[Tlc] Coup and stuff

[scotta at loxinfo.co.th]

Michael Jerryson

Interesting perspective. To anyone interested in the coup and claims that it is 
uniquely “Thai”, I suggest reading Mustapha’s “The Nigerian transition: Third 
time lucky or more of the same?” in the Review of African Political Economy. 
1999, 26, 80.

It is all there, the claims that the coups were “children of necessity” and vague 
promises of allowing “elections” “sometime” in the future. The throwing out of the 
old constitution, the appointing of an “independent” committee to write a new 
constitution, the “retired but not tired” generals seeking a place in the spotlight, 
the manipulation by military personal to prevent losing their power, the annulled 
elections, flawed elections (but still generally agreed reflected the will of the 
majority), the unwillingness of the losers of elections to accept the results, the 
purging of political rivals, the limitations of the press and other freedoms.. Nothing 
at all new here in my home, Thailand, it follows the same old pattern that has 
been seen over and over again in country after country.

Of course one can claim a single case study, not matter how eerily similar, is just 
anecdotal evidence. Therefore I suggest one looks at the empirical work done 
by Ali, “Democracy and durability: Empirical analysis and Causality Test” in the 
Atlantic Economic Journal, 2005, 33, p. 105-114. Coups and military dictatorships 
do not have a good history of leading to improved standards of living in any 
place in the world, including Thailand and Southeast Asia (Most Burmese won’t 
mind giving that democracy thing a try since strong man rule by the military has 
not brought about any significant improvement in poverty reduction, infant 
mortality and increases in life expectancy.) 

Then of course there is that same old argument that Asians can’t handle 
democracy (my wife and children, all Thai citizens, believe they can handle the 
responsibility to choose their own leaders and don’t appreciate “western” 
scholars claiming they deserve a political system none of the western scholars 
are forced to live in). McArthur was told that the Japanese couldn’t handle 
democracy, but McArthur said nonsense and “forced” a democratic constitution 
on Japan. Obviously the political system in Japan took its own course and 
reflects both Japanese and the Asian cultural values and democracy in Japan is 
not a carbon copy of democracy in the USA or Europe, but still adheres the 
principles of democracy, but it has worked great for the country. The latest issue 
of East Asia is dedicated to the messy, but effective, political system in Taiwan. 
A good read, recommended. 

“Aside from the fact that the U.S has a very disturbed democratic system as of 
late”

Messy, yes, but disturbed? How so? Yea there is partisanship and division, but 
that has always been the case. There is also solid economic growth, healthy 
scientific advances, increasing levels of education and much success to 
celebrate. Having the political party one supports losing power does not mean 
that the system is broken. Democracy, in its many forms, has a number of “flaws” 
but it also has a self correcting mechanism that keeps everything moving 
forward, and ALL the empirical evidence shows that life is better (in any way it can 
be measured) in democratic countries compared to authoritarian ones.  

Actually I am fairly optimistic that things will turn out alright, I am still in Thailand, 
and have made no immediate plans to return to a land of freedom (however I do 
not plan to spend the rest of my life in a military dictatorship, so I am exploring 
options). We must realize, Thailand is the only Theravada Buddhist country that 
has not suffered through a long period of oppressive military dictatorship, and 
hopefully it will continue to be unique, but a coup has rarely led to a quick return to 
freedom, democracy and prosperity. As “scholars,” we should be warning others 
what the empirical and historical evidence suggests could happen in order to 
prevent it. Unquestioning approving a system of government that has a terrible 
track record, inside and outside of Thailand, just because it fits into our hatred of 
the previous leader and political orientation, is not the duty of academia. 

Check out the master’s thesis of Ear, (1995), which exposed the left learning 
academia unquestionably supporting the Khmer Rouge just because the Nixon 
Administration and the conservatives were against it.

Supporting a military coup for no other reason than because the Bush 
administration is opposed to it does not lend credibility to academia.

Scott Hipsher
Bangkok University