HOW TO BUILD A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT? WAYS FORWARD FROM THE TRANSITIONAL CONFLICT

Transcription

1 HOW TO BUILD A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT? WAYS FORWARD FROM THE TRANSITIONAL CONFLICT Monday 30 th July 2012, 1pm-6pm Glowfish, 6 th Floor, The Pride Asoke Towers Sukhumvit 21 (Soi Asoke), Khlongteoy Nua, Wattana, Bangkok After decades of rapid economic growth and social change, Thailand today is locked into protracted political conflict. Attempts to overcome the stalemate mostly focus on the surface of competing elite factions and their footsoldiers. However, the transformation malaise plaguing Thai society runs much deeper. A crisis of legitimacy paralyzes the polity, making it ever harder to break out of the vicious cycle of conflict. Over the course of recent years, some of Thailand s leading intellectuals have analyzed the nature of this transformation crisis and have discussed ways of overcoming it. The result of these deliberations has been summed up by Dr. Chanchai Chaisukkosol from Mahidol University in a comprehensive study that will certainly add to a better understanding of the dynamics of transformation. In essence, the political order is no longer capable of negotiating solutions between conflicting groups, and creating identity and cohesion between pluralistic sub-cultures. The political order needs to be adapted to meet the needs of a rapidly modernizing economy and an ever more pluralistic society. To resolve the crisis, Thai society needs to redefine the basic rules for living together. The shift in the balance of power between key groups needs to be reflected in a new division of labor. What it means to be Thai needs to reflect the growing pluralism of individual identities. New ways of strengthening the cohesion of the nation need to be introduced. The constitutional architecture needs to be adapted to form a truly democratic governance system capable of dealing with the complexities of a modern economy, and the permanent conflict of a pluralist society. In other words, Thai society needs to re-negotiate its social contract. However, current events have cast doubt that the political system is willing and able to organize such a sensitive and complicated process. While the elites negotiate deals in secrecy, political parties, the media and civil society are at each other s throats. Recent attempts to amend the constitution provoked a showdown between the legislative and judicial powers. Participatory, rule-based and outcome-oriented deliberation over the basic principles of how Thai society wants to live together barely occurs. A change agent capable of creating political will for structural reforms is still missing. Instead of building a broad democratic coalition for change, progressive actors mostly prefer to go it alone. Thai society, it seems, is plagued with collective action problems. The objective of this conference was to increase the understanding of the nature of the transformation crisis, and explore ways to overcome it. The conditions under which institutional change can occur were analyzed, and collective action problems preventing the emergence of a change coalition identified. Finally, the question of how to organize an inclusive, rule-based process of deliberation for a new social contract for Thailand were discussed.

2 SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS - The presentation and discussion considered how Thai society has changed over the years and to what extent these changes impacted on our social contract. - The Ammart/Prai conflict has been brought up to the surface by Thaksin; however, he also destroyed the traditional system and is frequently depicted as a giant octopus evil and with many tentacles changing various things in Thai society. How do we really feel? Are we really all just yellow or red? - On top of our existing problems, we ve created new ones, i.e. free speech has almost turned into hate speech. Where s the boundary? - We have a 2-level conflict: superficial (political self-expression) and profound (root problems). Free expression is not enough we need both free and fair. - Our legal structures are inconsistent with regards to democratic control / judgment. - A new social contract needs elite settlement*. - Other sectors of society need to better self-organized, but do not necessarily have to listen to the elite while at the same time, the elite must accept that their influence is limited. Other countries like Benin, Niger and Mali already have new social contract structures all consisting of around 1000 to 2000 members called National Meetings. - Our most pressing problem right now is that there is no elite settlement Questions/critics - The analysis has not included the issue of state violence against the people. o How is this issue being discussed within society? o We cannot ask for reconciliation by asking people to forget what happened. - Are the two violences (one by the state and the other by the people) really on par with one another? - We cannot just forgive and forget. The two acts of violence are not at the same level (the state was more violent), but the latest protests have shown that thing can get out of control, and that we the people need to be better self-organized - The analysis is sometimes too simplistic is it really just about election and appointment? Are the potential new constitution and new social contract basically going to be the same as the 1997 one? - They cannot be the same because society has changed profoundly since We need DIALOGUE. In 1997, we didn t know what each other really thought or what each other really wanted. If we look at the conflict from another angle, without this conflict, Thai society would never change. Conflict is a somewhat natural state. This can be seen as an exciting time for Thailand. - Yes, it is true that we should argue, but we get too personal and too violent we need a good contextualized METHOD for arguing, because otherwise we d never get anywhere and we d never understand our root problems. Elaborate on the difference between elite settlement and elite collusion.

