But there are significant differences, among them the fact that Bangkok
(like
Manila during the Philippines' People
Power revolution) is a far more open
place. Its citizens have much greater
access to communications links, both among
themselves and with the global community.
Faced with these alternative media, the government's decision to clamp
down on
state-controlled television and radio
was like erecting a house of straw amidst
a media storm.
Within Bangkok, at least, such action was not only ineffective but
self-defeating since it stirred up even
greater resentment amongst the public.
The continued outspokenness of the written press was the main outlet for
information on the latest events. But
there were plenty of other alternatives to
censored television and radio.
For those rich enough to afford it, the most vivid medium was satellite
television. While coverage by CNN often
did not get through on IBC cable service (because of interference from
MCOT), viewers of the BBC World Service on Star TV
(which can be picked up by personal satellite
dishes) were treated to scenes of
shocking brutality, particularly when
troops raided the lobby of the Royal Hotel on
Monday night.
And thanks to the proliferation of VCRs, these images were easily taped
to be
shown to friends.
In fact, prior to all the violence, enterprising Thais at last Sunday's
massive
rally were offering videotapes documenting
the evolution of anti-government
protests. Discriminating consumers could
choose from a full five-volume set of
tapes or an edited version.
A great deal has already been said about the large presence of mobile
phone-toting yuppies at the rallies. Mobile
phone companies reported a huge
surge in calls over their networks during
the protests, as those taking part
called up their acquaintances to let them
know what was going on.
It seems these devices, previously reviled by the politically correct for
the
disturbances they cause in public places,
have gained a new-found respectability
thanks to their service in the cause of
democracy.
In addition, the fax machine has played a major role in
disseminating news and views. As events
unfolded, this humble piece of office automation regularly disgorged the
latest version of samizdat _ the chain fax, subversive
messages passed on from office to office.
From within the country came messages of anger, encouragement
and resolve; from outside came copies
of news articles which had been censored by the
authorities.
Photocopiers have long been used to produce agit-prop. Xeroxed
fliers being handed out at Ramkhamhaeng
University showed protestors wounded in the
military crackdown. Many leaflets also
ridiculed and denounced Suchinda: a
picture of the premier's head atop the
body of a female beauty contestant appeared to
be especially popular.
Finally, there is the ubiquitous (if immobile) home telephone, which allowed
anyone upcountry with a relative in Bangkok
(almost everyone, that is) to find
out what is really going on in the big
city.
Similarly, Bangkokians could call friends in other parts of the city to
find
out the current situation, or ring up
cousin Nong the nurse to find out how many
dead and injured had been brought to the
hospitals. Grimly, telephone hotlines
should now also help us discover the final
toll of the carnage.
All these communications links, combined with a communal resolve
to see justice done, helped protestors
to regroup night after night to challenge the
military, something which certainly never
happened at Tiananmen.
And by making such informal contacts the only real-time way to gather trusted
information, government censorship ironically
helped to foment rumours,
exaggeration and panic, rather than preventing
them, as was claimed.
People are always hungry for information. If the only way a government
can stay in power is through strict control
of mass communications, then sooner
or later it is bound to fall. Just ask
the East Europeans.
Why? Part of the reason has to do with business. Extensive communication
links
are vital to commerce; to cut them would
be to kill the goose that laid the
golden egg. This kind of technology is
intimately tied with development.
Yet contact with the democratic West has a corrosive effect on traditions
_both
good and bad _ including subservience
to traditional authorities.
As one `Yuppie protestor' noted when asked why he was at a rally: ``We
follow
the world. Thailand relies on export markets,
and it will affect us if we have
dictatorship.'
What would happen in Burma or China if the people could go to the local
cinema
to see a movie like JFK?
Still, no one needs foreigners to tell them they should aspire to democracy.
The quest for personal freedom _ to speak
one's mind, to move about freely, to
choose one's leaders _ is what development
is all about.
Even if it may be possible to have economic growth combined with authoritarian
rule, Bangkokians feel strongly that democracy
goes hand in hand with development.
