Week 3: Post your Blog Entries as Comments to my Main Post Each Week Post

Post by Sunday at midnight.


1. Mark Whitaker

2. Three Different versions of 'why people mobilize and ally with each other: Weberian, Marxist, or social movements theory from the 1970s to the present; The Thai example of states and social movements is hardly that simple; Avoid making a theoretical assumption without evidence, look at the country first, and THEN theorize.

3. In a post about the Thai social movement in the past week, I remembered someone posting something about their Marxist assumption of mobilization (merely rich versus poor). Actually, social movements typical DO NOT happen among the poor so readily as based on class issues, as described in the Gaventa book excerpt. We will discuss mobilization issues in the next few sessions and different EMPIRICAL issues about mobilization that call into question such simple presumptions of class conflict as the basis of mobilization, collective action, and grievances.

In the Thai example, it's hardly class warfare. It's different factions of the elite versus each other, each having their own association of grassroots 'lower class' SMOs in their following. A more complicated picture of Thailand emerges from this Thai journalist (in this 2008 article below). It helps explain some of the background of the context of the 'red shirts' mobilization you see now there.

If you want a short summary about ANY country, I recommend this website:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/th.html

After you view the summary for Thailand, you could look into the different polity model implications for social movements anywhere.

For instance, that report reads of two ongoing social movements: between one party against the state, and another social movement in this country of the Muslim separatists denied equal rights in Thailand's political culture. None of these are clearly class based mobilizations in the Marxist sense.

"A unified Thai kingdom was established in the mid-14th century. Known as Siam until 1939, Thailand is the only Southeast Asian country never to have been taken over by a European power. A bloodless revolution in 1932 led to a constitutional monarchy. In alliance with Japan during World War II, Thailand became a US treaty ally following the conflict. A military coup in September 2006 ousted then Prime Minister THAKSIN Chinnawat. The interim government held elections in December 2007 that saw the former pro-THAKSIN People's Power Party (PPP) emerge at the head of a coalition government. [Originally, the other side, now the ruling side, took to the streets first to protest AGAINST the people's power movement:] The anti-THAKSIN People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in May 2008 began street demonstrations against the new government, eventually occupying the prime minister's office in August. Clashes in October 2008 between PAD protesters blocking parliament and police resulted in the death of at least two people. The PAD occupied Bangkok's two international airports briefly [i.e., a novel social movements strategy aimed at getting international attention and immediately state response], ending their protests in early December 2008 following a court ruling that dissolved the ruling PPP [i.e., the court sided with the social movement occupying the airports!] and two other coalition parties for election violations. The Democrat Party then formed a new coalition government with the support of some of THAKSIN's former political allies, and ABHISIT Wetchachiwa became prime minister. Since January 2004 [long before the coup], thousands have been killed as [social movement nationalist/ethnic] separatists in Thailand's southern ethnic Malay-Muslim provinces increased the violence associated with their cause."

-------------------------

09-03-2008 15:42
여성 음성 듣기 남성 음성 듣기
Continuing Crisis in Thailand

By Giles Ji Ungpakorn
Asia Sentinel

For the past two or more years [now three or four years...], especially since the September 2006 coup, Thai society has been hypnotized into forgetting about the real social and political issues. Instead, the whole of society, and most tragically the social movements, have been entranced by a fight between two factions of the Thai ruling class.

On the one side is deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, his disbanded Thai Rak Thai Party, and its successor, the Peoples Power Party and the government.

Opposing them are [the current state regime:] a loose collection of authoritarian royalists comprising the People's Alliance for Democracy, the pro-coup royalist military, the pro-coup judiciary and the Democrat Party.

The [state regime] authoritarian royalists are not a unified body. They only share a collective interest in wiping out Thaksin's party.

The two sides mirror each other. Both are firmly in the camp of the Thai capitalist elite. They are both nationalistic and are prepared to abuse human rights.

While the (ex-)Thaksin government and Samak's Peoples Power government support extra-judicial killings and a hard-line murderous position on the Muslim insurrection in the south, the opposing side [is the same; it] cares little about such killings and counts the former Thai commando and assassin who took part in several coups and is called the butcher of Krue Sae Mosque, where Muslims were massacred, among its leadership.

[In other words the Muslim group is demoted and in the position of the 'second face of power' of both main political groups that are highly opposed to them equally instead of divided on the issue; thus the Malay-Muslim ethnic group waits for social movements openings without much political opportunities for their grievances, and since 2004 have started an insurgency, resorting to violence against whatever faction has been in power, since both reject them in a 'double repressive' context where split elites fail to actually ally with these grievances at all. It reminds me of the U.S. "two party system" that failed to integrate Black American interests or grievances at all from the 1870s through the 1950s.]

