<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><blockquote>
<P>Patrick,</P>
<P>Wonderful! I could not agree with you more! (By the way, there is no hard
evidence that "vote-buying" has determinative effects on elections.It takes
place, but does it determine outcomes? I can cite several anecdotes where it
did not.) The latest news on reorganization of ISOC tells the tale - elites
are simply positioning the military to prevent any kind of "populist" success
into the future. (See the Nation within the last few days for information.)
Regardless of future elections, Thailand will be a military regime well into
the future. The coup has been the death of democracy for the long term.The
death of democracy is the responsibility of all those who apologize for the
regime, as well as the elites who perpetrated it. Is there no shame?</P>
<P>Bob Albritton <br>> With all due respect, the point is not whether such<br>> programs for the rural poor are merely of interest to<br>> well-meaning social scientists. The original debate was<br>>
whether the Thaksin government's rural development<br>> programs were qualitatively new and effective, or just old<br>> wine in new bottles. Prof. Keyes presented rather<br>> convincing evidence (while pointing out the need for<br>> further research) that these programs were indeed<br>> relatively effective and therefore popular. They were<br>> particularly significant for the much greater degree of<br>> local participation involved in them (esp. via the new<br>>
local government bodies established under the now<br>>
abrogated 1997 Constitution), as opposed to the<br>>
paternalistic, top-down, corruption-mired, ratchakan-style<br>> projects of earlier governments (and indeed which continue<br>> today) that pay no heed to the real needs of local<br>> communities, and in many cases are merely a source of<br>> patronage for crony contractors with links to the<br>> bureaucracy or the politician that administers that<br>> ministry.<br>> <br>> For Thais (though not for Thai Studies programs in Western<br>> countries, perhaps) this debate is not a mere academic<br>>
exercise - especially in the context of the political<br>> situation in Thailand today. Prof. Keyes' view would seem<br>> to run counter to the argument that the apologists for the<br>> coup put forward, that Thaksin's "populism" was just a<br>> cynical political exercise to win power (in fact, I think<br>> the criticism of Thaksin's so-called "populism" by many<br>> political commentators, both Thai and Western, was in many<br>> cases highly irresponsible and even irrational: if one<br>> buys votes and does nothing one is condemned; if one buys<br>> votes and then delivers on promised local development<br>> policies one is also condemned as a "populist". It is very<br>>
difficult to win against this elitist, paternalistic<br>> mindset of many academics and political commentators - in<br>> many cases the same ones who have been crucial to building<br>> intellectual legitimacy for the coup).<br>> <br>> Mr. Muscat's argument on the benefits of state-directed<br>> local development, however, would be music to the ears of<br>> the royalist-military regime that has seized power in<br>> Thailand, which believes ratchakan knows best. Is this the<br>> sort of support that we should be giving this regime?<br>> <br>> Patrick Jory..<br>> <br>> ______________<br>> Dr. Justin McDaniel<br>> Dept. of Religious Studies<br>> 2617 Humanities Building<br>> University of California, Riverside<br>> Riverside, CA 92521<br>>
951-827-4530<br>> justinm@ucr.edu<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Tlc mailing list<br>>
Tlc@lists.ucr.edu<br>>
http://lists.ucr.edu/mailman/listinfo/tlc<br>> <br></P></blockquote></BODY></HTML>