Thailand’s ideological struggle: towards the possibility of depolarizing Thailand’s polarized politics

ABSTRACT

Seemingly intractable social-political divisions involving a range of actors and interests with zero-sum propensities continue to haunt Thailand. This article argues that unmasking the contingent nature of Thailand’s polarized politics helps vindicate the possibility of depolarization in societies steeped in polarization. It proceeds by sketching the development of the so-called ‘Yellow-Red’ divide, identifying it with the hard-edged, ideological bifurcation of ‘right’, i.e. liberalism/conservatism, and ‘left’, i.e. egalitarianism, respectively. The article then demonstrates that while ideologically polarized configurations such as illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism/conservatism necessarily sustain the resilience of Yellow and Red, they may be surplus to the range of ideological configurations with which disputants first and foremost identify. The theoretical argument is that holding different ideological viewpoints do not necessitate polarization. Deep polarization is contingent and this is connected to Michael Freeden’s morphological account of ideology. Depolarization reflects less of a rejection and more of a restructuring of the right-left binary along the lines of a continuum running from right to left. To elaborate, by the same logic that structured antagonisms may be superimposed over varied ideologies, thereby triggering ideological mutation, they are also liable to dislodgement .

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Michael Freeden and two anonymous referees for their helpful feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Kong Rithdee, ‘Flags turn the national into factional’, The Bangkok Post (8 February 2014).

2. Pasuk Phongpaichit and C. Baker, ‘Thailand in trouble: Revolt of the downtrodden or conflict among elites?’ in M. Montesano, Pavin Chachavalpongpun and Aekapol Chongvilaivan (Eds) Bangkok, May 2010: Perspectives on a Divided Thailand (Singapore: ISEAS, 2012), pp. 214–229.

3. Prajak Kongkirati, ‘From illiberal democracy to military authoritarianism: Intra-elite struggle and mass-based conflict in deeply polarized Thailand’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681 (2019), pp. 24–40.

4. M. Freeden, Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 2.

5. Freeden, ibid., p. 125.

6. See Itthiphon Kotamee, ปฏิบัติการภาษาและการสร้างความชอบธรรมในการต่อสู้ของขบวนการ เคลื่อนไหวทางการเมืองไทย พ.ศ. 2549–2557 [Language Practices and Legitimation in Thai Political Movements Struggles 2006–2014], PhD dissertation submitted to Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand (2018), pp. 78–114.

7. See Itthiphon, ibid., pp. 114–126.

8. M.K. Connors, ‘Notes towards an understanding of Thai liberalism’, in Montesano, Pavin and Aekapol (Eds), op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 102.

9. See, for example, Pasuk Phongpaichit and C. Baker, ‘Business populism in Thailand’, Journal of Democracy, 16 (2005), pp. 58–72; Pasuk Phongpaichit and C. Baker, ‘Thaksin’s populism’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38 (2008), pp. 62–83; Thongchai Winichakul, ‘Toppling democracy’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 38 (2008), pp. 11–37.

10. See, for example, Kasian Tejapira, ‘Toppling Thaksin’, New Left Review, 39 (New Series) (2006), pp. 5–37; Thitinan Pongsudhirak, ‘Thailand since the coup’, Journal of Democracy, 19 (2008), pp. 140–153; E. Norton, ‘Illiberal democrats versus undemocratic liberals: The struggle over the future of Thailand’s fragile democracy’, Asian Journal of Political Science, 20 (2012), pp. 46–69.

11. Kasian Tejapira, บุชกับทักษิณ: ระบบอำนาจนิยมขวาใหม่ไทย-อเมริกัน [Bush and Thaksin: Thai-American Neo-Conservative Authoritarianism] (Bangkok: Kopfai, 2004), p. 113.

12. See, for example, Anek Laothamatas, Business Associations and the New Political Economy of Thailand (Singapore: West View Press, 1992); K. Hewison, ‘Of regimes, state and pluralities: Thai politics enters the 1990s’, in K. Hewison, R. Robison and G. Rodan (Eds) Southeast Asia in the 1990s (Melbourne: Allen and Unwin, 1993).