Both factions are associated with people who have a record of corruption. It is common knowledge that all Thai politicians are engaged in corrupt practices. The military have a long record of corruption and the 2006 junta were no exception. After the illegal coup in 2006, they appointed themselves to boards of state enterprises and forced through increased military spending. [echoes of Myanmar/Burma mentioned in the Schock reading I discussed on Monday.]

Yet the [mobilization of bias in the] courts have clearly been used to single out [only] Thaksin's faction on corruption and ``abuse of power" charges. While Thaksin was still in power, the courts bent to his wishes. There is no justice in Thailand.

The judiciary is not accountable to the electorate and always support the rich and powerful. In labor courts they always rule against trade unions [social movement mobilization]. No jury system exists in Thailand.

The [culture and collective identity] differences between the two factions are there too. While the Thaksin faction are committed to their strategy of winning power by elections, parliamentary democracy [mass mobilizations] and money politics, the PAD and their friends are in favor of military coups, reducing the number of elected parliamentarians and senators and increasing the power of non-elected bureaucrats and the army.

The justification for this is the belief that the poor majority in the country is too stupid to be given the vote.

The PAD faction is also composed of fanatical royalists. They want a new coup and were happy to whip up hatred of Cambodia and risk a war over an ancient Khmer temple. The PAD strategy, as outlined by Pipop Thongchai, a core leader of the party, is to create enough political chaos that institutions and parties are destroyed and a ``new order" arises from the ashes. Needless to say, this new order will not be democratic nor committed to social justice and equality.

In terms of economic policy, the Thaksin faction tries to use a dual-track strategy of mixing neo-liberalism with grassroots Keynesianism. They believe that the poor must not be left out and have a record of real pro-poor policies, such as the health care scheme. However, they are not remotely socialist and are against taxing the rich and building a welfare state.

The PAD/Democrats/royalists are hard-line monetarists. They propose interest rate hikes to cut down spending on the poor and to squeeze wages. The king is one of the richest monarchs in the world and he supports this economic policy and has also advocated the ``sufficiency economy" where everyone needs to curb their spending according to their means. Income redistribution is ruled out. That is why the poor have consistently voted for the Thaksin faction [even though it has little redistribution goals or progressive taxation goals, either].

The major reason why democracy and social justice have fallen off the political agenda into the stinking canals of Bangkok is the total disarray of the social movements, NGO networks and trade unions. After the collapse of the Communist Party in the mid-1980s, the new slogan of the Peoples Movements was ``the answer is in the villages."

This was an [depoliticized non-socical movements] NGO strategy to turn to rural development along single-issue lines. The slogan reflected a respect for villagers which contrasted greatly with the attitude of the government. Now the slogan of those People's Movement networks supporting the PAD has changed to ``the villagers are stupid and don't deserve the vote!" and ``the answer is with the military, courts and the king."

Sections of the NGO-Coordinating Committee, some Thai staff in Focus on Global South, Friends of the People and some farmer groups have lined up to support the PAD and the demand to decrease democracy. The Railway Workers Union and the Thai Airways union have also shown support. [so here, some workers and unions support the monarchist, anti-worker, anti-socialist faction]

The Thai Airways union has ignored military corruption in the airline and in the Airports Authority. Both unions have turned their backs on serious attacks on trade unions in the private sector and are only prepared to take action when people in high places give them the green light.

Other activists who cannot stand the PAD have allowed themselves to be pulled into supporting the government. This is just as bad as those supporting the PAD. Some even cheered when the police tried to break up PAD protests.

The lack of independent class politics in the Thai Peoples' Movement is a result of years of rejecting overall ``politics" and ``political organization." It is a result of the anarchistic ideas that were popular after the collapse of the Communist Party, a reaction to the party's Stalinist authoritarianism.

The problem is also a result of the [social movement organizational strategies of] ``lobby politics" of NGOs. Neither strategy leads to building an independent position for the trade unions and social movements. They reject ``representative democracy" but have no concrete democratic proposals to put in its place.

Even today, at this late hour, we can still build political independence. We must campaign for more democracy and more control of institutions from below. We must advocate a root and branch reform of the justice system, a reduction in the role of the military and the building of a welfare state through cuts in the military budget and progressive taxation of the rich.

Yet there are still those who say we must take sides in the current elite dispute and leave such reforms until later. The problem with that is that the dispute will not be quickly settled and if it is settled on the terms of one or other elite group it will result in a smaller democratic space and less bargaining power for social movements.

This article is distributed by Asia Sentinel (www.asiasentinel.com).

---
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/12/160_30474.html

So, how do you explain mobilization here? Is it Marxist, Weberian, 1970s political process model (Schock's additions), or is it just Thai? ^^


2.


