When the Shit Hits the Fan?

I have been asked about posibilities that the Thai military would "launch a coup" against PM Abhisit many times for the past few months, especially these past few weeks after one of PAD's leader, Veera Somkwamkid, was captured and held by the Cambodian authority.

People who have asked me may think that I am supposed to have some "leaks" from my dad, a retired militarry officer. The truth is that, what is spreading in our society is just words from the world of mouths. "He says that a BIG name in the military will conduct a coup VERY SOON." "Naah, he won't do that. No one wants to live the rest of their lives in hell like the last guy who did the coup. What was his name again???" That kind of conversation.

Until this very evening that the Thai and Cambodian armies fired at each other and that caused the worst falre-up over decades. The clashes killed at least six people and damaged properties on both sides. Both the Thai and Cambodian armies claimed that they didn't start firing, and that the firing went off from the other sides first. Of course, when two people are saying different things about the same issue, it means that one of them is lying.

The matter of discussion here is not about "who" is lying, but rather about "why" they have to lie. To answer this question, we may look at sequences that came after this scence. First, the Cambodian vowed to take the issue to UN Security Council.

Second, the Thai Defence Minister, Prawit Wongsuwan assured the public that he and his ministry along with the Thai military are negotiating about this matter and everything will be fine.

Third, the Army Cheif, Prayut Chun-o-cha revealed that the firing was over and some Thai soilders were injured.

Fourth, PM Abhisit told the press that the Thai armies fired shots of warning and responsed to Cambodian's shots when the warning shots were ignored, but failed to confirm if some Thai soilders were captured.

From these 4 scenarios above, I believe that there are 3 main groups of elites: Cambodian government; the Thai military and; the Democratic Party. What we should discuss here is not "which one among these 3 groups will benefit most from this clash?" but "who among these 3 will lose benefit the most?"

In my perspective, the Cambodian government would be able to nail Thailand about the on-going territory disagreement by using this very fresh firing event--with little help form the United Nations. So, the Cambodian will benefit most.

Apart from that, the Thai military would be able to use this "security and dignity of Thailand"--related to this territory disagreement and the role of the military in defending the country (from who?)--as a good enough excuse to launch a coup... Finally! Therefore, the military gets their share as well!

However, the goat in this story is the Democratic Party. From what I heard in the news, the PM sounded a bit indifferent about this firing event. As a citizen of Thailand and a student of Politics, I would propose that the PM show more concerns and care about the Thai military, especially for those soilders who we don't know if they were captured by the Cambodian authorities. The PM doesn't have to really care about the Thai military, but, as the politial leader of the country, he should at least be aware that his British cold and heartless personality is not always the best card to play.

One of the Western's sayings I like is "When the shit hits the fan." It means "messy and exciting consequence brought about by previously secret stiuation becoming public."

What I would to comnclude here is that the most appropriate question to ask is "whose face is in front of the fan?" In this case, I would stay away from the fan if I were PM Abhisit.

Source: http://www.phrases.org.uk./meanings/407950.html

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/02/05/national/Border-clashes-kill-six-3014805.html

Picture was retrieved from: http://www.thaisweden.com/2010/12/wikileaks-2006.html

[Book] Politics: an Introduction--Chapter 1 (Abisit, Thaksin, or the system?)

Now we are at the first chapter of the book, and it is also the first chapter for this very first part: People and Politics. The name of the chapter is "Is Politics Really About People." What a good question, to begin with!



We are all individuals in the sense that we are a single human-being and the word "individual" suggests "originality and uniqueness" in each of us. However, what the authors try to point here is that there have been arguments if individuals are generic or made through the socialization process. Now you may not know what socialization is at this moment, but--no worries--we will cover this issue in the chapter 2--Political Socialization.