13. M.K. Connors, ‘Political reform and the state in Thailand’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 29 (1999), pp. 202–226.

14. C. Schmitt, The Concept of the Political (trans. G. Schwab, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932/2007), p. 70.

15. J. Shklar, Political Thought and Political Thinkers (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1998), p. 3.

16. Rochana Bajpai, ‘Liberalisms in India: A sketch’, in B. Jackson and M. Stears (Eds) Liberalism as Ideology: Essays in Honour of Michael Freeden (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 54.

17. See, for example, Nidhi Aeusrivongse, รากหญ้าสร้างบ้าน ชนชั้นกลางสร้างเมือง [Grassroots Build Houses, Middle Classes Build Cities] (Bangkok: Matichon Press, 2009); Pasuk and Baker, ‘Business populism’, op. cit., Ref. 9; Kasian Tejapira, ‘The irony of democratization and the decline of royal hegemony in Thailand’, Southeast Asian Studies, 5 (2016), pp. 219–237.

18. Kasian, ibid., p. 222.

19. See, for example, J. Glassman, ‘The “sufficiency economy” as neo-liberalism: Notes from Thailand’, paper presented at the 10th International Conference on Thai Studies, Bangkok, Thailand, 9–11 January 2008; A. Walker, ‘Royal sufficiency and elite misrepresentation of rural livelihoods’, in S. Ivarsson and L. Isager (Eds) Saying the unsayable: Monarchy and democracy in Thailand (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2010), pp. 241–265.

20. M.K. Connors, Democracy and National Identity in Thailand (Copenhagen: NIAS Press, revised edition, 2007).

21. Chairat Charoensin-o-larn, ‘A new politics of desire and disintegration in Thailand’, in Montesano, Pavin and Aekapol (Eds), op. cit., Ref. 2, p. 91.

22. F. Ferrara, ‘Unfinished business: The contagion of conflict over a century of Thai political development’, in Pavin Chachavalpongpun (Ed.) ‘Good Coup’ Gone Bad: Thailand’s Political Developments Since Thaksin’s Downfall (Singapore: ISEAS, 2014) pp. 17–46, p. 32.

23. K. Hewison, ‘Class, inequality, and politics’, in Montesano, Pavin and Aekapol (Eds), op. cit., Ref. 2, pp. 143–160, p. 157.

24. Norton, ‘Illiberal democrats’, op. cit., Ref. 10, pp. 55–57.

25. Connors, ‘Notes’, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 105.

26. J. Locke, Two Treatises of Government (ed. P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

27. P. Schmitter and T.L. Karl, ‘What democracy is … and is not’, Journal of Democracy, 2 (1991), pp. 75–88, p. 82.

28. M.K. Connors, ‘Liberalism against the people: Learning to live with coups d’état’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 24 (2018), pp. 1–21.

29. Connors, ibid., pp. 14, 17.

30. Chaiwat Satha-anand, ‘อริสโตเติลกับรัฐประหาร 19 กันยา’ [Aristotle and the 19 September Coup], in non-numbered special issue of Fa Dieo Kan, 2007, pp. 152–173, p. 159.

31. J. Waldron, ‘Theoretical foundations of liberalism’, Philosophical Quarterly, 37 (1987), pp. 127–150, p. 134.

32. By substituting the standard formula of ‘nation, religion and monarchy’ with the one proposed, the role of the military is accredited with the centrality it deserves in C. Reynolds, Thai Radical Discourse: The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (Ithaca: Cornell SEAP, 1987).

33. D. McCargo, ‘Network monarchy and legitimacy crisis in Thailand’, The Pacific Review, 18 (2005), pp. 499–519.

34. E. Mérieau, ‘Thailand’s deep state, royal power and the Constitutional Court (1997–2015)’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 46 (2016), pp. 445–466.