Another example:

10-09-2008 16:44 여성 음성 듣기 남성 음성 듣기
Chaos in Thailand

By Giles Ji Unphakorn
Asia Sentinel

Since late in the evening of October 6, the ultra right-wing mob that calls itself the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has laid plans to lay siege to the Thai parliament. They came prepared with iron bars and crash helmets.

Their plan, as always, was to create chaos in the hope that the military would stage a coup or that the ruling party would once again be dissolved by the courts. [they are not interested in seizing power, they are interested in making the government unable to rule, and for a demotion of their whole movement toward military dictatorship.]

Their claim is that the present government led by the Peoples Power Party or PPP ― ex-Premier Thaksin Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai in another name ― is illegitimate.

The PPP and the previous Thai Rak Thai have consistently won large majorities in elections, proving that they are popular with the poor, who make up the majority of the population.

This support from the poor is not surprising, since the party was the first elite party in 30 years to offer a universal health care scheme and public funds to develop the rural economy.

The PAD's claim that the government is somehow ``illegitimate" is based on the belief that the poor do not deserve the right to vote because they are too stupid. This belief is shared by the opposition Democrat Party, which supported the 2006 military coup and is now supporting the actions of the PAD by boycotting parliament.

Previously the Democrats boycotted the 2006 elections because they knew that the poor would not vote for their monetarist and neo-liberal policies. The Democrats when in office set police dogs on peaceful protestors from the Assembly of the poor.

That protest was nothing like the PAD riots of the past few weeks. The Democrats also used public funds to bail out the banks in the 1997 crisis. The poor were told to fend for themselves.

The PAD is calling for the defense of the military constitution of 2007, which has already restricted the electorate's right to vote for the Senate. They want to bring about a Suharto-style ``New Order," in which only half of the parliament will be elected and the Prime Minister need not be an elected MP.

On the morning of October 7, the police cleared one side of parliament using tear gas. This was to allow MPs to enter the building. The police made it clear that the PAD would continue to be allowed to protest outside the other entrance to parliament.

However, the PAD responded by attacking the police with sharpened flagpoles, homemade guns and their own tear gas grenades. In any other parliamentary democracy, the PAD leaders and their rioting supporters would have been arrested.

They have been illegally occupying Government House for over a month. Yet the [anti-Thaskin/current government, pro-coup] police [fail to support the elected government and] have been told to ``lay off the [anti-government] protestors" by people in high places [to let their mobilization expand and endure without repression.].

Every public institution and organization in Thailand is now compromised by this inter-elite conflict and the losers, as usual, are the poor: workers and small farmers. The monarchy has failed to defuse the situation.

The queen has openly sided with the PAD mob. The courts are practicing double standards, attacking Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai/People's Power Party corruption while ignoring illegal coups, mob violence and corruption by opposition politicians and the military.

The military as always is on the side of the conservative royalists. The police are unable to act and the government lurches from crisis to crisis. The majority of academia is hopelessly compromised by its support for the coup and their support for decreasing the democratic space.

Democratic principles have been thrown out the window by professors who teach ``democratization" and the need for ``the rule of law."

Even the People's Movement has shown itself not to be up to the job. Instead of building an independent political position at the side of the poor and oppressed, sections of the NGO movement supported the coup, the military constitution and the PAD.

Rosana Tositrakul, the so-called NGO senator, elected from Bangkok, has joined ultranationalist fanaticism, especially over the ancient Khmer temple on the border with Cambodia that was almost conflated into a border skirmish.

These people must bear responsibility for the recent injuries of both Thai and Cambodian troops in a needless border dispute. Rosana also disrupted parliament, working with military-appointed senators. She believes that the poor are too stupid to be allowed to vote.

Yet all these people bang on about the need for ``good governance" and ``accountability." Who are they themselves accountable to?

The Thai economy is facing the full force of the global economic meltdown. It needs measures to protect the poor, income redistribution and a welfare state and peace for the three southern provinces.

Thaksin and his top military men should have been clapped into prison long ago over human rights abuses in the south and the so-called war on drugs, in which hundreds of people, many of them innocent, were killed.

Yet this is never mentioned and Thaksin and his wife are seeking asylum in Britain while poor people from all over the world are sent home to die by the British government.

We need to reform society to bring about progressive changes. This means expanding democracy, not allowing Thailand to slide back into the dark ages of dictatorship.

But the task will only take place by forces in the Peoples' Movement ― the left, the NGO networks, social movements and trade unions coming together to outline our own reform strategy.

We cannot rely on the corrupt human-rights abusers in the government, nor the fascists of the PAD and their allies to achieve these aims.

This article is distributed by Asia Sentinel (www.asiasentinel.com).

---
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/12/160_32408.html