Journal of Contemporary Asia - รัฐประหารไทยในวารสารฝรั่ง

ความสำคัญของ Journal of Contemporary Asia (JCA) เล่มนี้คือการอุทิศทั้งเล่มว่าด้วยเมืองไทยหลังรัฐประหาร

ฟ้าเดียวกันออนไลน์ เสนอบทความ 7 ชื้นในเล่มสำหรับท่านผู้สนใจดาวน์โหลด

Introduction: Thailand and the ‘‘Good Coup’’
MICHAEL K. CONNORS and KEVIN HEWISON
Download PDF

Article of Faith: The Failure of Royal Liberalism in Thailand
MICHAEL K. CONNORS
Download PDF
Calls for ‘‘royal intervention’’ to end the political crisis that wracked Thailand in 2006 were consistent with the disposition of Thai liberalism. The apparent paradox of liberals seeking a seemingly extra-constitutional solution to end the popular rule of Thaksin Shinawatra’s government stems from the agnosticism of liberalism to majoritarian democracy. The specific challenges that emerged as a consequence of Thaksin’s rise led liberals to mobilise royalist ideas to withstand Thaksin’s assault on the liberally conceived 1997 Constitution. Key among these ideas was the notion of sovereignty as expressed in the relationship between the monarch and the people, or rachaprachasamasai. The failure of ‘‘royal liberalism’’ to bring an end to the crisis, may signal a more general failure of royal liberalism to secure political order in the future.

Review: A Book, the King and the 2006 Coup
KEVIN HEWISON
Download PDF
This article involves an assessment of Paul Handley’s important book, The King Never Smiles. A Biography of Thailand’s Bhumibol Adulyadej. The article begins with a discussion of the supposed threat the book posed to the monarchy and outlines the attempts to prevent publication. It then outlines Handley’s evaluation of the involvement of King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s palace in Thailand’s modern politics. It uses this approach as a way to examine the clash of elites within Thailand’s ruling class that led to a royalist campaign against the Thaksin Shinawatra government and the 2006 military coup.

The Thai Rak Thai Party and Elections in North-eastern Thailand
SOMCHAI PHATHARATHANANUNTH
Download PDF
Thaksin Shinawatra’s electoral success, through the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, has led to a debate: was the party’s electoral landslide based on the appeal of its policies or the power of money? On one side of the debate, the party’s success was seen to result from its policies that reflected the interests of widely divergent sectors of the electorate. On the other side, TRT was held to be no different from ‘‘old-style’’ political parties that relied on money politics (vote buying, buying members of parliament and other kinds of patronage). This article explores the nature of TRT’s successes and failures by examining the operation of TRT in north-eastern Thailand. It is argued that it is wrong to single out policies or money as a source of TRT’s success because the party relied on both strategies to win elections.

Toppling Democracy
THONGCHAI WINICHAKUL
Download PDF
Thailand’s 2006 royalist coup is best understood by reference to the historical context of democratisation. The dominant historiography of Thai democratisation is either a simplistic liberal view of anti-military democracy or a royalist one that is ultimately antidemocratic. This article offers a serial history of democratisation that allows us to see the long duration of layered historical processes. As democratisation is fundamentally a break from the centralised absolute monarchy, the monarchy and the monarchists, despite their up and down political fortunes, have probably played the most significant role in shaping Thai democracy since 1932. Despite that, their role and place in history has been overlooked due to the perception that they are ‘‘above politics.’’ This article argues that, since 1973 in particular, the monarchists have assumed the status of the superior realm in Thai politics that claims the high moral ground above politicians and normal politics. With distaste for electoral politics, and in tacit collaboration with the so-called people’s sector, activists and intellectuals, they have undermined electoral democracy in the name of ‘‘clean politics’’ versus the corruption of politicians. The 2006 coup that toppled democracy was the latest effort of the monarchists to take control of the democratisation process.

A Different Coup d’E´tat?
UKRIST PATHMANAND
Download PDF
The 2006 coup d’e´tat was far more than a simple case of military seizure of power. Rather, the 19 September 2006 coup is connected intimately with the monarchy in various respects. The ‘‘royalist military’’ legitimated the coup by using the royalist discourse that was generated by the anti-Thaksin movement and the massive celebrations of the king’s 60th year on the throne. Having succeeded in overthrowing prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the coup makers thought they could secure the throne by ensuring loyal succession to the position of Army Commander-in-Chief in the medium term. To enhance military influence the ‘‘royal military’’ are also revitalising a Cold War relic, the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC). In line with this political regression, it appears that military want to return Thailand to the years of ‘‘semi-democracy,’’ when the military and bureaucracy had significant power over elected politicians.

The Rural Constitution and the Everyday Politics of Elections in Northern Thailand
ANDREW WALKER
Download PDF
The Thai coup of 19 September 2006 derived ideological legitimacy from the view that the Thaksin government’s electoral mandate was illegitimate because it had been ‘‘bought’’ from an unsophisticated and easily manipulated electorate. There is nothing new about this argument, nor its use in justifying military interference. Political commentators have asserted regularly that the Thai populace lacks the basic characteristics essential for a modern democratic citizenry. Accounts of the deficiencies of rural voters often focus on their parochialism, their lack of political sophistication, the vulnerability to vote buying and the influence of electoral canvassers (hua khanaen). This article challenges this negative portrayal of rural electoral culture. Drawing on ethnographic field work in northern Thailand, it is argued that the everyday politics of elections is informed by a range of different electoral values that shape judgements about legitimate, and illegitimate, political power in electoral contexts. These local values can be usefully thought of as comprising a ‘‘rural constitution.’’