Thai culture and politics: illiberal democracy on the rise

Liberalism means the respect of individual rights: political, economic and social. The practical implication of liberalism leads to the "separation of powers" and "checks and balances".

While democracy is concerned with the accumulation and use of powers delegated by the majority, liberalism is about the limitation of powers. These two concepts: democracy and liberalism could be mutually exclusive.

There are abundant cases where majority elected autocrats usurped powers or encroached upon the freedom of others. James Madison once warned against "the danger of oppression" in a democracy, coming from "the majority of the community". Tocqueville called it "the tyranny of the majority". Fareed Zakaria, an eminent journalist, resorted to the concept of " illiberal democracy".

The tension and conflict of democracy and liberalism are less relevant in Western democracies where elaborate safeguards for individual and minority rights exist, thanks to the strong liberal civic culture. However, in many countries, including Thailand, according to Zakaria "the experience of democracy over the past few decades has been one in which majority has often quietly, sometimes noisily eroded separations of power, undermined human rights and corrupted long-standing traditions of tolerance and fairness".

Maybe the root cause of this "illiberal democracy", in these developing countries, is attributed to the lack of a "liberal civic culture".

Culture is a system of values and its resultant behaviour.

Political culture is thus collective behaviour, with political implications, of those members in the same society, inspired by their core values.

Values are created through socialisation. The supreme authority, which could, aware or unaware, determine the type of values through multi-channelled socialisation, is the government. As such, David Easton defined politics as "the authoritative allocation of values".

Culture is dynamic, changing over time. Some cultures could be conducive to the development of liberal democracy while others could hamper such development, leading to "illiberal democracy". A strong liberal tradition could ensure the persistent protection of individual rights, freedom of the press and political checks and balances.

Political culture, inspired by a hierarchical relationship order mindset could clearly expound the development of illiberal democracy. In this sense, Thai social and political values, based upon a "patron-client" dependency mindset could easily explain the difficult path towards a genuine liberal democracy no matter how long the time, how good or elaborate the written Constitution.

The difference between a full-blown dictatorship and "tyranny of the majority" disguised under the façade of constitutional parliamentarism has been the rule of the game in Thai politics for decades.

Patron-client values, which originated from the Thai feudal tradition, remain the hallmark of Thai political development. In the past, a patron-client culture was characterised by hierarchical relationship based upon traditional values of respect and seniority.

However, with the growth of a capitalist society, the patron-client culture has been largely substantiated by pecuniary dependency, triggering so-called "money politics". The phenomenon of "Thaksinomics" which underpinned the "illiberal democracy" was a clear example.

The ushering in of "Thaksinomics" with all its variants either under the façade of the Thai Rak Thai Party or the People Power Party has tended to produce a new kind of culture. The "zero sum game" or "either you or me" mindset, practised over the last few years and intensified under the current government has trickled down to the Parliament, civil bureaucracy, military, police and the Thai people at large. This new cultural mindset leads inevitably to increasing polarisation, creating the so-called "Tale of Two Cities":- Pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin.

This emerging cultural mindset has been further compounded by a violence-induced socialisation, practised purposely or inadvertently by the current government. The intimidating conduct and demeanour towards critics and the media shown by certain ministers, coupled with their apathetic attitude towards mounting violence evidenced in the Parliament and the mob are only reinforcing this simmering cultural mindset.

The traditional "patron-client" value, compounded by "zero sum game" and "violence-induced" mindset, if unchecked, could lead Thai politics to a "violently illiberal democracy" or "the tyranny of the majority", legitimised through the amended supreme law of the land, the Constitution.

Mob rule could thus become the name of the power game, replacing the rule of law, the hallmark of liberal democracy.

If this is the case, Thai politics is potentially heading down a very dangerous path.