Who Governs? Autonomous Political Networks as a Challenge to Power in Thailand

Abstract

AbstractRecent scholarship examining political contestation in Thailand has emphasised concepts such as "network monarchy," while pointing to the populism and enduring political influence of Thaksin Shinawatra. While this descriptive work has helped shed light on the architecture of governance in Thailand, it has not been embedded in a broader theoretical approach that might help to train our attention on other powerful actors that play important roles in shaping Thailand's political and institutional landscape. In this article, I outline one such approach and advance the term "autonomous political networks," to refer to collections of people who share strong value commitments and political goals and who operate in the space between the country's dominant political institutions – often straddling positions in the state and civil society simultaneously. This theoretical discussion is grounded empirically in a description of one such network whose power is derived from sources other than electoral legitimacy or long-standing historical tradition. The article discusses the enormous influence this network has exercised in reshaping Thailand's political order, all while remaining largely invisible to the public eye. It suggests the need to use this approach to elaborate other hidden political networks that play important roles in governance in Thailand and beyond.Key Words: Thailandgovernancenetwork monarchyRural Doctors'Societyhealthsocial movement AcknowledgementsThis article has benefited from the thoughtful feedback, criticism and assistance of Thongchai Winichakul, Katherine Bowie, Prajak Kongkirati, Jeff Boone, Tod van Gunten, Oraphan Tatha, three anonymous reviewers and the editor. While their criticism and insights have helped to improve this article substantially, any mistakes or errors are my sole responsibility. I also wish to acknowledge the generous funding provided by a Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Award and the support of Dr Thitinan Pongsudhirak, Dr Peter Shearman, Dr. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, Dr Viroj NaRanong, Dr Nalinee Tantuvanit, Dr Chanetwallop Khumthong, the Institute of Security and International Studies at Chulalongkorn University, the Thailand Development Research Institute, the Regional Center for Sustainable Development at Chiang Mai University, and the National Research Council of Thailand of my doctoral field work.Notes1 Although Anek identifies himself as belonging to the political economy school, others have characterised his approach as "neo-pluralist" (Hewison Citation1997, 7).2 This is not to suggest that these are the only theoretical approaches to governance that have been applied to Thailand. Hewison (Citation1997), for example, explores the contributions of the institutionalist perspective, embodied in works by scholars such as Christensen and Ammar (Citation1993). Due to space constraints, I consider just the structural-functionalist and political economy approaches, since they have loomed larger in the literature.3 These approaches have not been without their critics. For detailed critiques, see Atkinson and Coleman (Citation1992), Dowding (Citation1995), and Adam and Kriesi (Citation2007).4 This approach to the study of networks as informal units of social actors within sociology and political science can be contrasted with more formal network analysis.5 For a detailed account of Prawase, see http://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationWasiPra.htm.6 See http://jitwiwat.blogspot.com/and http://www.semsikkhalai.org.7 A number of the doctors in the Sampran Forum finished at the top of their class. Several other influential doctors who have played a prominent role in politics also finished at or near the top of their class, including Weng Tojirakarn (a leader of the Red Shirt movement), Prommin Lertsuradej, and Surapong Suebwonglee, both former Thai Rak Thai Party executives.8 Cohen writes that in 1965–66, 90 of the 93 doctors graduating from Chiang Mai University went abroad to work immediately (1989, 162). Specially chartered flights by countries seeking to import doctors helped facilitate their departure; over the decade, 1,000 Thai doctors permanently left to work in the United States (Pongsuphap Citation2007, 37–39). In addition to the medical brain drain abroad, the country had to contend with a growing problem of internal brain drain. Between 1971 and 1979, the proportion of doctors working in the private sector relative to other doctors increased by more than 65% (Nonglak and Thinakorn Citation2009, 13). The government's policy of compulsory service in rural areas (in 1967) along with financial incentives provided to doctors taking rural posts were a reaction to this.9 It is worth noting here that the first Secretary-General of the NHSO, Dr Sanguan, wrote that he was initially reluctant to head the NHSO over fear that his heading the organisation after being an advocate for national health insurance for so long would create an opportunity for gossip. However, Dr Ammar Siamwalla cited the positive role that Puey Ungpakorn had played in building a successful organisational culture when he stepped in to lead the Bank of Thailand after advocating for its creation. This helped to convince Sanguan to take over the role as the new head of the NHSO (Sanguan Citation2008, 120–121).10 One informant remarked that the top five policy priorities of the Rural Doctors' network were pushed through the year that Dr Mongkol was minister (Interview, WHO Official, May 26, 2009).11 Surapong is himself a long-time devotee of Prawase and spoke at length about Prawase's strategy of "the triangle that moves the mountain" when interviewed (Interview, Surapong Suebwonglee, March 13, 2009).12 However, at least one Sampran member has had lese majeste charges filed against him (Assavanonda, June 4, 2002). These charges were eventually dropped. It is worth noting here that other royalists, such as Sulak Sivaraksa, have also previously been the subject of lese majeste charges.13 The book was delayed and was eventually given a limited release with a disclaimer printed on its inside cover, noting that the opinions expressed in the book were not those of the foundation (Thongchai Citation2005, alternate front matter). The foundation is meant to honour the students who rose in 1973 to oust a long-standing military dictatorship and to remember those killed three years later in a return to military-backed rule.14 More recently, the current leadership of the RDS agreed to help set up and serve as a "facilitator" (but not "host") of the provincial networks being set up by the People's Democratic Reform Committee, the protest movement led by former Deputy Prime Minister and former Democrat Party Secretary-General Suthep Thaugsuban. In getting involved, the RDS aimed to "stop all policy corruption," according to Dr Suphat Hasuwankit, an RDS member (Sarnsamak, December 17, 2013). The RDS operates independently from, but maintains close ties with, doctors involved in the Sampran Forum who founded the RDS.15 It should be noted that Pipop is a senior member of the NGO community who has worked on steering committees on progressive projects with Sampran members previously, so his submission of this proposal should not be taken as completely out of character. Rather, it is the timing and focus of it, given Pipop's involvement with PAD, that made it controversial.16 The Pheu Thai Party is a reincarnated version of the Thai Rak Thai Party, owing allegiance to Thaksin.17 I would like to thank one of the anonymous reviewers for making this point.18 At the same time, McCargo has also suggested that Prawase's "liberal network of reform activists …paralleled and overlapped Prem's monarchical governance network" (Citation2005, 511).19 Jon Ungpakorn's family ties and political network would be particularly illuminating. While a staunch advocate for HIV medication himself, a relative of his is the top executive at the Thai Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association. And while at times a critic (and partner on select issues) of Thai Rak Thai, another relative, Prachuap Ungpakorn was a Thai Rak Thai MP.20 Aside from his connections to the Democrat Party, Lamsam's involvement in other aspects of public life dates back many years. In the 1980s, he convened a group of reformist educators interested in restructuring the Thai educational system to improve the country's competitiveness. The commission eventually produced a report in 1996, sponsored by Lamsam's Thai Farmers' Bank, entitled, Thai Education in the Era of Globalization: Vision of a Learning Society (see Filbeck, Citation2002; Fry Citation2002).