In Thailand, democracy means discipline
Whereas in monarchic, independent Siam the resource of nationalism has been cultivated as of the Sixth Reign (1910-25), in postcolonial days, modern Thailand shares this statist project with Indonesia, among others. At the same time, other neighbours, such as the Philippines, propagate the state rather than the nation, and whereas a vibrant nationalism-from-above fails to take root, the latter country fully shares in the idiosyncrasy that responsible citizenship is inculcated through endlessly reiterated moral admonitions. (Mulder 2003: 71-83)
Even as Connors reminds us of early programmes of royal and ‘republican' nation building, his target is to elaborate the evolution of ideas aiming at the creation of the responsible citizen from the Sarit period (1958-64) up to the present. Throughout these years, we witness a transition from military-bureaucratic regimes to configurations in which the voices of non-state activists can be heard, to wit educators, public intellectuals, occasional radicals, NGO representatives, liberals, and provincial and metropolitan business circles. During that time, we see the evolution of popular representation from bureaucratic polity to money politics, and a concomitantly changing imaginary of ‘responsible citizenship'.
To deepen the dynamics of ideas about the desirable national, the author focusses on political development (‘creating citizens first in order to be sovereign'), and its relationship to strategies of hegemony and governmentality, in order to allow for issues of power and domination. As a result, the book's organizing theme is that democracy has been, and is, deployed as a disciplining practice.
Democrasubjection
To understand this practice, and the book's title, Connors presents us with a taxingly exhaustive presentation of nationalistic state propaganda. This never fails to include the Three Institutions of Nation, Religion, and King. Over time, Constitutionality, Democracy, Liberalism and/or Communitarianism may attach themselves as sterling qualities of Thai Identity. Altogether, the propaganda for the various positions is seen as an elite project aimed at the democrasubjection of the population at large.
In order to differentiate from Gramsci's hegemony, or the processes by which a ruling elite integrates a national population into the prevailing hierarchical order seemingly on a consensual basis, the author coined ‘democrasubjection' to highlight the consistent propagation of imaginary forms of self-rule that, in the Thai case, are always wrapped in a moralistic cloak. In this way, democracy turns into a never-never land and the training of its befitting citizens a delusion. This becomes abundantly clear when, quoting from a fourth-year high-school text, we read,
A democratic society is a society that believes strongly in the dignity of human beings; they trust each other. The people consists of persons who have reason and who know how to think with discretion. They are replete with the desire to compromise and to give and take. They share in the spirit of sportsmanship and concede fullheartedly that things are always changing. A society that consists of individuals who have a democratic way of life can accordingly be called a valuable society, a society where it is a pleasure to live. (Quoted from Mulder 1997: p. 128)
Missing links
This being as it may, it remains a universal phenomenon that regimes of all kinds have their propaganda machines to bring about their supposedly voluntary acceptance. The degree in which they succeed in the project of subjecting their populations is another matter; an issue that Connors leaves untouched. As a study of the evolution of ideology from Sarit to Thaksin, this may be justifiable, but it also evokes the impression that the very wordy, highly jargonized study is a free-floating exercise. Apart from recent-historical summary references as to the increasing visibility of NGO's and public intellectuals, and the expanding role of business and the corrupting power of money, the evolution and the content of the ideas propagated is never juxtaposed with the practice of everyday Thai life, at the same time that the hegemon remains a faceless, structurally dislocated elite. As a result, the loci of power and domination, and the competition between them, is as much obfuscated for the reader as it is for the population bombarded with patronizing propaganda. We agree that building a national identity, be it in Thailand or in Indonesia (Mulder 2003: 41-53), is a long-term project of the state, to which ‘democratic' and cultural dimensions have been, and are, added, even as one might remain curious as to how it articulates with an anthropology of the Thai.
References
Mulder, Niels. 1997. Thai Images; The Culture of the Public World. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books
Mulder, Niels. 2003. Southeast Asian Images; Towards Civil Society? Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books