest political office by pandering to the unprincipled wants and needs of the attention-deficient, politically apathetic masses
I guess in The Nation's world only the liberal elite intelligentsia should vote and make decisions for anyone else. Screw the uneducated poor!
I wonder whether The Nation thinks they are "pandering" to the anti-Thaksin crowd by their daily diatribes against Thaksin.
Yawn... so the Nation does it again...
The next two paragraphs may convey more about the nature of the debate today. Discuss.
"To make sure that his blatant abuse of power proceeded unencumbered by the inconvenience of scrutiny by several constitutionally mandated watchdog organisations, Thaksin set out to undermine and weaken them all with a wholesale buy-up of the Senate, which is responsible for all watchdog appointments.
The prime minister's heavy-handed manipulation of these "independent" agencies rendered them ineffective as checks and balances against the possibility of the government wielding too much power. And this disruption in the balance of power has also had a corrosive effect on the rule of law, made worse by Thaksin's aggressive campaign to roll back civil liberties, including such rights as the freedom of expression and of the press.
I've sort of touched on this in the 2Bangkok forum. The problem to me seems that the Bangkok-based media, be they pro or anti Thaksin, doesn't seem to really care much about finding out what upcountry voters actually think. I'm sick of hearing all these cliches about an electorate divided between "urban vs rural" and "rich vs poor". How can that explain how TRT won 32 of 37 BKK constituencies, or how the Democrats locked up 52 of 54 southern constituencies??? I think the electoral cleavages are much more nuanced - I've found US-educated urbanites who love Thaksin and cab drivers with 4th grade educations who despise him.
The first newspaper that tries to offer a deeper analysis of the true nature of the national electorate will win my subscription for life.
Something from the last election: "The Numbers of the 2005 Election".
The Chang Noi article is good, but deciding why people split their vote is difficult to predict. I can't blame some people, if it is correct, that they go for Chart Thai's new star, Chuwit.
I've heard him interviewed in a few of the Thai variety and political talkshows on TV as well as on radio and he is always good entertainment value. He should be in parliament alone for his entertainment value. I find he is very good at getting his message across and always comes up with a good analogy. I wouldn't quite say he is the common touch, but is message is clear.
My take on Chuwit is that he's entertaining so long as he has no power. I'd hate to see what happens if he were actually entrusted with any responsibilities. Anyway, it seemed his presence on Chart Thai's party list explains a big part of the surge of proportional rep votes for that party.
Thanks for the link, naphat, by the way. I vaugely remember the article - one of the few pieces I read that offered something of an insightful analysis. One example of strategic voting I recall was in the BKK constituency of Chart Thai MP Janista Liewchalermwong. Though she won that seat, Chart Thai polled significantly less party list votes in that constituency compared to the rest of Bangkok. Not surprising to me, voters in all parts of the world tend to hedge their bets when given the chance.
Still, all this analysis doesn't explain why the facts don't fit the conventional wisdom of the urban/rural & rich/poor divide describe in Anek Laothamotat's "Tale of Two Democracies". To expand on my earlier post, why does "middle-class" Bangkok give us the likes of Samak Sundaravej and Chalerm Yoobamrung? Why does Chon Buri, one of the most urbanized provinces outside Bangkok's vicinity, produce Kamnan Poh? Why do Kanchanaburi and Petchaburi, home to many notorious "influential figures", contain significant pockets of Democrat strength? And why is it that Samut Prakarn and Nonthaburi, with their swathes of middle-class housing estates, are solid TRT strongholds? Anybody have an answer?
One example of strategic voting I recall was in the BKK constituency of Chart Thai MP Janista Liewchalermwong. Though she won that seat, Chart Thai polled significantly less party list votes in that constituency compared to the rest of Bangkok. Not surprising to me, voters in all parts of the world tend to hedge their bets when given the chance.
Or maybe voters liked Kuhn Janista, aka P'Bam, because of her previous career (Oh, I feel depressed as a foreigner knowing so much about the Thai entertainment industry). A familiar face is a big advantage.
On Chalerm, I understood he was popular within his own little "fiefdom in Thonburi", but that he wasn't that popular outside the area - well, certainly not after little Duang and his other 2 brothers had more than one run-in with the authorities.
Not everyone in Bangkok is rich, the urban poor are still a large section of the population.
On Samak, I think it is important to note who Samak was up against as this Asiaweek article points out. Samak is also a Bangkok political veteran and would have extensive connections - see article about Chalerm above.
Thanks for the Asiaweek links, JW, it reminded me how much I miss Asiaweek ever since TimeWarner ran it into the ground.
On Chalerm, I understood he was popular within his own little "fiefdom in Thonburi", but that he wasn't that popular outside the area - well, certainly not after little Duang and his other 2 brothers had more than one run-in with the authorities.
This confuses me even further. I recall that Chalerm's stronghold in Thonburi is centered in the Bangkok Noi area. But isn't Bangkok Noi also the home turf of Democrat veteran Ong-art Klampaiboon, who easily staved off a challenge from high-profile TRT challenger Jakapob Penkair last year?
I rather like how this comment tread is turning out, but let me rewind a bit and go back to the Nation's article. I don't think the article specifically said anything about the poor, urban or rural.
The reference was to "the unprincipled wants and needs of the attention-deficient, politically apathetic masses." Personally I don't immediately equate the poverty with the qualities described here - rich people can be politically apathetic (see Bangkok voter turnout vs poorer provinces) and be attention-deficient (see the faddish materialism that underwrote Siam Paragon).
One can argue that voters, poor or rich, who don't make the effort to get information for informed choices lessen the quality of representative democracy.
Fast forward a bit: I think the Chonburi case and the Democrat strongholds in the north central plains are reflective of the patronage-type relationship between the voters and politicians. Ideological struggles in Bangkok are probably not relevant.
PS: No offense Tettayan, but I would like to nominate "electoral cleavages are much more nuanced" as the Thai Political Quote of the Day.
the unprincipled wants and needs of the attention-deficient, politically apathetic masses." Personally I don't immediately equate the poverty with the qualities described here - rich people can be politically apathetic (see Bangkok voter turnout vs poorer provinces) and be attention-deficient (see the faddish materialism that underwrote Siam Paragon)
Fair point. Yes, there are politically apathetic and attention-deficit people who are not poor.
Tettyan touchs on the issue of the Bangkok-based media's views of people outside of Bangkok. To me, it is The Nation in particular who are usually the worst offenders and they seem to have an utter disdain for anyone who does not seem to fit within the category of the educated, liberal elite. They immediately write of a large majority of the country and then accuse Thaksin of being arrogant. Most of the people who are not within the educated, liberal elite category are the uneducated poor.
Their mention of "unprincipled wants and needs" and "masses" led me to believe that it was uneducated poor who they were focusing on. I was mindful of the context that many of TRT's previous election policies were aimed at the poor. By implication, The Nation meant the poor (and yes, some others as well).
Having not been to Siam Paragon, surely it can be more materialistic than Gaysorn Plaza?
Naphat,
LOL! Sometimes I forget that I'm talking to real people here instead of eccentric political scientists.