The Thai opposition’s election triumph should act as a warning to China’s leaders – they resist political change at their peril.
During a visit to Beijing in early May, I was struck by the large number of Chinese academics who predicted that the ‘tension’ between state and society would be the most important problem facing China in the coming decade. Intellectuals have often criticized the party-state, while elements of urban society occasionally exploded in dramatic demonstrations. But both proved ineffective in convincing Communist Party elites to pursue political reform. Indeed, such outbursts seemed to harden the elites against reform.
Perhaps they calculated that economic growth and the cultivation of nationalism would suffice to neutralize calls for change. Yet economic growth and proliferation of the communication channels necessary for cultivating nationalism also mobilize society into political action by changing the mind-sets and interests of its members. The Chinese academics I spoke with in May all recognize that this is a point China has now reached in its history. People from all segments of society are richer than ever before, but also better educated and more aware of social problems such as inequality, corruption, and pollution. They connect the dots and understand how these problems all have human causes. They have well-developed sociological imaginations that are increasingly critical, and they are now pressuring the party-state.
Yet the party-state obstinately holds fast against change.
Thailand reached a similar point sometime in the 1990s. The two countries are different in many ways. But even if at slightly less than 70 million people, Thailand is about the size of a Chinese province – and has never been ruled by a communist party – it has much to teach Chinese elites about the risks entailed in resisting political change.
The resounding victory of Yingluck Shinawatra’s Pheu Thai party in last weekend’s general election should be studied carefully by Chinese political strategists for clues about what happens when even mildly authoritarian states try to resist fundamental political change. In a climate of socioeconomic mobilization, they eventually fail – or else accumulated tensions start damaging the economy while trapping the political system in repeated crises.
The point isn’t that Pheu Thai represents the forces of democracy in Thailand while the outgoing Democrat Party represents authoritarianism – that would be a grossly inaccurate characterization. Pheu Thai is in some ways democratic – it and its antecedents have regularly won elections, for example – but in other ways (as we know from Thaksin Shinawatra’s rule in 2001 to 2006) it is authoritarian-populist. Pheu Thai leaders have also been associated with violence, notably during last spring’s mayhem in Bangkok, in which Red Shirt protestors – allied with the Pheu Thai – welcomed into their ranks well-trained thugs who shot and killed military officers using high-powered rifles, while also planting bombs and burning buildings throughout the city. Pheu Thai’s predecessor party, the Thai Rak Thai, showed a violent streak as early as 2003, when Thaksin launched a war on suspected drug dealers that led to nearly 2,500 people being killed extra-judicially in just three short but bloody months.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Dave
As a Chinese citizen, I pray that my country would change and have the true democracy. The chaos might occur at the beginning few years. But for the long run, people can enjoy justice and freedom, which will be much much better than being slaved and suppressed by the government. But there are many difference between the Thai and China. I wish there would be wise people to lead this. We can’t let the 1989.6.4 event happen again. There must be a success instead of naive tries which only give more chances for the government to take precautions and severely delay the process for us Chinese to get freedom. More haste, less speed. The government is now quite powerful. It must be done with great wisdom.
Tony
As a Chinese citizen, I pray that my country would never fall in the trap of western demorcracy which would only results in chaos and anarchy. China has to follow its own path and need no lecture from foreigners.
Douglas
The Tytler Cycle is a theory of democracies formulated by the Scottish historian Alexander Tytler that states:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”
ozivan
@Douglas. Tytler Cycle. Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
Grant
There are vast differences between China and Thailand, not least of which is the constant feuding between Thai elites that keeps the nation unable to unite.
Nathan
“come out in force again, especially if they calculated that the new order would start threatening the position of the monarchy” ???
The fact that the monarchy holds so much power and support for the people tells me all the elected officials are nothing more than puppets for the King! If Thailand is really a democracy than the King should have no power or influence unless he himself is elected. What a sham democracy!
Michael
China has definitely learned something from Thailand democracy over the last few years…don’t adopt it! The notion that a country and government can be held hostage by the radicals on both sides is ridiculous! No one would want to live in a country like Thailand where at any minute individuals wearing either a red or yellow shirt can shut down the entire country blocking airports and rioting in business districts because they’re not happy right here and now! Democracy is nothing more than mob rule and Thailand, Philippines, India, Indonesia etc proves it!
John Chan
Here, here.
Frank
Well said.
I prefer better lives than western “demoncracy” in a heart beat.
Thomas
Intellectuals have often criticized the Western governments, while elements of urban society occasionally exploded in dramatic demonstrations. But both proved ineffective in convincing Party elites to pursue political reform…that sounds so much more convincing, especially to those who live in a democracy (democrazy)
Red Peril
Communism is dead. Long live Democracy !!!
Gregory
you’re right, Communism is dead! The Chinese are not Communist, the Chinese are Chinese!!! No matter how the Western media seeks to demonize China, those with true independent thinking will see otherwise! China is as much a Communist state as the West is a democracy! Deal with the truth!