ARTICLE

RECOMMEND (298)

FACEBOOK

TWITTER

PLUSONE

MORE

E-MAIL

PRINT

TEXT SIZE

Where else in the world would a mob be allowed to take up residence in the seat of    government?

Former Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej addresses supporters in Udon Thani on September 8. (Photo: Reuters)

MANY Thais pepper their speech with words borrowed from abroad. The imports may be more succinct, add color or be a subtle form of one-upmanship. The same word, however, may not mean quite the same in each language.

For example, Thais took the word “mob” to their hearts some time ago. One often hears the chippy little monosyllable bobbing around in conversations about Thailand’s recent political tussles. When Thais speak of a mob, however, the term is much less loaded. They are basically referring to a large crowd of people with a non-violent agenda.

When native English speakers use the word, it always refers to something sinister and threatening—something that could run ‘amok,’ as the Malays or Indonesians might say.

An English mob is even worse than an English football crowd. A modern French mob burns cars; a traditional one storms the Bastille and dispatches stunned aristocrats to the guillotine. A Thai “mob” on the other hand might be full of well mannered people who would be only too happy to help your grandmother across the road. 

Multimedia (View)

Of course, Thailand has produced some terrible mobs in its time, but a modern Thai mob usually has a political purpose and can be benign. So, broadly speaking, there are crowds and mobs and Thai mobs.

This may partly explain why “mob politics” in Thailand are not quite as many outsiders would expect. Where else in the world could a mob invade the very seat of government and be allowed to take up residence, forcing the government to retreat to an old airport?

Imagine if this had not been Government House in Bangkok but the White House, Downing Street or the Kremlin. Those mobs would immediately have been expelled on national security grounds—and with the use of as much force as was deemed necessary.

Where else in the world could a state of emergency be declared to absolutely no effect? And where in the world could the leaders of a mob dare declare that most of their fellow countrymen are too poorly educated to be allowed to vote?

There have been some pretty testy exchanges in recent years between Thai academics and journalists and their foreign counterparts. Many Thai commentators believe foreigners simply do not understand the dynamics involved in Thai politics and argue that Thailand anyway does not have to conform exactly to any outside prescription for democracy.

Fair enough, but the argument that many “uneducated” Thais can not be trusted not to sell their votes falters badly if the mob espousing this view is in any part a rent-a-mob, as some allege. Is anybody paying them? If so, is this not just more grubby money politics without the polling stations?   

Huge conflicting forces have been at work in Thai politics in recent decades, particularly since a constitution drafted in 1997 came into effect in 2001. Although that constitution was modified in 2007, unprecedented pressure is being brought to bear on the judiciary and parliamentary system to perform better.

Remarkably, these tensions have so far resulted in almost no significant violence. Lessons from the terrible bloodshed of 1973, 1976 and 1992 may have been learned. The military this time has bent over backwards not to get involved, and the police have been endlessly patient, even if critics view their “patience” as favoring the goals of the protesters.

If the Thais can find an accommodation among themselves without coming to blows, it will represent a profound and creditable democratic shift. Even if this proves to be hopeless wishful thinking, Thailand has redefined mob politics.