Neurath

it's a never-ending battle to determine who will by subject to it (you) and who will be above it (me). Why? Because I am/will be a benevolent master and you are not. There's nothing particularly egalitarian about that.

If history is any indication, a minority ruling a country, however "benevolant" this minority is, has no future.

I certainly hope you're right, but history is very fickle in this respect as often as not replacing one minority with another that has been clever enough to spout colorful democratic rhetoric on one hand whilst the other is behind the back organizing a monopolizing of power for it's own benefit rather than for masses that they enlist. Heartbreaking.

In Thailand, culture transcends ideology. In a culture where people don't know who they are if they can't identify who's "bigger" than them and who's "lower" than them, there will always be someone who will present themselves to be their "patron". That's nothing like democracy and you're not going to change those attitudes this weekend, this year or this decade. What you can do is begin to offer good governance, ensure fair elections and incrementally move towards a fair and just society. Nothing I see in the current leadership of the Red Shirt movement suggests that is their goal, despite their fiery rhetoric.

Well put=- and I don't totally disagree- perhaps this is the beginning of a serious analysis of just what Thai society is- how it works- who fine tunes the culture and to whose interest. Questions like that. And perhaps --- it's not. Still, there are a academics complaining about the paternalistic nature of Thai society- if this stuff is finding its way to 'the masses'- we could be seeing the beginning of something quite unexpected- as a woman demonstrater informed a journalist- "we don't just follow anymore- we are like Americans!" (that should set off a s-storm).

s-storm

How truly she speaks! With a few disclaimers and change of register she can see that she always and already has just that! I don't want to upset my fellow Americans, but the relationship of the United States to international law is precisely the relationship of Thais to domestic law - it's a never-ending battle to determine who will by subject to it (you) and who will be above it (me). Why? Because I am/will be a benevolent master and you are not. There's nothing particularly egalitarian about that.

I just find it very hard feel a great deal of sympathy for movement that has Thaksin as its mascot (and he is at least that) - a man who did so much to destroy the rule of law and constitutional government - and Chalerm as its titular parliamentary leader (a man who has also done so much for the rule of law and it's equal application to friend, foe and family.) My feeling listening to what Jatuporn et.al. have to say is that they are unhappy about have particular masters - not that they're unhappy having masters per-se. Their justifactory vocabulary concerning 'democracy' seems to be just that - a justificatory vocabulary. Dangerous, very dangerous as we've seen in this region over the last 40 years.

I think this is probably more of a problem for foreigners than locals. THe locals- including the yellows- know that Thaksin was no different in terms of corruption and power seeking than anybody else with power in this land. Their objection wasn't that Thaksin was corrupt- I don't believe that- no- their objection was that by 'empowering' the poor he was threatening the very core of a system that has worked for more than a few bigwigs, very well over the generations.

I too wish they had a different mascot but we have to examine just how they interpret that mascot- again- he might have been an SOB but he was OUR SOB and in removing him you took something from US. So it's not 'about THaksin' - not really- it is about 'us'. I'm sure that the attitude among the reds is that no matter who threatened to empower them, the 'system' would intervene. Thaksin is a symbol of that intervention. Maybe that's the way they see it- I don't know.

I think you're absolutely right about how Thaksin is seen by many in the movement and right about why they see him that way. However, this means that the continually reiterated talk by the Red Leadership about 'double standards' is piffle and, dare I say it, a 'double standard' about double standards.

There's a worrying tendency (I don't include you) for those looking in on this situation to romanticize the Red Shirt movement seeing it through the lens of what they would like it to be rather than taking the Reds at their word and seeing clearly what they actually and concretely say they want. If it's really no double standards and equality under the law then all fine and good. Coming from the mouths of Thaksin, Jutaporn et.al. and Phua Thai I don't buy it. I fear it's more a bastardization of the egalitarian rhetoric they cynically deploy.

In their day to day lives no group of people suppresses the freedoms of the Thai peasantry more than their local chao por and the police. Interestingly, both groups are aligned with this movement that says it seeks to empower these very same people. You don't think there's a rub there?

This would not be the first 'revolution' to turn on those who have 'joined' it for what is perceived by the grass roots as ideologically impure reasons. OK that's a bit wordy- but I think you get my drift. If the people have learned that they can, as a united force, challenge not just the gov't but the Privy council= what is to stop them challenging those who exploit them day by day- regardless of what color shirt the powermongers wore back in the halcion days of 2010?

But I fear that I am being too idealistic- it takes generations to change a culture- especially one where well being is determined by playing ball in the arena of nobless oblige- still- this might be a beginning.