3 - Only elite settlement, of course, is not enough because that will simply settle the benefits for each elite group, and won t be entirely about the benefits of society. Was there ever a social contract in Thailand? The political situation right now appears as though there was never a consensus or a social contract, since major changes were always brought on by military coups. - Yes, there was always a social contract a traditional one whereby people accepted the situation that they were in. It was/is also about tit-for-tat if you can shoot me then I can also shoot you. So what are we really arguing about? Parliament versus the Monarchy? - It feels incomplete when we analyse the current situation without mentioning the King or his Privy Council, as they have a tight grip on both the politics and economics of Thailand. - The population may not like it. We need to figure out how to deal with situations without causing bloodshed. Aurel Croissant How to mobilize coalitions for change? From social movements/social change theory - Thai society is in a structural crisis, and it s not temporary. - The conflict is about social justice the distribution of life chances. We are debating about what is socially just. There are competing visions of justice and legitimacy. What is a social contract and how can it be negotiated? Did our social contract break down with the financial crisis? - Thaksin tried to form a new, capitalist social contract but it was not deemed legitimate and imbalanced, so didn t succeed. How do we institutionalize the results of the new contract? - Elite theory = a PRECONDITION for representative democracy. It does not necessarily mean democracy. How can a new social contract be found and founded? DELIBERATION. Is deliberation possible in Thai society? - A just society is not an equal society. - A social contract is a method to negotiate the principles of a just society (equal access to primary goods, etc.). - Must benefit the least advantaged parts of society. - Deliberation is not simply discussion or debate; it is a mode of PUBLIC REASONING. - Deliberation needs democracy and rule of law; without democracy and rule of law, there cannot be deliberation, because deliberation is based on rules. - Must involve the will the change one s own preferences must find what the best argument is, not to try to attempt the best argument. Problems: - Extremely demanding requirements i.e. need different intelligent resources, but all with equal rights

4 - There is trade off between deliberation and participation - Deliberation doesn t mean everyone should necessarily be involved; deliberation in itself is a selective process So how to operationalise? Deliberation Day. Small deliberative counsels at the local level, which then connect to a deliberation counsel at the national level? - Democracy = moral and intellectual capacity of the people (de Toqueville) - Institutions help people to survive in times of crisis, but they do not bring justice they are just a means to an end - Institutions cannot replace a social contract - Institutions are hard to change and tend to stick need change agents. There needs to be actors who WANT to change something - We need both elites and counter-elites. Need to identify political opportunity structures mobilization and organization - Finally, we need to FRAME solutions for the wider society to understand; need to explain what the issues are and how to overcome them effectively How do we find a way to secure the best outcome of the transformation? Change will occur no matter what, but what will be the outcome of change? We don t trust anyone, so how can we find a change agent for Thailand? - People external to Thailand can t be leaders of a change coalition. Who is behaving in accordance to the existing rules of institutions? If they re not, perhaps they can lead them to change? How exactly can we see elite settlement come about? - Elite settlement is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient to maintaining social justice and democracy Why was Africa so successful in creating a new social contract? - There were political leaders who could command legitimacy and respect. There was also little choice for the white people - What is happening now is actually a chance the role of the monarchy which might polarize the new social contract (rise of the emerging elites versus the traditional elite classes). We have to begin with the monarchy when talking about a new social contract Who within the monarchical structure can be a change agent, perhaps? - In other countries with constitutional monarchies, the monarchy plays very important functions to maintain trust and stability. They didn t try to get rid of their monarchies because a monarchy can be a very powerful agent. Their societies are also the most just, the most peaceful, the most democratic and the most wealthy. WHY? - These countries found a way to solve deep structural crises, with the monarchy on board because they accepted their role as mediator between the different social classes relinquishing their direct political role A change coalition also needs to include status quo actors. Who are they? Is there a point where these actors have to be marginalized? - A way to deal with status quo actors who don t want to become part of a change coalition is to compensate them. There are civil war entrepreneurs in Thailand

