The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 12 | Issue 14 | Number 4 | Apr 06, 2014

1

Hannah Arendt, Nidhi Eoseewong, and the Spectre ofTotalitarianism in Thailand ハンナ・アーレントとニティ・イオシーウォン　タイ王国を彷徨う全体主義の幽霊

Tyrell Haberkorn

Hannah Arendt published The Origins ofTotalitarianism, her expansive analysis of thedevelopment and spread of totalitarianism inEurope in 1951, in the aftermath of the rise ofanti-Semitism and Nazism, the Holocaust, andthe violent destruction of life, community, andnation left both in the wake of World War II andamidst Stalinism. Her analysis rooted firmly inEurope, she commented in the preface that,“ N e v e r h a s o u r f u t u r e b e e n m o r eunpredictable, never have we depended somuch on political forces that cannot be trustedto follow the rules of common sense and self-interest – forces that look like sheer insanity, ifjudged by the standards or other centuries.” 1

Over sixty years later, noted Thai historianNidhi Eoseewong picked up Arendt’s work towrite two articles about the forms of creepingtotalitarianism emergent in Thailand in thelong aftermath of the 19 September 2006 coup.2 While the points of difference betweeninterwar Europe and present-day Thailand areas multiple as the points of resonance, theshape of totalitarianism itself is very similar. Bythreading his analysis of changes in Thaisociety over the last ten years through areading of the chapters on the mass anddictatorship in Hannah Arendt’s The Origins ofTotalitarianism, Nidhi provides a broad contextand framework for understanding present-daydevelopments in Thailand, which mitigateagainst the very isolation he and Arendt argueis a key feature of totalitarianism. In what

follows, I offer an account of the current crisisin Thai politics informed by Nidhi’s essays. Thetrans lat ion of the two short essays ,“Totalitarian Dictatorship,” and “The GreatMass of the People,” originally published onPrachatai, an independent Thai news andcommentary site, follow my account.

*

A year and a half ago, Nidhi Eoseewong warnedof growing atomization among the members ofthe Thai polity. In a column for Matichon, aleading Thai-language daily, Nidhi threaded hisanalysis of changes in Thai society over the lastten years through a reading of the chapters onthe mass and dictatorship in Hannah Arendt’sThe Origins of Totalitarianism. While Thaiswere well-acquainted with standard militarydictatorship, a frequent occurrence since theend of the absolute monarchy in June 1932,they had been spared totalitarian dictatorship.In contrast to a dictatorship in which thepeople are dominated by the army, totalitariandictatorship is by and for the mass, has a needfor the mass, and “endeavors to control thedaily life of the people, or, actually, to controlthe brain or the thinking of the mass as well.”

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

2

Nidhi Eoseewong, Thai historian and socialand political criticPhoto Credit: Siam Intelligence Unit

The immediate impetus for Nidhi’s essay was aseries of short-lived protests in November andDecember 2012 by a group that called itselfProtect Siam (Pitak Siam). Led by retiredGeneral Boonlert Kaewprasit and physician-activist Dr. Tul Sittisomwong, their rallying crywas a vague cr i t ic ism of the e lectedgovernment of Prime Minister YingluckShinawatra and a call to protect the monarchyfrom its critics.

Nidhi argued that the socioeconomic changesin Thai society in the prior decade created theconditions for the emergence of the mob. Thepeople felt abandoned by their leaders andfamilies and yearned for belonging andcommunity. The defining characteristic of thesepotential atoms was “their grave discomfortwith the conditions of their being.” But likeArendt’s mass, the Protect Siam demonstratorswere not political except in their disavowal ofany claim to participation in governance. Nidhicommented, “They are bored with politics. Theydeem polit ics to simply be a series ofarguments. Politics is a waste of time fromtheir work earning a living, as well assomething that destroys their livelihood.Therefore, if they were able to arrange thepurge and elimination of the politicians, theywould like to return home to earn a living. Thetotalitarian mob would permit the ‘good people’

to administer the country, without beinginvolved as well.” This category of “goodpeople” — khon dee in Thai — recurs acrosstime as shorthand for compliant citizens whosupport the status quo and the institution of themonarchy.

Protect Siam disappeared from the streetsnearly as quickly as it appeared, but the desirefor totalitarianism identified by Nidhi remainedlatent. This desire combined with sharppolarization in a series of rapid-fire eventsbeginning with the protests of the People’sDemocratic Reform Committee (PDRC) inNovember 2013, which, as the New York Timeseditorial board warned in early March, haveb r o u g h t T h a i l a n d t o t h e b r i n k o fdisintegration. 3

