Populism: Bad For Thai Economy, Good For Votes

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Populism: bad for economy, good for votes

Avudh Panananda

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- For better or for worse, populist policies have become a permanent fixture in the Thai political landscape and will remain so in the foreseeable future regardless of which government is in power.

The definition of populism changes in accordance with a given time and context. In the Thai experience, populist policies reflect real politicking rather than good or bad governance.

If the Democrats are planning to grill the prime minister for championing populist policies, then their censure debate will possibly backfire and end up boosting public confidence in Yingluck Shinawatra.

Members of the opposition bench should bear in mind the populist paradox - voters tend to rally behind populist policies despite knowing that these policies will eventually be harmful.

The 2004 referendum victory of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is a classic example of such a paradox, because voters see populism as a means of getting what they believe they are entitled to.

In Thailand, late prime minister MR Kukrit Pramoj was the first to come up with the populist idea of distributing state funds directly among local residents in 1975.

Although Kukrit tried to justify his idea as being based on Fabian socialism, many saw him executing this policy as a strategy to garner votes.

In 2001, Thaksin Shinawatra came into power and implemented a full range of populist policies, including re-branding Kukrit's idea as the "Village Fund".

By 2005, Thaksin had won his second term by an unprecedented landslide and critical views on populist policies only proved him to be an invincible electioneer instead of making a dent on his popularity.

From the days of Kukrit to the times of Thaksin, populist policies have been formulated to sway votes, and economic consideration became a secondary issue.

By the 2011 general election, all major parties jumped on the populism bandwagon. Two rival parties, Pheu Thai and Democrat, competed to outwit one another in churning out populist policies.

The Democrats claimed that their policies were practical and would have no adverse impact on the economy, while Pheu Thai countered this with policies designed to bring the people's entitlements to new heights.

Nipon Poapongsakorn, president of Thailand Development Research Institute, spoke to the press last week outlining how Thaksin had pulled out all stops just to defeat the Democrats.

With Thaksin's blessing, Pheu Thai mapped out populist policies to serve 10 groups of voters, including farmers. In the current crop year, the government has already spent almost Bt300 billion to shore up paddy price and is likely to need an additional Bt260 billion for its rice-pledging scheme later this year and the next fiscal year.

Nipon voiced concerns about the far-reaching consequences on the rice industry and also pointed out that small-scale farmers were not direct beneficiaries. Rice millers and well-to-do farmers, who account for more than half of the paddy production, seem to be benefiting the most from this scheme.

He said in his view, the Bt300-billion scheme was far too extravagant for garnering just 5 million votes.

From the economic perspective, leading economists from the World Bank and local academia are absolutely correct in pointing out flaws in the rice-price intervention.

Based on several studies done by international institutes, the Democrats are correct in saying their paddy income guarantee is far more sensible than this government's rice-pledging scheme.

The main opposition party experienced a painful defeat because tenant farmers opted to vote for Pheu Thai even though they admitted that the previous Democrat government had helped boost their income.

In rural Thailand, the patronage system still has a dominant influence on voting outcome and though populist policies may not make much economic sense, they work magic for election victories.

-- The Nation 2012-08-31

[BookMan]

I don't know about populist policies but whatever party guarantees free iphones will get my GFs vote next election.

[RogueExpat]

I don't know about populist policies but whatever party guarantees free iphones will get my GFs vote next election.

They might "guarantee" them, but unless she actually sees it, feels it, and gets to keep it before entering the voting booth, it is highly un-likely she will ever get one.

We all have seen wheat happens to (PT) election promises.

[h90]

I don't know about populist policies but whatever party guarantees free iphones will get my GFs vote next election.

But it might be like with the tablet....Yingluck showed a Samsung, but at the end people got a 2000 Baht Chinese

[tlansford]

The definition of populism changes in accordance with a given time and context. In the Thai experience, populist policies reflect real politicking rather than good or bad governance.

If the interest is in having a debate on populist policies, then this definition above is completely wrong.

If the interest is propaganda mongering and shooting down existing policies, then this definition above is pretty good.

[KireB]

If the interest is in having a debate on populist policies, then this definition above is completely wrong.

If the interest is propaganda mongering and shooting down existing policies, then this definition above is pretty good.

Easy to criticize someone else, so what is populism in your opinion? And what about populism in Thai perspective? Give us your opinion for once.