5 PANEL Now what can we actually do to renegotiate the social contract? - Need a way to find and explain common denominators within society - Coalition building need non-partisans - We are divided on nonsensical issues. Both red and yellow are concerned with democracy building, so in theory, we can have a theory comprising of both colours. - We fundamentally need to promote human dignity Is it democracy versus monarchy? How about democratic monarchy? Is it an oxymoron in Thailand? Agents of change: leaders, intellectuals and activists. Who s who? The role of the international community has been absent, even though it plays a big part in the Thai economy (especially tourism). What role can the international community really play? - There have been efforts in the past to form Friends of Thailand group. International efforts should be welcomed particularly from intellectuals. Leaders or activists are more difficult - Help influence the Thai discourse by adapting to existing concepts and ideas in Thai society Violence is always an illegitimate means to an end. What is more difficult to determine is how to effectively and democratically counter violence? - Be careful when using Buddhist teachings to influence discourse as they can be misinterpreted. - Also be careful when using Sufficiency Economy because it is connected to the King. The King, ultimately, should not be brought in any further into the conflict to leverage one side or another. - A deliberative culture is possible, but we need to be patient amongst ourselves - Trust is the most important ingredient in this conflict but how do we build it again? Everybody has to take risks to trust. - We need to create an environment where trust can be built small scale and in a profound, repeated way. Coalition building model building discourse building = trust SPEAKER PROFILES PROFESSOR GOTHOM ARYA Prof. Gothom Arya is the Director of the Mahidol University Research Center for Peace, and also the Chairman of various organizations including the Foundation for Child Development, the Human Rights and Development Foundation, the May 1995 Foundation, the Peace and Culture Foundation, and the Appropriate Technology Association. He holds a Ph.D. in Docteur Ingénieur from University of Paris. In 2012, Prof. Gothom received the Human Rights Devotee award from the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand. In 1995, he also received a Nobel Peace Prize as a Council Member in the Pugwash Conference on Sciences and World Affairs. His professional experiences include positions as the Registrar of the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) from 2001 to 2003, and as the Chairman of the National Economic and Social Advisory Council from 2006 to He has been honoured with distinctions such as Knight Grand Cordon (Special Class) of the Most Exalted Order of the White Elephant, was dubbed one of the 50 leading 'stars of Asia' by Business Week magazine, and was bestowed an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Social Sciences from the Prince of Songkhla University.

6 DR CHANCHAI CHAISUKKOSOL Chanchai Chaisukkosol is a Lecturer at the Institute of Human Rights and Peace Studies at Mahidol University. His main research interests include social studies of science and technology, peace studies and internet studies. He graduated with a Bachelor s and Master s Degree in Computer Engineering related to Robot Programming. He then worked as a research assistant in the field of sociology for four years. His Ph.D. dissertation at Chulalongkorn University was titled Technology and Non-violent Political Struggles: A Case Study of the Internet in Thailand. His other titles include: Structural Power of the Technological System: A Case Study of the Internet in Thailand before the 2006 Coup d État, and Thailand s Deep South Scenario. One of his (co-) book translations (into Thai) is a cartoon in IconBook's introductory series called Introducing Science. He is currently conducting research on hate speech related to the Thai political conflict, supported by the Thailand Research Fund s (TRF) Senior Research Scholar Project Phase II: Non-violence and Violence in Thai Society: Knowledge, Secrets and Memories. PROFESSOR AUREL CROISSANT Prof. Aurel Croissant is Professor of Political Science and Vice Dean of Research at the Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, Ruprecht-Karls- University, Heidelberg. His main research interests include the comparative analysis of political structures and processes in East- and Southeast Asia, the theoretical and empirical analysis of democracy, civil-military relations, terrorism and political violence. Aurel Croissant has published 21 monographs, edited volumes and special issues of German and international journals, and over 150 book chapters and journal articles. His research has been published in German, English, Spanish, Korean, Indonesian and Russian. He is referee for numerous German and international journals, publishers and academic funding institutions. He is co-editor of the book series Politik in Afrika, Asien und Lateinamerika (Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America, VS Verlag) and Weltregionen im Wandel (World Regions in Transition, Nomos), the Asian Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Contemporary Southeast Asian Affairs, and Democratization, and sits on the Academic Advisory Boards of the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) and the Bertelsmann Transformation-Index (BTI). MARC SAXER Marc Saxer is Resident Director of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Thailand office. Before coming to Bangkok, he coordinated the global security, climate and energy policy working lines of the Dialogue on Globalization program at FES headquarters in Berlin. Marc's work focuses on governance mechanisms and democracy assistance. Prior to joining the FES, he implemented projects for Transparency International and for FES in Pakistan. Marc Saxer holds a Masters of Law from Hamburg University and a Master s Degree in Political Science from the Free University of Berlin.