Liberalism, authoritarianism and the politics of decisionism in Thailand

Abstract

By examining different Thai regime forms over the last 30 years this paper attempts to show how an uneasy co-existence between liberal and authoritarian forces has impacted on the exercise of power and regime form. Arguing that the persistence of authoritarian power in the military and the monarchy is central to understanding the nature of Thailand's ambivalent state, it moves to a contemporary analysis of ‘decisionist politics’.

Keywords:

• Decisionism
• Thaksin
• regime framers
• democracy
• Thailand
• monarchy

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Chris Baker, Bill Case, Kevin Hewison, Kyaw Yin Hlaing and Duncan McCargo for offering useful suggestions on an earlier draft. Research for this article was made possible by an ARC Discovery Grant and support from the School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University.

Michael K. Connors is on leave from School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University, and currently teaches at the Department of Asian and International Studies, City University, Hong Kong.

Notes

1 The specific governmental mix in each period cannot be treated in this article. Only the general features are dealt with.

2 In Prem's first cabinet of 37 members, 25 came from political parties, members coming from Kukrit's SAP, Chart Thai and the Democrat party (The Nation, 13 March 1980, p. 8).

3 In 1999–2000, nine activists were killed.

4 By including the years 1996–97 here I am suggesting that the Chavalit government pre-figured the Thaksin regime. I have argued elsewhere that in some senses Chavalit's own ruminations on the need for Thailand to develop a Thai version of the Japanese Liberal Democratic Party (a party of coalition factions), in part, influenced Thaksin's own political party conception of one-party government. This is a point that obviously needs further exploration, given the direct capitalist base of the Thaksin regime in contra-distinction to the mixed military, bureaucratic-capitalist, and capitalist base of Chavalit government. Chavalit was in his own way a potential populist leader, his mumbling ideological utterances on the Thai people and his intended redistributive policies indicating a shift in this direction. The point is that elements in the state were already moving towards the need to secure stable rule by one party government – one of Thaksin's main achievements. The economic crisis changed the terms upon which this project could be advanced.

5 Royal Thai Government, Emergency Decree on Public Administration in Emergency Situation, B. E. 2548 (2005) Government Gazette Vol. 122, Part 58a, 16 July B. E. 2005.