[noitom]

The point of the editorial was cloudy. Are they saying that programs that embrace the poor and disenfranchised in Thailand are wrong? What does the newspaper believe should be the priorities in connecting with the majority millions of Thais living day to day outside Bangkok? How would the newspaper propose to "reengineer" their economy, health care, education, and lifestyle so as to give them hope? The newspaper should be a voice of intellectual perspective and constructive recommendation that meets the test of reality. Ignoring the needs of these millions of Thai country folks or berating politicians that at least "recognize" them only engenders further conflict in Thai society. More often than not it appears that the newspaper's agenda is in fact to constantly stir things up and appeal to base Thai emotions rather than expressing an informed voice of practical leadership for the good of all Thais.

[Reasonableman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

• Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice". Albertazzi, Daniele and Duncan McDonnell, 2008, Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy, New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan, p.3.
  

• It is believed by some that populist movements can be precursors for, or building blocks for, fascist movements. Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism."
  

• Populism in Latin American countries has both an economic and an ideological edge. Populism in Latin America has mostly addressed the problem, not of capitalist economic development as such but its inclusiveness, in the backdrop of highly unequal societies in which people are divided between a relative few wealthy groups and masses of poor, even in the case of societies such as Argentina, where strong and educated middle classes are a significant segment of the population. Therefore the key role of the State in Latin American populism, as an institution mediating between traditional elites and the "people" in general. In appealing to the masses of poor people prior to gaining power, populists may promise widely-demanded food, housing, employment, basic social services, and income redistribution. Once in political power, they may not always be financially or politically able to fulfill all these promises. However, they are very often successful in providing many broad and basic services.
  

Edited August 31, 2012 by Reasonableman

[Nickymaster]

If the interest is in having a debate on populist policies, then this definition above is completely wrong.

If the interest is propaganda mongering and shooting down existing policies, then this definition above is pretty good.

Easy to criticize someone else, so what is populism in your opinion? And what about populism in Thai perspective? Give us your opinion for once.

You have noticed it too. There are a few more of those around.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Nickymaster

[tlansford]

If the interest is in having a debate on populist policies, then this definition above is completely wrong.

If the interest is propaganda mongering and shooting down existing policies, then this definition above is pretty good.

Easy to criticize someone else, so what is populism in your opinion? And what about populism in Thai perspective? Give us your opinion for once.

A bit touchy, aren't you today??

I did give you my opinion. It is in the above post.

BTW, why did you remove the part of the OP I referred to? That would have been the interesting point of discussion rather than your demonstrated inability to understand other peoples posts via your comment above.

To expand on my original comment and to provide you more of my opinion, I think for the purposes intended by The Nation, that the definition is pretty good, ie : they are just pumping out more of their propaganda ...

Edited August 31, 2012 by tlansford

[tlansford]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

• Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice". Albertazzi, Daniele and Duncan McDonnell, 2008, Twenty-First Century Populism: The Spectre of Western European Democracy, New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan, p.3.
  

• It is believed by some that populist movements can be precursors for, or building blocks for, fascist movements. Conspiracist scapegoating employed by various populist movements can create "a seedbed for fascism."
  

• Populism in Latin American countries has both an economic and an ideological edge. Populism in Latin America has mostly addressed the problem, not of capitalist economic development as such but its inclusiveness, in the backdrop of highly unequal societies in which people are divided between a relative few wealthy groups and masses of poor, even in the case of societies such as Argentina, where strong and educated middle classes are a significant segment of the population. Therefore the key role of the State in Latin American populism, as an institution mediating between traditional elites and the "people" in general. In appealing to the masses of poor people prior to gaining power, populists may promise widely-demanded food, housing, employment, basic social services, and income redistribution. Once in political power, they may not always be financially or politically able to fulfill all these promises. However, they are very often successful in providing many broad and basic services.
  

A truly selective sampling of the wiki page. Was it meant to inform or just pollute?

There is also this,

"Although in the US and Europe, it currently tends to be associated with right-wing parties, the central tenet of populism that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people, means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left."

Where I disagree that populism today is associated with the right wing parties in the USA.

And there is also this :

"Although "populist" is often used pejoratively in the media and in political debate, exceptions to this do exist, notably in the United States. In this case, it appears likely that this is due to the memories and traditions of earlier democratic movements (for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement) that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike. It may also be due to linguistic confusions of populism with terms such as "popular""

Which points out that at the same time a Hitler (ie: your reference above) populism was part of the political scene in America and certainly is fondly remembered by some of our grandparents and has - of course - nothing to do with Fascism. Although the first of my references points out that it can be an ideology which fits with either the left or the right.

WRT to Nazis, while they pandered to the extreme plight of the people and that makes perfect sense politically given the conditions in Germany at the time, their main thrust was nationalism, not populism.