That's what counts. It helps explain how, following a spark such as Chamlong's
fast or the first shootings, normally
apathetic citizens could become completely
politicized, even radicalized, almost
overnight.
Says the yuppie protestor, ``If we stay like this, with political conflict
decided by force, then we will never develop.'
More than anything else, Thais (Bangkokians, at least) want to be developed.
Thailand aspires to be among the front
rank of nations.
And if the determination Thais have displayed over the last week is any
evidence, then one day they will get their
wish, even if it comes at the cost of
another generation's innocence lost.
There have even been scenes similar to the Los Angeles riots: while many
of the
poor in South Central LA expressed their
frustration by looting stores, some
protestors in traffic-snarled Bangkok
took out their anger on traffic lights.
Much of the political unrest which has been experienced over the last
dozen years in Asia _ from Kwangju in
1980 to Beijing in 1989 and most
recently in Thailand _ is considered to
be the result of rising democratic
expectations brought about by booming
economies.
That is to say, these movements _ much like those concerned about the
environment _ have been a consequence
of rapid development. In fact, the
push for greater political openness and
environmental protection are not just
intimately linked, but often overlap.
Both movements, after all, arise from the people's desire that growing
incomes
bring an improved quality of life.
It's no accident that, while all industrialized countries face environmental
problems, the most severe are found in
the formerly Communist countries
of eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union.
Their highly centralized
bureaucracies and state-controlled media
both led to environmental disasters and kept
them hidden from view.
On the other hand, some of the first examples of successful public protests
in
these countries _ such as the blocking
of an attempt by the Soviet Union to
divert water from Siberia to Central Asia
in the mid-1980s _ were grass-roots
environmental campaigns. In many ways,
Thailand's experience is similar.
``You cannot separate environment and democracy; they are mutual issues,'
explains Witoon Permpongsacharoen, director
of the Project for Ecological
Recovery, a Thai non-governmental organization
(NGO). ``You can't have democracy
without tackling social and environmental
problems, and you can't help the
environment without having greater local
participation in decision-making.'
Dhira Phantumvanit _ who heads the Thailand Development Research
Institute's department of environment
and natural resources _ agrees, although he
has very different views from Witoon on
how to solve environmental problems.
Dhira believes in working closely with
business to curb pollution, whereas
Witoon is suspicious of industry and favors
a more grass-roots approach.
But they see eye to eye on the need for greater democracy. ``Good land
management requires that people on the
land solve the problems,' Dhira
claims.
``There is no good model that can be handed down from above and
guaranteed to work. The best actions must
be decided in the field.
``In the US, the local community has the final say. But here decisions
come
from the central authority. It's part
of our traditional attitude of looking to
a leader to solve our problems.'
Witoon points out that the two movements have fed off each other. ``When
you
look at the development of the people's
movement, you must give some credit to
the anti-dam protests of the 1980s. The
struggle to block construction of the
Nam Choan Dam was the first push to bring
power back to the people after the
1976 uprising.
``It also showed that such movements can be broad-based. Previously, these
protests were considered to be something
only for students, or for those with
left-wing ideology. But environmental
issues are not divided by ideology;
everyone can agree with them.'
In short, for the generation which has grown up since the revolts of the
1970s,
both environment and democracy have become
mainstream issues.
While they find it difficult to predict what will happen next, both Dhira
and
Witoon are hopeful that the tentative
victory of pro-democracy demonstrators
will mark the start of a fundamental change
in the way Thailand is governed, and
consequently in the way environmental
concerns are addressed.
``The momentum is in a positive direction,' Witoon confirms. ``A tendency
toward greater democracy will help NGOs
do better work.'
One issue which may be confronted in the short term is the military-backed
khor
jor kor programme. Ostensibly designed
to promote reforestation, the programme
has resulted in rural villagers being
evicted from their settlements in degraded
forest reserves.
With no place to put the villagers, some of Thailand's few remaining pristine
forests are being cut down to make way
for their resettlement. Meanwhile, the
land they have evacuated will likely be
planted with fast-growing species of
trees, eucalyptus for example, to feed
the country's pulp and paper industry.
