Has globalisation improved democratic development in Thailand since the 1990s? This Contemporary Southeast Asia article studies three of the main actors in the Thai political economy: the military, the private sector and civil society. All have undergone marked changes, and in particular the private sector has been reinvigorated. A new and more sophisticated conjunction has emerged between politics and business. Has the rise of ‘money politics’ become too forceful an opposition for true democratisation?
Thailand has previously experienced globalisation, but in the 1990s the impact of global forces has been intense. The 1997-8 economic crisis was precipitated by domestic financial liberalisation, and international capital flow, resulting in the loss of both economic sovereignty to the IMF, and significant capital assets to foreign ownership.
Internal elements affecting democratisation within Southeast Asia include the quickly changing economy, the cohesion or factionalisation of authoritarian rulers, the legitimacy of government, the size and attitude of the middle classes, and civil society trends. Thailand has made significant advances during the 1990s. The 1997 Constitution re-engineered the political system, reducing bureaucratic power, increasing politicians’ responsiveness to popular will and undercutting old monopolies in business and government.
Political reform amidst economic crisis has affected the military, the private sector and civil society in different ways:
- After the Cold War era and the withdrawal of direct US support, the Thai military began to internally collapse. Political reform removed the military’s monopoly over the media, and the economic crisis removed its financial strength with the collapse of the Thai Military Bank, further weakening the military’s dominance in the political economy. Subsequent downsizing and reorganisation have focused the military’s role on national development and regional influence.
- The growth of the private sector has seen increasing assistance from and influence on government. Greater participation in party politics did not signify democratic commitment, and political links used to protect business interests. After the economic crisis, business leaders went further and created their own political party, the Thai Rak Thai (TRT).
- Increasing collaboration with NGOS, and input from global market institutions and criminal organisations has led to a diffused state authority. Thai society has become more complex, as the role of the state has been reduced and military dominance diminished. Civil society exerts greater bargaining power, and urban, rural and community development initiatives have come from grass-roots organisations, with little external assistance.
Due to globalisation, ideas about citizen’s rights, representation, and participatory democracy have increased. But how successful can civil society be in the face of a partially rehabilitated military and a newly aggressive private sector, both of which have very limited commitment to democracy?
- The Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party, led by Thaksin Shinawatra, represents hugely successful industry leaders and multinationals, some of whom have been implicated in corruption. Despite initial claims for democracy and support for small business and agriculture, the TRT’s clear win in the 2001 election was a potent demonstration of the mutually beneficial relationship between capital groups and politicians.
- The 1997 Constitution has equipped civil society with new powers to monitor the working process of government, politicians and the bureaucracy. Greater media scrutiny and new autonomous political bodies are forcing confrontation at national, regional and international levels.
- Civil society’s gains from globalisation are still not sufficiently strong in the face of the established institutional power of capitalism and the military bureaucracy.