This polarization, once cast in the bright colorsof red and yellow, has become decidedlymurky. The yellow shirt protestors arenationalist-royalists who emerged onto thestreets in late 2005 and early 2006 and calledfor military intervention into politics in order toremove Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra inthe name of saving the monarchy. Thaksin’stwo governments (2001-2005, 2005-2006) weremarked by a mixture of populist healthcare andloan programs that began to change thesocioeconomic structures of Thai society,human rights abuses, and personal profit. The19 September 2006 military coup was ananswer to the demands of the yellow shirts.There was no evidence that Thaksin was adanger to the monarchy, but citing the urgencyof protecting the monarchy offers a convenientblank check for many extralegal actions inThailand. The red shirt protestors areheterogeneous, including populist fans ofThaksin and progressive, republican-leaningcritics, but share a belief in the importance ofmaintaining democratic process and equalsocial and political participation. These color-coded descriptions of both groups belie boththeir heterogeneity and the profound tension atthe heart of the conflict. What is at stake is the

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

3

very question of who should rule the countryand who can participate in politics. It is noaccident that the crisis in the streets is takingplace as the current king is ageing and a pathto succession, and an appropriate successor,remains surrounded by uncertainty. Thedraconian Article 112, the measure of the ThaiCriminal Code which criminalizes all speech oraction deemed to be critical of the king, queen,heir-apparent, or regent and prescribes apunishment of three-to-fifteen years per count,means that this uncertainty cannot be broachedopenly.

Suthep Thaugsuban, leader of the People'sDemocratic Reform Committee, addresseshis mass following.Photo Credit: Associated Press

The immediate impetus for the PDRC protestsled by former deputy prime minister andmember of parliament Suthep Thaugsuban wasthe October 2013 proposal of a blanketamnesty bill in Parliament by Prime MinisterYingluck Shinawatra, leader of the Pheu ThaiParty. For Suthep and many other critics,although Thaksin has not returned to thecountry since the 19 September 2006 coup,Yingluck, and the party she leads, the PheuThai Party, which was reconstituted from theThai Rak Thai party of Thaksin that wasdissolved after the coup, can only beunderstood as puppets of Thaksin. Theproposed amnesty bill reached back in time to

cover state crimes beginning in 2004, whenThaksin was still in power. If passed, it wouldhave exonerated Thaksin and all in hisgovernment for the Tak Bai massacre, a seriesof assassinations and disappearances ofactivists and human rights defenders, andmany financial crimes. The bill would also havecovered Suthep himself, who was indicted inDecember 2013 along with former PrimeMinister Abhisit Vejjajiva for premeditatedmurder for his role in the April-May 2010military crackdown on red shirt protestorswhich left 99 dead and over 2000 injured.

Yingluck Shinawatra, Thailand's caretakerprime minister, faces a possible judicialcoupPhoto Credit: Wikipedia

Slightly over a year after his first essay ontotalitarianism in Thailand, and a month intothe PDRC protests, Nidhi Eoseewong againturned to Hannah Arendt and The Origins ofTotalitarianism. In a December 2013 article, hebegan by commenting that he was notparticularly clever, because he failed to predictt h e s p e e d w i t h w h i c h t h e s i g n s o fto ta l i tar ian ism would b lossom intounmistakable totalitarianism in the form of thePDRC. Suthep and other PDRC leaders refer totheir followers as the “great mass of thepeople” (muan maha prachachon), without evena touch of irony. What Suthep and the PDRC

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

4

have demanded, from the beginning, is the fullexit of Prime Minister Yingluck and hergovernment from politics, the appointment ofan interim prime minister, and vague,undefined political and social reform to becarried out by an unelected “People’s Council.”They have promised to shut down the city ofBangkok until their demands are met, and havefollowed through with shifting closures of roadsand government buildings. No concession bythe Yingluck government has been sufficient.She dissolved Parliament on 9 December 2013and a Royal Decree was issued calling ageneral election was set for 2 February 2014.The PDRC prevented candidates fromregistering to vote in 28 districts, boycotted theelections, and in some instances, used violenceto intimidate citizens who wished to vote.Offers of dialogue by the caretaker governmentwere turned down and instead the protestsquickly entrenched in various parts of the city.Civil servants in many government offices hadto flee their offices upon arrival of protestorsand have been unable to return for severalmonths. While claiming to be devoted to thetactics of civil disobedience, some PDRCprotestors are clearly armed and havefomented clashes with both police and theircritics, with 23 dead and 768 injured to date.Guards at the PDRC protests routinely detainand sometimes torture red shirt and othercritics who come into the protest areas.4 On 17March 2013, the PDRC again rejected a requestfor dialogue by the caretaker Yingluckgovernment.

Nidhi argues that the void felt by the atomsthat comprise the PDRC is matched by the voidthey wish to install at the center of politics. Thegreat mass of the people disavows the principleof the democratic majority and is focusedinwards on their own lives and families. Thedirection of the protests are decided from day-to-day, to throw off the opponents of theprotests but also the atoms themselves, as “Anygiven project or plan turns the atoms intoindividuals, because they have to have one or

another firm principle. If the atoms begin tohold principles, and have to think either tosupport or oppose [a given idea], they cease tobe atoms. Then, the (great) mass (of thepeople) dissolves and simply becomes a mob inwhich each person has a different purpose….This is why the movement of the ‘great massof the people’ is only planned from hour-to-hourand must slowly advance day-by-day. The goalor the plan is to destroy the ‘great mass of thepeople’ itself.”

