The Making of Political Otherness

Pavin Chachavalpongpun explores one of the most sensitive issues of the contemporary Thai politics, the dichotomy between the red shirts and the yellow shirts. He asserts that the systematized and persistent depiction of the enemies/otherness of Thaksin and his comrades is in actuality a necessary political move for the strengthening of the power and legitimacy of the state and the political elites. This article is set within the clashing discourses about the nature Thai politics and the campaigns to obliterate the influence of Thaksin. It questions the credibility of these discourses and the basis of the stereotyped illustrations of both sides and then traces the utilization of the notion of other or enemy in the history of Thai politics. The author firmly believes that rhetoric frequently applied to Thaksin emerged from the tradition of creating an idea of threat to the state and monarchy in order to assert and maintain power.  

The author’s background is in Political Science but his approach, I surmise, borders on the socio-cultural analysis of politics as his objective in this paper was to investigate the dialectical process of the fabrication of the enemies of the state. At the outset, he established that the idea of the other is very strong in Thailand, as simultaneous with the creation of the other is the immediate definition of the self. He identifies the tradition with the events of the 18^th century when Ayutthaya kings portrayed Burma as their enemy that persisted during the era of colonization in the region where Europeans were also depicted as threats and still the same can be applied to the Cold War. He explored how the discourse of creating the image of the enemy materialized through an exploration of what makes Thai as Thai. As such, pointing out the necessity of the three pillars of the country: the Thai nation, Buddhism, and the monarchy. These three ideas set the contrast or basis for the delineation of what threats are and who the enemies are. He advanced the notion of khai chat, that is to sell one’s country, as one of the gravest manifestations of Thaksin’s image as the enemy of the nation and how Thaksin’s actions betray the power of the monarchy and the solidarity of Thai nationalism. 

The author then proceeds to examine the people behind the production of the other. Towards the end of the paper, the author explores the impact of this political strategy: he asserts that the political reality of the Thai society has been, and perhaps still is, concealed by means of this intricate process of highlighting the magnified and often larger than life image of the enemy for the purpose of consolidating domestic power. But this process often deviates from the real issues at hand and departs from an intensive and comprehensive analysis of the reforms that the state needs. One of the most crucial findings of the author is that in the case of Thai politics, the making of the enemy has been there in the country’s political history. The enemies are the threats to the boundary, monarchy, and culture of Thailand. As such, the enemies are defined based on their un-Thainess. During internal political and social turbulence, enemies within the border of Thailand were also identified and throughout these processes, aggressive actions are often implemented. 

As the author cites, for the Thai political elites, to inflict suffering is permissible as long as it is for the security of the Thai nation. In strong and terse words, the author maintain that the traditional political elite of Thailand merely use the face and ideology of Thaksin to paint image of a enemy so as to cover up for the unpleasant reality that is happening within Thai political landscape. He points out that though, traditionally speaking, the elites believe that their action is rational, the effect is also somehow fragmented. In the end, as the dichotomy persists the broader Thai populace becomes even more aware and resistant to the tightly centralized power of the monarchy and the traditional elite. The campaign for reforms then escalates.   

The article is very interesting. I am fascinated with his attempt to analyze the creation of the idea of the self/other because this is barely examined in the study of political dynamics or even in foreign policy. Although the article does not intend to present itself as a sociological paper, the stress on the notions and ideas in political maneuvering drifts very well towards a cultural and sociological understanding of politics. This is important for me as it deviates from the realist and often too simplistic theories of decision-making both in the domestic and international affairs and offers a more nuanced understanding of how politics is conducted. However, it　was　not　clear to　me　where　the　notion　of　Thai/Un-Thainess　is　actually　anchored.　True　enough,　he maintains that it is foremost of all political, but he could have further pushed the analysis to trace the cultural genesis and foundation of these notions. I surmise, despite the political utility of these notions, they are still derived from the Thai society’s socio-cultural framework. Such basis is needed in order for the political manipulation to have certain teeth and power and also to convince the public. Towards the end, he could have explained more how that framework has undergone change that the general public itself has been mobilizing to question their validity. For instance, he could have linked how the spread of liberal democracy and the developments in education and access to Western liberal ideas have contributed to the dynamics of Thai self/others. Furthermore, his article leaves many gaps, what are the implications of his conclusion? Does he want to point out that Thai identity is amorphous and is elusive of definition? The article itself, due to the nature of its topic, is highly charged with politics. Towards the end, I was left with a question on whether the author is actually trying to assert his own political agenda or simply trying to present an interpretation of the foundations of the current crisis in Thailand. My question was answered in the conclusion, when the author clearly states that the effect of all of these tactics was a concealment of the dire problems in the government. He also appears to agree that the concentration and centralization of power in the hands of the monarchy and the traditional political elites disenfranchises the people, leaving them powerless. Overall, the article is intriguing and stimulating. It is organized well and encourages further examination of the subject at hand.