PDF Version
The HDFF team recently attended the seminar entitled, “How to build a new social contract? Ways forward from the transitional conflict” on July 30, 2012, held by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES) Thailand in partnership with Mahidol University. The aim of the seminar was to discuss the transitional malaise plaguing Thai society, as the result of rapid social and economic change, and how to organize the process of deliberation for a new social contract.
Opening remarks came from Dr. Gotham Arya, director of the Mahidol University Research Center for Peace, who spoke of a deadlock between competing factions of society, underpinned by a pervasive lack of trust. For the moment, it appears unlikely that Thailand’s political system will be able to handle the delicate negotiations necessary to bring out a new consensus. Even the word “democracy”, he says, is interpreted differently among Thais. Therefore, further deliberation needs to be done to determine what society can agree on, thereby necessitating a dialogue about a new social contract.
To understand the conditions of Thailand’s transformation crisis, Dr. Chanchai Chaisukkosol, lecturer at the Institute for Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol University, explained there has been a shift in increasing democratization across Thailand. This came in part due to Thailand’s mixed economy, which he says resulted in more migration of labor out of the countryside to bigger cities and to other countries. While abroad, those in the latter group picked up new ideas about democracy and shared them with others in Thailand. Meanwhile, on the domestic front, trends in political participation were also changing, such as with the promulgation of the 1997 constitution, which gave more power to citizens in choosing their leaders. Though the constitution was eventually abrogated, the spirit of popular political participation remained – and politicians now find it increasingly difficult to control peoples’ opinions.
[imagebrowser id=20]
Following this, Dr. Chaisukkosol outlined the social divide in society between two extremes, which characterized as authoritarianism vs. anarchism of the street, generally color-coded as yellow and red. While yellows generally oppose the undesired influence of the new generation of wealthy businessmen and emphasize rights to property and life, reds oppose the state and emphasize equality in power and collectiveness.
However, their differences are not unique, as every society has groups which disagree. What drives Thailand’s transitional conflict, Dr. Chaisukkosol insists, are the following:
- the attitude that the end is more important than the mean
- the control over political communication that emphasizes quantity over quality
- free speech and hate speech are not clearly defined in Thailand
- intimidation tactics, such as disclosing personal information about political opponents and their families, causing people to have to change their names, homes, jobs, etc.
Furthermore, the conflict exists on at least two levels, institutional and methods of expression. The former refers to structural problems, such as institutional corruption and flawed political and legal processes. The latter refers to the way citizens which interact with the former.
Among Dr. Chaisukkosol’s key points of reform was to reverse the attitude that the end is more important than the mean. Therefore, methods of change and petitioning in society must matter. Additionally, there must be a kind of etiquette of dos and don’ts, especially in regards to politics. People must respect each other’s dignity and understand that disagreement is normal, so as to avoid extremism. In regards to building a new social contract, Dr. Chaisukkosol therefore opines that it has to be inclusive with authority in governance while accepting the fact that there are differences in society –which do not need to result in hate.
The next speaker, Dr. Aurel Croissant, lecturer of political science and vice dean of research at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, contended Thailand’s crisis is structural and it relates to a conflict about social justice. From the “development social contract” of the 1950s to the 1980s to the “social capitalist contract” of the Thaksin era, settlement among elites has held together the social fabric. However, Dr. Croissant asserts that now, as the social capitalist contract lacks legitimacy, the transitional conflict cannot be simply resolved by elite settlement. A key aspect of the challenge in building a new social contract for Thailand, he says, is encouraging pluralist, horizontally oriented deliberation in a society that is used to vertical, top-down decision making. While there is no clear answer to this challenge, Dr. Croissant’s assertion is that Thailand needs a public dialogue to produce public rationalizations that would form the basis of a new social contract. Agents of change who have an interest in public dialogue and who could form coalitions could come from both inside and outside public institutions.
In the final stage of the seminar, a panel composed of Dr. Arya, Dr. Chaisukkosol, Dr. Croissant, and Marc Saxer, resident director of FES, gave final impressions of the day’s discussions. Dr. Arya reiterated that public deliberations at several parallel levels are one possible way for achieving reconciliation. Dr. Chaisukkosol, commenting on Dr. Croissant’s idea about change agents, said that it is important to find change agents that can help society resolve its conflict. He opined that the monarchy tries to be a change agent, but its speed is slow and careful. Dr. Croissant insisted that institutions alone cannot re-engineer society; there is something that makes social contracts strong, and it comes from agreeing on core fundamental ideals, such as matters of social justice. Social justice is necessary, he says, but it is difficult to establish what it is. Mr. Saxer remarked that the creation of new political orders is not a natural thing; they are negotiated. Deliberation, thus, is the only peaceful process for transformation.
Comments are closed