Such plantations may technically be called
forests, but they don't provide the
environmental benefits _ such as soil
conservation and rain catchment _which
Thailand needs.
``With a change in the political system, khor jor kor will not be tolerated
anymore,' Dhira asserts. ``The objective
of reforestation is good, but the
measures being taken are bad. It reflects
a lack of local authority and
participation and runs counter to sound
natural resource management.'
Democracy, in other words, is needed to
protect the environment.
Witoon agrees, and notes that this case also shows socio-environmental
concerns
could help stimulate democracy. ``Many
local people are angry with the military
commanders [running khor jor kor] who
ignore their protests.'
He adds, however, that most of the local people haven't yet made a connection
between these commanders and the military
as an institution. They don't fully
understand the military's role in politics,
he says.
Dhira also hopes that political changes, combined with greater international
cooperation brought on by the Earth Summit,
can help bring about a more
sensible management plan for the region's
remaining forests. ``Instead of leaving
logging purely to the private sector,
we can help Burma, Laos and Cambodia
manage their forests, rather than simply
destroying them. It could be part of our
Thai aid programme.'
Witoon points out that the most crucial changes, institutional in nature,
will
only come over the long term, if at all.
They include the public's right to information, the establishment of local
elections upcountry, and decentralization of political power from the central
government's so-called vertical agencies concentrated in Bangkok.
Witoon is confident that NGOs can help this process by building up people's
awareness, which is the foundation of
democracy. He claims that those living in
rural communities have been able to follow
events in Bangkok over the past month
through the newspapers and through communications
networks set up by election
monitoring committees.
Eventually, he maintains, ``Local organizations, chosen by the people,
should
have the right to manage budgets and to
control natural resources.'
Dhira, who also heads an NGO, contends that such organizations
must also look critically at themselves
to see how they can improve. ``NGOs in Thailand
are rather small, with neither enough
funds nor people. They mainly work as an ally
of the press to raise issues. They have
to expand their membership to become
true representatives of the people.'
Those in the West, he points out, have memberships reaching into the hundreds
of thousands, who provide direct contributions.
This means that they can work
with scientists to do real research.
``The middle class in Thailand want a better environment. They are the
same
people who went out on the streets of
Bangkok last week. NGOs should expand
contact with them, try to get funds from
them,' he urges.
Witoon agrees that direct fundraising is a good idea, noting that ``The
environmental movement has to gain support
from the middle class to succeed. The
middle class has power.'
But Witoon is more suspicious of attempts to raise money from business.
``It
wouldn't be appropriate to raise money
for the environment through, say, a
charity golf tournament,' he jokes.
There is a danger, however, that by orienting themselves more toward the
middle
class now forming in Thailand's urban
centres, NGOs risk neglecting the
rural villagers who need their help the
most.
It is these local people, after all, who form Thailand's true
silent majority.
``The middle class must understand that they can't have a good
environment without improving the lives
of the poor. They are in a better position
to help out and they want a better environment
for their children. For the
middle class to give time, money and effort
to help, say, preserve forests would be
good for the whole country,' Dhira explains.
Such commitment is a part of what democracy is all about. ``The
middle class in Thailand is still forming,'
he continues. ``It's made up of people who
feel they have contributed or plan to
contribute to society, and so demand a say
in how society is run.'
Witoon sums it up nicely: ``Neither democracy nor the environment are solely
middle class issues; rural villagers are
also involved. But these two groups
have a common interest in supporting these
two mutual concerns.'
Dhira: in this region, our democracy has grown fastest, press is free
and strong positive for environmental
movement before had to work through government bureaucracy must look at
long term freedom of right to know, local elections, decentralization,
people's org have right to manage budgets, natural resources
witoon: if we can change structure, become
more democratic, will allow more
rural democracy, decentralization, local
people can participate in decision-making
NGOs can build up people's awareness,
foundation of democracy NGOs must work in parallel with govt, as with population
control timely now because of political change
problems not due to lack of policy takes
another decade to solve