35. Kanokrat Lertchoosakul, ‘พัฒนาการและพลวัตของขบวนการต่อต้านทักษิณ: จากขบวนการเสรีนิยมอันหลากหลายส่ขูบวนการอนุรักษ์นิยมเข้มข้น’ [The development and dynamics of the anti-Thaksin movement: From multifaceted liberal movement to concentrated conservative movement] (Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund, 2017), pp. 29–32.

36. Kanokrat, ibid., pp. 34–35.

37. Anon., ‘4 พรรคมอง “โซตัสในการเมือง” ชี้แทรกซึมระบบราชการ ทำไทยล้าหลัง’ [4 parties discern ‘Sotus in politics’, suggesting infiltration into the bureaucratic system and rendering Thailand backward], Matichon Online, 9 September 2018. Retrieved from https://www.matichon.co.th/politics/news_1123449.

38. McCargo, ‘Network monarchy’, op. cit., Ref. 33.

39. Kasian, ‘The irony’, op. cit., Ref. 17.

40. The PDRC labelled themselves, ‘kanchumnum kong kondee’ (gathering of good people). See Chapter 5 in Itthiphon, ปฏิบัติการภาษา, op. cit., Ref. 6.

41. Thorn Pitidol and Chanon Techasunthorawat, ‘อัตลักษณ์และบทบาททางการเมืองภายใต้ระบบประชาธิปไตยของคนชั้นกลางกรงุเทพ: กรณีศึกษาการเคลื่อนไหวทางการเมืองของขบวนการกปปส. (คณะกรรมการประชาชนเพื่ออการเปลี่ยนแปลงให้เป็นประชาธิปไตยท่ีสมบูรณ์อันมีพระมหากษัตริย์เป็นประมุข)’ [The political identity and role of the Bangkok middle class under the democratic system: A case study of the political activism of the PDRC (People’s Democratic Reform Committee) movement] (Bangkok: Thailand Research Fund, 2016), p. vii. For a similar view, see Thongchai Winichakul, ‘Thailand’s hyperroyalism: Its past success and present predicament’, Trends in Southeast Asia, Number 7 (Singapore: ISEAS, 2016).

42. Thorn and Chanon, ibid.

43. Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 4, p. 78. Nonetheless, maintaining that contrasting social attitudes stem from distinct class origins is not quite the same as claiming that bourgeois liberals are all bourgeoisie or that conservative attitudes can only be displayed by a class of traditional elites or civil servants. At most, bourgeois liberals and statist conservatives are broadly such and such classes of people, since a subject may be swayeds both by liberal and conservative influences in varying proportions.

44. Connors, ‘Notes’, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 102.

45. Kasian, ‘The irony’, op. cit., Ref. 17, pp. 229–230, 232. See also Thongchai, ‘Toppling democracy’, op. cit., Ref. 9; B. Dressel, ‘Judicialization of politics or politicization of the judiciary? Considerations from recent events in Thailand’, The Pacific Review, 23 (2010), pp. 671–691.

46. N. Nostitz, ‘The Red Shirts: From anti-coup protestors to social mass movement’, in Pavin (Ed.), op. cit., Ref. 22, p. 185.

47. Itthiphon, ปฏิบัติการภาษา, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 177–189. In fact, the term ‘polmueang’ (citizen) was initially used but later replaced by the more caustic ‘phrai’, p. 185.

48. Itthiphon, ibid., pp. 189–226.

49. A. Walker. Thailand’s Political Peasants: Power in the Modern Rural Economy (Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2012). For a similar depiction, see Naruemon Thabchumpon and D. McCargo, ‘Urbanized villagers in the 2010 Thai Red Shirt protests: Not just poor farmers?’, Asian Survey, 51 (2011), pp. 993–1018.

50. Norton, ‘Illiberal democrats’, op. cit., Ref. 10, p. 63.

51. Thanee Chaiwat and Pasuk Phongpaichit, ‘Rents and rent-seeking in the Thaksin era,’ in Pasuk Phongpaichit and C. Baker (Eds) Thai Capital after the 1997 Crisis (Singapore: ISEAS, 2008), pp. 249–266.