My worst fear, which I think I share with you, is that this will turn out to be nothing more than a demand for rights- but no committment to responsibilities. But like all fears- that is projection into a dimension none of us can know. The mere fact that the nature of Thai society- the cultural underpinnings are being questioned can not be a bad thing.

What was it that Mor Weng said to Abhisit? - "You be quiet, I'm older you listen." The underpinnings seem to be pretty strong with him.

Let's be honest here, this is the only "Double Standard" that Thaksin and his paid supporters care about:

Is that right? Nobody objects to the arbitrary application of law (including traffic laws), the know your place mentality of beaurocratic officals at most levels, the fact that the poor are expected to kow-tow to the powerful? Is there not a wide spread perception that the powerful and rich and well placed get away with stuff that would see the average joe behind bars in a heartbeat? And nobody minds that?

As someone opposing a movement- it is not wise to underestimate the dedication of your enemy. History is redolent with pasty faced white people sipping gin on their colonial verandahs dismissing the distant native drum beats as nothing more than a sign of restlessness. Pip pip old chap- nothing to be alarmed at.. no threat whatsoever!

There seems to be a fairly widespread perception that the larger part of this conflict isn't over instituting a system whereby all people will be equal under the law but rather over who will be above it and who under it. There's world of difference between these two things and I'm not convinced the leadership of the Red's, and certainly not Taksin supporters, understand or want to understand it.

I share your skeptisim- this could be nothing more than a desire to replace one set of pooyais with another. But maybe it isn't. Maybe it is the beginning of an assault on the culture of dependency which all paternalistic societies foster. Whether or not the demonstraters articulate it as such.

[edit, misread quote!]

I just find it very hard feel a great deal of sympathy for movement that has Thaksin as its mascot (and he is at least that) - a man who did so much to destroy the rule of law and constitutional government - and Chalerm as its titular parliamentary leader (a man who has also done so much for the rule of law and it's equal application to friend, foe and family.) My feeling listening to what Jatuporn et.al. have to say is that they are unhappy about have particular masters - not that they're unhappy having masters per-se. Their justifactory vocabulary concerning 'democracy' seems to be just that - a justificatory vocabulary. Dangerous, very dangerous as we've seen in this region over the last 40 years.

Let's be honest here, this is the only "Double Standard" that Thaksin and his paid supporters care about:

Is that right? Nobody objects to the arbitrary application of law (including traffic laws), the know your place mentality of beaurocratic officals at most levels, the fact that the poor are expected to kow-tow to the powerful? Is there not a wide spread perception that the powerful and rich and well placed get away with stuff that would see the average joe behind bars in a heartbeat? And nobody minds that?

As someone opposing a movement- it is not wise to underestimate the dedication of your enemy. History is redolent with pasty faced white people sipping gin on their colonial verandahs dismissing the distant native drum beats as nothing more than a sign of restlessness. Pip pip old chap- nothing to be alarmed at.. no threat whatsoever!

There seems to be a fairly widespread perception that the larger part of this conflict isn't over instituting a system whereby all people will be equal under the law but rather over who will be above it and who under it. There's world of difference between these two things and I'm not convinced the leadership of the Red's, and certainly not Taksin supporters, understand or want to understand it.

Animatic, are you saying you're actually a progressive? How the hel_l can't you be supporting the Reds then?

The truly progressive stopped apologising for the PAD after the coup, and many of them are marching out the front of Central World as I type.

Realise this movement goes beyond Thaksin, and that many of its number are just as abhorrent of what he did as you are. But they were able to put aside this hatred for the purposes of seeing the Six Principles of the UDD fulfilled:

The Six Principles of the (UDD) The United Front of Democracy against Dictatorship

1) Achieving the goal of establishing a genuine democracy that has the King as our Head of State, with political power belonging exclusively to the people. We reject any attempt, past or future, at using the monarchy to silence dissent or advance a particular agenda.

2) Dissolving the 2007 Constitution and restoring the 1997 Constitution, which may then be amended through a transparent, consultative and democratic process.

3) Bringing Thais together in an effort to solve our political and socio-economic problems, recognizing that such efforts must stem from the power of the people.

4) Implementing the rule of law, due process and a system of equal justice for all, free of any obstructions or double-standards.

5) Uniting all Thais who love democracy, equality, and equal justice within all facets of society, in an effort to deconstruct and move beyond the Amartyatippatai (Aristocracy) system.

6) Using exclusively non-violent means to achieve these objectives.

It saddens me to see progressives divided in this way, and even sadder that the flavour of rhetoric such as yours had you pegged in my mind as a conservative. You are on the wrong side of history, mate.

Who was the person nominated to head the opposition in the censure debate? Hmmm..... Number 4) would therefore seem something less than practical.