The politics of authoritarianism: the state and political soldiers in burma, indonesia, and thailand by Chao-Tzang Yawnghwe M. A., University of British Columbia, 1990 B. A., University of Rangoon, 1961

FEER (29 September 1994), pp. 14-15.

601 Source: Interview with Sulak Sivaraksa in Vancouver, March 1997.

602 Ibid. The term "kanmuang turakij" to describe politics in its current form is widely used in Thailand.

603
^ This account is based on ongoing communications with knowledgeable persons in Thailand, including Acharn Sulak Sivaraksa, a prominent human rights activist, writers Pira Sudham and Kamsing Srinawk; Michael Vatikiotis, a Bangkok-based foreign correspondent; journalist Yindee Lertchokchareon; editor Anusorn Thavassin; Kanit Wanakamol, a civil servant; businessmen Boonsri Thaiyai and Singhadej Pengrai, and lawyer Damnoen Garden.

604
^ The return of soldiers to the barracks still leaves open the question of who will exercise real political power, on behalf of whom? There is no guarantee that elected civilian powerholders will use power vested in the state more justly. There are states in the Third World today which are not military-dominated, but which cannot be viewed as democratic either.

605 David Beetham, The Legitimation of Power (London: Macmillian, 1991), pp.228-236.

606 To avoid the impression that "praetorian" conditions are to be attributed to, or blamed wholly on, society or social groups (and their "low", or "uncivil" political culture), I believe that elites, leaders, and elements within the state must also share the blame. It is the state, state elites, and political-social elites who, in their search for support (against rivals), frequently manipulate or whip up "mob-like" crowds, or encourage "praetorian" participation of social groups and segments. Thus, it would not be far too wrong to say that elites and leaders, rulers, and state managers, often reinforce "praetorian" conditions and politics, in order to manipulate and exploit such conditions.

607 As discussed in Chapter 5, notable in the first category are the 1932 coup by the Promoters, and 1957 and 1958 coups by Sarit. Examples of the second category are the 1958 coup by Sarit against his own government, and a similar coup in 1971 by Thanom and Praphart. The clearest example in the third category is the 1976 coup by Sangad which ended a period of open, quite turburlent, politics (1973-1976), in a tense international (regional) climate. And in the fourth category are the Navy's 1951 "Manhattan" coup, the 1977 Chalard's coup attempt against Thanin (or rather, the Sangad's Navy clique), and the attempted coups in 1981 and 1985 by the Young Turks against Prem, involving con-flicts between military factions and figures: Arthit, Kriangsak, the Suchinda's group, Serm na Nakorn, Sant, and so on.

608 Ne Win established the BSPP party in 1974, Suharto set up Golkar in 1970-71, and Thanom and Praphart established the UTPP (United Thai People's Party) in 1969 (which was abolished, together with other parties and the 1969 Constitution, when the duo staged a coup against their own regime in 1971). Ne Win's BSPP did not manage to win legitimacy for the regime, although it was effective in "sterilizing" politics. Only Suharto has managed to use his and the regime's party, Golkar, to more or less gain a legitimate mantle.

609 Robert H. Jackson and C.G. Rosberg, Jr., Personal Rule in Black Africa: Prince, Autocrat, Prophet, Tyrant (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982). As defined by the authors, a tyranny is a system of personal rule where constrains are absent, and power is exercised in an arbitrary manner by the ruler and his agents (pp.80, 234-265). Princely rulers are astute observers and manipulators, and they are flexible and accommodating to a degree, but maintain control by encouraging and manipulat-ing struggles between subordinate power-holders and contending elite or oligarchical groups (pp.77-78, 83-142). Autocratic rulers are rulers who dominate the oligarchy, the government, and the state, and maintain their dominance by eliminating the autonomous political power and influence of others, and by reducing politics to subordination and administration (pp. 78-79, 143-181).

610 In fact, except during coups, the military is virtually invisible. Even during coups, troops and tanks are visible only in Bangkok, and usually only at strategic and symbolic points. Having had contacts with army officers, and having lived in Thailand for over twenty years, I have found that, unlike in Burma (where I was born), officers below the rank of general-officer, do not ordinarily have the oppor-tunity to exercise non-military power. Nor do they have the opportunity to extort or make money. Only intelligence officers have the power to exercise influence in the non-military sphere, but only within limits, and only with great discretion.