52. See, for example, Nostitz, ‘The Red Shirts’, op. cit., Ref. 46, pp. 190–191; D. McCargo and Peeradej Tanruangporn, ‘Branding dissent: Nitirat, Thailand’s enlightened jurists’, Journal of Contemporary Asia, 45 (2015), pp. 419–442.

53. McCargo and Peeradej, ibid., p. 431.

54. McCargo and Peeradej, ibid., p. 434.

55. T. Larsson, ‘In search of liberalism: Ideological traditions, translations, and troubles in Thailand’, Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 32 (2017), pp. 531–561, p. 545.

56. See Book II of J.J. Rousseau, The Social Contract (trans. M. Cranston, London: Penguin Books, 1968).

57. McCargo and Peeradej, ‘Branding dissent’, op. cit., Ref. 52, p. 434.

58. Larsson, ‘In search of liberalism’, op. cit., Ref. 55, p. 546.

59. Claudio Sopranzetti, ‘Burning red desires: Isan migrants and the politics of desire in contemporary Thailand’, South East Asia Research, 20 (2012), pp. 361–379, p. 374.

60. Sopranzetti, ibid., p. 368.

61. A. Walker, ‘Is peasant politics in Thailand civil?’, in Pavin (Ed.), op. cit., Ref. 22, pp. 199–215, p. 212.

62. P. Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 30. Pettit also notes that Rousseau was among those who gave currency to political equality’s ‘definitional connection with liberty’, ibid.

63. Prajak, ‘From illiberal democracy’, op. cit., Ref. 3, p. 36.

64. Prajak, ibid.

65. See, for example, M.H. Nelson, ‘“Vote No!”: The PAD’s decline from powerful movement to political sect?’ in Pavin (Ed.), op. cit., Ref. 22; Kanokrat, ‘พัฒนาการและพลวัต’, op. cit., Ref. 35.

66. Kanokrat, ibid.

67. Kanokrat, ibid., pp. 35–39, p. 119.

68. Connors, ‘Notes’, op. cit., Ref. 8, p. 104.

69. Kasian, ‘The irony’, op. cit., Ref. 17, pp. 229–231.

70. Prajak Kongkirati and Veerayooth Kanchoochat, ‘The Prayuth Regime: Embedded military and hierarchical capitalism in Thailand’, Trans–Regional and – National Studies of Southeast Asia, 6 (2018), pp. 279–305.

71. On peripheral concepts, see especially Freeden, Ideologies, op. cit., Ref. 4, pp. 78–80. Note that despite Freeden’s reluctance towards addressing decisionism as a liberal periphery, Connors brilliantly shows how a morphological account of ideology can prescribe logics of security as ‘interior to [liberalism’s] structure rather than exterior’, ‘Liberalism against the people’, op. cit., Ref. 28, p. 9.

72. C. Mouffe, ‘Preface: Democratic politics today’, in C. Mouffe (Ed.) Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community (London: Verso, 1992), pp. 1–14, p. 11.

73. M. Freeden, ‘Editorial: Interpretive realism and prescriptive realism’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 17 (2012), pp. 1–11, p. 2.

74. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, ‘Postprotest pathways in Thailand: Between the street and the ballots’, in R. Youngs (Ed.) After Protest: Pathways Beyond Mass Mobilization (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2019), pp. 53–60, p. 60.

75. Janjira, ibid.

76. Sopranzetti, ‘Burning red desires’, op. cit., Ref. 59, p. 374.

77. Nelson, ‘“Vote No!”’, op. cit., Ref. 65, p. 149–150.

78. Nelson, ibid.

79. Mouffe, ‘Preface’, op. cit., Ref. 72, p. 5.

80. Prajak, ‘From illiberal democracy’, op. cit., Ref. 3, p. 30.

81. R. Bellamy, Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise (London: Routledge, 1999), p. 103.

82. J. Rawls, Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 44.