A ‘social contract’ we’re forced to sign

[webfact]

OPINION

A ‘social contract’ we’re forced to sign

By The Nation

 

In pushing for reconciliation, the junta distorts an esteemed democratic fundamental 

 

If the military-led government’s much-vaunted reconciliation plan were in any way guided by wisdom, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha wouldn’t be allowing his subordinates to bandy about a term like “social contract” in attempts to justify junta rule. The phrase is being deployed to describe the National Council for Peace and Order’s plan for reconciling the country’s political rivals.

 

Prayut began by assigning Army chief General Chalermchai Sitthisart to chair the panel formulating this “social contract”, which held four “public forums” that could not logically be called public hearings. They took place at regional military barracks around the country last Monday through Thursday. 

 

The participants were mostly Interior Ministry civil servants. Invitations were extended to politicians and social workers, but red-shirt leader Jatuporn Prompan was the only high-profile public figure who attended. Allowed leave from his prison cell, he was at the Bangkok seminar hosted by First Army Area Command, saying his movement would not stand in the way of reconciliation efforts. Many other public figures, including top politicians, publicly dismissed the touted social contract as junta propaganda.

 

The critics are on the mark. Rather than the all-inclusive, truly democratic type of social contract espoused by socio-political visionaries during the European Enlightenment, what the Thai government is proposing sounds more like a directive from the top brass. “All Thais should join hands in creating an atmosphere [conducive to] harmony and national unity,” it reads. “Rights and freedoms should be exercised with responsibility and tolerance. Thais should adopt the royal philosophy of self-sufficiency while also improving national competitiveness to boost incomes and create opportunities in the market.”

 

The word “should” here is best interpreted as “must”.

 

The concept of a social contract was first broached in the writings of philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes (in “Leviathan” in 1651) and John Locke (in “Two Treatises of Government” in 1690). Jean Jacques Rousseau gave the term its widest circulation with the title of his 1762 volume promoting liberal values in tyrannical times. While the need for authoritarian discipline remained generally accepted, Rousseau in particular urged that the general populace enjoy the pursuit of free will.

 

If Prayut had read Rousseau’s “Social Contract” – Sanya Prachakom’s Thai translation has been around since 1978 – he would know that his 2017 variant is in sharp contradiction, as was his 2014 coup. Both deny the people’s will rather than championing it.

 

“Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers,” Rousseau wrote. “Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men.”

 

And yet here we are with the sacred concept that helped lay the groundwork for the French and American revolutions being thrust in our faces fully distorted. All power belongs to the people, Rousseau declared, clear as a liberty bell. The rulers they choose are wholly accountable to the people’s wishes and commands.

 

The military junta has no legitimacy or right to revise Rousseau’s social contract or offer its own peculiar self-serving interpretation. The junta’s social contract as presented is indeed nothing better than propaganda, a reflection of its own will, not that of the people.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30321697

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-07-25

[Thechook]

Umm entering into a contract with Poet and his military, what could go wrong?

[canuckamuck]

Thais reading Rousseau, that would be an interesting and ominous trend for Thailand. Does Bangkok have a Bastille?

[Chris Lawrence]

The Prime Minister feeding the chooks.

[Lunchbob]

Who does this writer really work for?

[phantomfiddler]

4 hours ago, Thechook said:

Umm entering into a contract with Poet and his military, what could go wrong?

What does the "e" stand for ? President of extraterrestrial Thailand ?

[Monomial]

It's actually completely reasonable to ask people who want democracy to exercise that power responsibly and for the good of everyone and not just themselves. The author of this piece is misdirecting his anger and frustration.

 

The problem is that when an elite is running the country as the military is now, they also have responsibilities of "noblesse oblige".  That means as someone who has been granted the status of a noble leader, you have to use your authority not just for the betterment of yourself and your cronies, but for those whom you govern.  It means you don't do things like try and take away free healthcare, or put dirty coal plants in their backyards that they don't want, or tax them heavily so you can buy toy submarines for the world's largest bathtub. This is where the anger should be focused. The military actually got it right for these meetings, but they simply don't have the moral authority to ask this of the people. And when hypocrites ask you to do something, you get blowback. It's pretty rich to ask others to do things you won't.

 

Any political system can work if the people participating in it consider others rather than just themselves. And any system will eventually fail if the stakeholders don't. It is really that simple.  So good job to the military for reminding everyone what democracy is supposed to be about, but it is actually counterproductive when said by those who enjoy even less respect than the police.

 

 

 

[Zenwind]

The point of this article’s author is well taken, i.e., that expressed in its title:  “A ‘social contract’ we’re forced to sign.” 

 

Of the three thinkers that are most famously connected with Social Contract theory, I prefer Locke over the other two because he advocated much more liberty for individuals (providing that they respect the equal liberty of others, of course).  Hobbes and Rousseau leave too many loopholes for strong authoritarian governments, right or left, to hijack the “contract.” 