Edited August 31, 2012 by tlansford

[Reasonableman]

If you want to read the whole page, go ahead, that's what the link is for. However, these excerpts seemed most apt to the current Thai situation. I'm sure you'll agree, being the objective observer you are.

[OzMick]

The Nation may have the definition a little off, but the point is clear. Current policies were devised to buy votes by appealing to the self-interest of sections of the voting public and with little regard to cost, effectiveness or economic damage that they may cause.

A major increase in the minimum wage is a sure winner for the lower paid, but has triggered an inflationary spiral that will hurt them the most. The rice pledging scam is siphoning off huge amounts of public capital with no end in sight, but is nowhere near as efficient as the previous scheme in delivering funds to the poorest farmers, and is causing major problems in the country's rice exports.

Computer tablets are still an unknown, but where is the funding to upgrade schools? Why is the upgrade of the railway system being severely cut back, and at the same time talk is of a hugely expensive white elephant high speed train that most of the population will never afford?

Edited August 31, 2012 by OzMick

[lovelomsak]

Being a simple layman and not the scholar that most TV members are I see some of the present governments populous policies as not being what was expected but others are doing quite well. To me the computer tablet policy was a disaster. But the rice pledging is about to show its value.India's economy is going down at the moment and rice will be going up. Thailand is about to get what they are asking for their rice and will get till the market changes and that willnot be in the near future. I feel that hasnot gone unnoticed by other Asian economies,that is the reason for the new rice treaties being signed at present time within Asian countries.

Edited August 31, 2012 by lovelomsak

[jerrysteve]

Thats true of many government/politicians...Tellem what they want to hear, making promises by the hour. All of which are poorly thought out to

begin with, then when elected, give it to the population right up the Old Hersey Hwy.

[Orac]

The point of the editorial was cloudy. Are they saying that programs that embrace the poor and disenfranchised in Thailand are wrong? What does the newspaper believe should be the priorities in connecting with the majority millions of Thais living day to day outside Bangkok? How would the newspaper propose to "reengineer" their economy, health care, education, and lifestyle so as to give them hope? The newspaper should be a voice of intellectual perspective and constructive recommendation that meets the test of reality. Ignoring the needs of these millions of Thai country folks or berating politicians that at least "recognize" them only engenders further conflict in Thai society. More often than not it appears that the newspaper's agenda is in fact to constantly stir things up and appeal to base Thai emotions rather than expressing an informed voice of practical leadership for the good of all Thais.

Though I agree with you up to a point that there is a lot that The Nation does not cover or mention, to accuse it of trying to stir up base Thai emotions is way off the mark as they would need to print it in Thai script rather than english to do this.

[SICHONSTEVE]

The Nation may have the definition a little off, but the point is clear. Current policies were devised to buy votes by appealing to the self-interest of sections of the voting public and with little regard to cost, effectiveness or economic damage that they may cause.

A major increase in the minimum wage is a sure winner for the lower paid, but has triggered an inflationary spiral that will hurt them the most. The rice pledging scam is siphoning off huge amounts of public capital with no end in sight, but is nowhere near as efficient as the previous scheme in delivering funds to the poorest farmers, and is causing major problems in the country's rice exports.

Computer tablets are still an unknown, but where is the funding to upgrade schools? Why is the upgrade of the railway system being severely cut back, and at the same time talk is of a hugely expensive white elephant high speed train that most of the population will never afford?

Pheua Thai in action - I would like all of the red-shirt/ignorant peasant defenders to explain to me why the idiots from the North/North East of Thailand vote for Pheua Thai when:

"The main opposition party experienced a painful defeat because tenant farmers opted to vote for Pheu Thai even though they admitted that the previous Democrat government had helped boost their income".

"small-scale farmers were not direct beneficiaries. Rice millers and well-to-do farmers, who account for more than half of the paddy production, seem to be benefiting the most from this scheme" - NB: this costs an arm-and-a-leg to fund and is such a waste of money (even without the massive corrupt practices) that it is obscene. It is also draining the resources from where it is badly needed as well, which is criminal in itself.

The totally stupid thing is that they actually seem to know this but still file out of their little shacks on election day pledging their loyalties to this lot of buffoons - thinking that they are getting their revenge on the Bangkokian elites whereas all they are essentially doing is making their own pathetic lives that more miserable!!!

Defies logic as far as I'm concerned!!! But heh!! this is red democracy and if that is what they really want then 'bring it on'!!!

[belg]

playing santa-claus with other people's money is very easy, it is called socialism....

populist means to get votes with fake promises and people to believe them, over and over again

how much tax do these voters pay, probably 0

who benifits from the rice pledge: people who are already filthy rich and could see a new benz, villa and mia now in the horizon