Anyway, the meaning of the word "individual" varies and is sensitive to time and space. [Guys you will hear this "sensitive to time and space and, or context specific" a lot. So, please bare with that because, all in all, it is the property of politics which makes this field of study interesting (and confusing sometimes).] For instance, in Western philosophy, individuals are placed as centrality and primacy of politics. No woder, that discussions about human rights and individual rights first started there. On the other hand, individuals are seen as subjects in Eastern states. More importantly, the definitions of individual also varies throughout time. in ancient Greek, which believed to be the birthplace of democracy, women, children, and slaves were seen as men's/head of the family's properties.

Therefore, if we take the "individual level of analysis," ancient Greek shouldn't have been called democratic state.

In this chapter, the authors provide us 3 questions of analysis. First, we need to look at relationship between the individual (agent/subject) and wider processes and institutions (structures). For example, to analyze how open the Thai political system is, we may look at the petition for law amending process.

Second, we need to at concepts and status of individuals in a certain country. And, third, we need to assess the extent to which the individual gains the capacity for effective political action. Can we perform a demonstration in front of the government house if we are upset about our education system? Will our voices be heard and will our opinoin be significant enough that the officials will take into account? Those are all important questions to ask.

Now we get to the point to decide if we want to study politics by seeing it as parts or whole. There are 3 main things that we should be concerned. first, Mutually Exclusivity tells us that we could make mistakes by saying that we can make inference about other things when we study one thing, or we could face individualistic fallacy and ecological or systematic fallacy. We (think we) know one thing doesn't mean that we know other things.

Second, Redcutionists tell us that one study doesn't apply to all (No one size fits all) and we can't say that it is individual who create events. Some Thais blame Thaksin for almost all events occuring in Thailand: corruption, illieration, poverty, oil price, Prah Vihear temple and problems along Thai-cambodia border, traffic congestion, flood, draught, etc. There is something wrong with this logic.

Third, structurationists, like Anthony Giddens, would tell us that "structures are socially constructed." Which means that "actors make/reproduce structures but they are infromed or constrained and their lives are given context by them." Makes sense?

From what we already know from reading this blog, there are 2 main things here to be looked at: Individual and Structure. When we look at each, we call it "the form of analysis." There are also 2 main forms of analysis: Form of individual analysis (or methodological individualism--such as behavioralism) and form of functional analysis (such as functionalism and marxism). We will see if we agree with that later!

The last concept in this chapter is the "modern individual." Modernity, as pointed in the Enlightenment's era, suggests that individual is the smallest form of political actors--indivisible. And Renaissance thought gives soveriegn and autonomous as properties of individuals. There is something we should carefully examine in modern individual concepts, however. That is, it also performs systematic exclusion of people by using stereotypes.

Apart from that, utilitarianism sees human asutility maximizer or economic man, thinking that humans are rational creatures and social life is nothing more than a market place. Nonetheless, Mancur Olson felt that there could be an issue of "free riders" if ones who benefit from goods and services don't put their efforts into organizations. The French and American revolutions could express the capacity of individuals to well act as a group, though the sense of the two revolution is different and affects individuals of the two countries' political behaviors even in the present. That is, the Americans would participate in social and/or political organizations than the Frnch would, but the French would gather and perform strike much quicker especially when they feel skeptical towards their government--which is almost all the time...

Goran Therborn explains individual rights as citizenship to claim and act and to be under the protection of the state, while Alexis de Toqueville sees American patriotism as collective act, and Jean Francoise Lyotard says that individuals and collectivism is not the matter of discussion anymore, rather Postmodern... It depends on what you believe, I guess.

There are "3 As" to look at the issue of individual and the capacity for meaningful actions. Are individuals "ALLOWED" to express dislike or disagreement to the authorities and to express themselves? Is the political process "ACCESSIBLE" to ordinary individuals, like you and me? Is the resource the individuals need in communication and expression of their political rights (such as the Internet, the genreal elections, etc) "AVAILABLE" in the certain country?

Those are all the important questions we should find the answers. Next time we will talk about the chapter 2: Political Socialization!