611 As discussed, Golkar's dominance in politics also served to marginalize the two regime-sanctioned, non-governmental political parties and "opposition" politicians and legislators. This also made it easier for the military and Suharto to neutralize, if not co-opt, individual politicians via intra-legislative polit-ics of making deals and bargains.

612 The Defence Ministry complex is also still very powerful, although not as powerful as during Murdani's tenure as ABRI commander and later, Defence Minister.

613 One could say that Prem's democratic inclination was/is contingent on the political orientation of the King. Had the King been authoritarian, Prem -- a staunch royalist -- would likely have attempted to become a Sarit-like ruler, or alternatively, served as a "front man" to facilitate the dictatorial exercise of royal power. And he would have been successful too, given his political skills. Prem's actions and success as a "democratizing" military strongman, raises the question of whether other really "strong" strongmen could, likewise, have reorganized power and the state in a democratic direction. It is quite probable that, had they been democratically inclined, Sarit, Suharto, even Ne Win, could have carried out what Prem has achieved.

614 According to knowledgable sources (and a person close to several of Ne Win's children), Ne Win is up to now the "cement" that holds rival military factions and figures together, and is still "calling the shots". It is reported that Ne Win has designated Maung Aye as SLORC's chairman, replacing Than Shwe. Khin Nyunt will remain as the pivotal No.2 man. However, relations between Maung Aye and Khin Nyunt are as inamicable as ever, despite the resolution, for now, of the tension between the two factions decreed by Ne Win.

615 However, as observed, the King must strike a delicate balance between upholding the image of a monarch who reigns, but does not rule, and exercising the reservior of de-facto powers he has over time accumulated. He cannot "touch politics" too often, nor remain aloof in severe conflict situations as dur-ing the 1973 "October revolution", and the "Bloody May" incident in 1992. Also, the King is not always able to prevent coups or show disapproval of every unconstitutional act, whether they come from the military or popular forces and civilian power-holders. The King must be very careful in exerc-ising power, and must be, or be seen to be, effective. Any failure would do irrepairable harm to the awed regard by the peasant majority, especially, of the monarch/monarchy as the possessor of the highest power in the land -- as expressed by the peasants' term for the monarch, "Chao Yoo Hua" (literally, "The Lord Who Stamps On, or Stands Atop, Every Head", or in rough translation "the Lord Who Exercises Power and Rules Over All"). The present monarch, King Bumipol Adulyadej, has proven to be very able and astute in this regard.

616 Some Thai and Third World "bourgeoisie" elements are conservative and authoritarian in that they fear disorder as much as any autocratic, authoritarian leader or ruler, and are moreover in position to get whatever they need or wish from collaboration with authoritarian regimes and dictators (of almost all stripes). Some are very "traditional", even "anti-modern", having benefitted enormously from the hierarchical, "traditional" social-cultural-ideological and other inegalitarian arrangements still firmly in place. Some are "modern" and cosmopolitan, so much so that they have very little concern for "national" societies, and view them merely as small segments of a regional-global marketplace and/or business arena. But, of course, there are always some "bourgeoisie" elements that think and act like their historical (and contemporary) Western counterparts, and are willing to fight for democracy, civil liberties, human rights, equitable development, and so on. For a brief, but most insightful, analysis of the "middle class" and democratization in Thailand -- it evolution and prospects -- see Somkiat Wanthana, "The Difficult Track of the Middle Class", Bangkok Post, May 17, 1997, pp.8-9.

617 The debate about whether the dilution of authoritarianism, or democratization, will result from economic development and growth is an ongoing one, and it is as yet unresolved. One school of thought, as represented by Francis Fukuyama, very optimistically believes -- or at least implies -- that free trade and transnational investment will lead to economic liberalism, which will be followed by political reforms, and eventually, lead to the downfall of authoritarian regimes and the emergence of democratic, liberal orders. See Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Avon Books,1993).