 

Hobbes feared too much liberty, and he advocated a strong dictatorship to keep the peace.  He argued that it was in people’s self-interest to voluntarily give up huge areas of their freedom and, by contract, give them to the government. 

 

Rousseau gave a collectivist justification for all individuals to be forced to give in to the “General Will” of unrestricted majority rule.  (James Madison later argued against such “tyranny of the majority” and advocated, following Locke, strict limitations on any government powers.)  In modern history, many authoritarians and dictators have claimed that they represent the General Will – and many of them have even convinced enough people to vote them into power – and it often goes badly.

[gamini]

4 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Thais reading Rousseau, that would be an interesting and ominous trend for Thailand. Does Bangkok have a Bastille?

I doubt whether the average Farang living here would have ever heard of Rousseau too. They are mostly poorly educted and thier interests are limited to bargirls, beer and bikes.

[Krataiboy]

4 hours ago, Lunchbob said:

Who does this writer really work for?

Please elucidate.

[moe666]

They just do not get it you cannot force people to do what they do not want to do.

[Bluespunk]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

In pushing for reconciliation, the junta distorts an esteemed democratic fundamental 

Par for the course with these boys...

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, Father Fintan Stack said:

Of course it was the Scots that invented the concept of a social contract with the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320.

Bastards...

 

(ironic mode engaged)

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, gamini said:

I doubt whether the average Farang living here would have ever heard of Rousseau too. They are mostly poorly educted and thier interests are limited to bargirls, beer and bikes.

You seem to know the traits of an average farang very well. You must be one of them. 

[Tilacme]

Military people don't read books.

[baboon]

5 hours ago, Lunchbob said:

Who does this writer really work for?

Who are you really posting on behalf of?

[yellowboat]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

In pushing for reconciliation, the junta distorts an esteemed democratic fundamental 

What a gift for the understatement. 

[JCauto]

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Thais reading Rousseau, that would be an interesting and ominous trend for Thailand. Does Bangkok have a Bastille?

If enough started (say 20), you can count on it being declared an illegal act of protest and the readers invited for a "discussion" of their values at the local military barracks.

[jesimps]

5 hours ago, gamini said:

I doubt whether the average Farang living here would have ever heard of Rousseau too. They are mostly poorly educted and thier interests are limited to bargirls, beer and bikes.

Patronising pillock.

 

[tryasimight]

On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 10:10 AM, Lunchbob said:

Who does this writer really work for?

Don't know who he/she writes for....but it is pretty well guaranteed not to be domiciled in Thailand. Dubai ghost writer perhaps?

[tryasimight]

On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 3:37 PM, Eric Loh said:

You seem to know the traits of an average farang very well. You must be one of them. 

He did mention 'living here' which would eliminate a lot of the lefty lovers posting from Dover.

[tryasimight]

On ‎25‎/‎07‎/‎2017 at 0:23 PM, Monomial said:

It's actually completely reasonable to ask people who want democracy to exercise that power responsibly and for the good of everyone and not just themselves. The author of this piece is misdirecting his anger and frustration.

 

The problem is that when an elite is running the country as the military is now, they also have responsibilities of "noblesse oblige".  That means as someone who has been granted the status of a noble leader, you have to use your authority not just for the betterment of yourself and your cronies, but for those whom you govern.  It means you don't do things like try and take away free healthcare, or put dirty coal plants in their backyards that they don't want, or tax them heavily so you can buy toy submarines for the world's largest bathtub. This is where the anger should be focused. The military actually got it right for these meetings, but they simply don't have the moral authority to ask this of the people. And when hypocrites ask you to do something, you get blowback. It's pretty rich to ask others to do things you won't.

 

Any political system can work if the people participating in it consider others rather than just themselves. And any system will eventually fail if the stakeholders don't. It is really that simple.  So good job to the military for reminding everyone what democracy is supposed to be about, but it is actually counterproductive when said by those who enjoy even less respect than the police.

 

 

 

<deleted>.

Keep your anger focussed in your own country.

There's no such thing as a social contract or moral authority.

These are terms created by the interfering latte drinking rich liberals, the chardonnay socialists. who already live in a stuffed up country and seek to deny other peoples their own self determination for their own reasons. 

[JAG]

I doubt whether the average Farang living here would have ever heard of Rousseau too. They are mostly poorly educted and thier interests are limited to bargirls, beer and bikes.

Oh I don't know.

The Rousseau 250 I had as a lad went like sh*t off a shiny shovel, I used to enjoy a few pints of Rousseau of a summer evening, and this French bird I knew called...

 

What's more, I can spell "their" and "educated", as well as lots of long words like "wheelbarrow" and "marmalade"!

 

[impulse]

On 7/25/2017 at 6:17 AM, canuckamuck said:

Thais reading Rousseau, that would be an interesting and ominous trend for Thailand. Does Bangkok have a Bastille?

 

I'd be more worried about guillotines.

 

[YetAnother]

On 7/25/2017 at 4:33 AM, webfact said:

The rulers they choose are wholly accountable to the people’s wishes and commands.

hmmm; yes i would say we quite far afield from that here , now