One of the individuals tortured by PDRCguards. Source: Prachatai

One of the ways in which the mass is heldtogether as it hurtles towards self-destructionand the entire society is through the violationof law.

For those who feel a void, Nidhi comments thatthe violation of law, “strengthens their beliefthat the movement will lead to something newand better than their old laws.” Some of theviolations of law, such as graffiti and vandalismin front of the police headquarters and othergovernment buildings are material. Yet theprimary goal of the protests represents a muchdeeper violation of the law. They desire theextralegal removal of the elected governmentfrom power and a replacement of it with anappointed prime minister and an appointedcouncil. Under the 2007 Constitution, thisamounts to a coup d’etat. From very early inthe PDRC protests, Suthep and other leaders

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

5

have called for a revolt (kabot) in order tooverturn the Yingluck government and all itrepresents. Fomenting revolt is a grave crimein the Thai Criminal Code, and in late 2013,arrest warrants were issued for Suthep andother key PDRC leaders. However, to date thewarrants await execution. Whether they havenot been executed due to concern about apossibly violent reaction by the protestors, orbecause the PDRC is supported by figurespowerful enough to ignore the law, isimmaterial. The end result is that the law isbeing emptied of meaning and force. Thedestruction of the law, in turn, leaves all ofthose in the polity unprotected.

On 21 March 2014, the Constitutional Court,whose ostensible purpose is to protect theConstitution, and by extension, the citizenswhose sovereignty is at its center, leaped intothe fray to aid in the destruction of the law. Inresponse to a request by the Ombudsman, theyruled that the 2 February elections were notconstitutional because the Constitutionmandates that elections must be held on thesame day throughout the country. As electionswere not held in 28 districts due to the PDRC’sboycott and obstruction by the PDRC, theConstitutional Court argued that the electionswere null and void. Two days after the Court’sruling, the Assembly for the Defense ofDemocracy (AFDD), a coalition of progressiveintellectuals, released a statement condemningthe ruling as legally incorrect and politicallymotivated.5 While the Constitution stipulatesthat the date for a general election must be setas the same date throughout the country, itdoes not mandate that the election mustactually take place on exactly the same daythroughout the country. Natural disasters,unrest, and other factors may ensue thatcauses the election to be postponed in somedistricts. This does not normally void the entireelection. But in this case, it caused theConstitutional Court to rule that the RoyalDecree which set the date of the election wasunconstitutional, and so the election itself was

therefore void. The role of the ConstitutionalCourt is only to examine laws and rulings withrespect to constitutionality, not political events.In voiding the election, an additional series ofproblems emerged. As raised by the AFDD,what has happened to the ballots of the over 20million people who did vote on 2 February? Aretheir ballots in storage in a warehousesomewhere? Have they been destroyed? Andwhat of the voices those ballots represent?Have they been counted, or not, and on whoseauthority? There is no existing Thai law orconstitutional provision which explains whathappens to ballots, and voices, when anelection is declared to be of no consequence.

A PDRC gunman hides an automaticweapon in a popcorn bag. He wassubsequently arrested and claimed that hewas paid 300 baht (approximately 10 USD)per day to work as a guard.Source: Bangkok Post

The problem with this ruling, the AFDD noted,is that the very body that is meant to protectthe people’s right to participate in thedemocratic process both acted in excess of itsmandate, and did so in order to foreclose thedemocratic process. The void at the center ofThai politics widens by the day, and this rulinghelps to create the space for an unelected

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

6

prime minister to be appointed. Within thisspace, the possibility for unrest, and thereforeviolence, grows. David Streckfuss notes(http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/401769/risky-road-ahead-in-avoiding-civil-war)that this ruling by the Constitutional Courtindicates that the space in Thai politics, alwaysdubious, has fully ceased to exist.6 The failureto acknowledge this is at the heart of theproblem. When the “great mass of the people”of the PDRC, which is an actual minority of thepopulation, and others who wish to be saved bythe “good people” claim that want an appointedprime minister, they do so under the sign of adesire for neutrality, the anti-democraticnature of their actions is both deepened andobscured.

Thailand’s future remains uncertain. Althougha new date for a general election to selectmembers of parliament has not been set,elections for the Senate, which is a body that is50% elected and 50% appointed, went smoothlyon 30 March 2014. At present, caretaker primeminister Yingluck Shinawatra faces potentialchallenges from both the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the ConstitutionalCourt which could lead to her removal fromoffice. One of the petitions currently beingconsidered by the Constitutional Court involvesboth Yingluck’s removal and the appointmentof an allegedly neutral prime minister, in linewith the wishes of the PDRC. Were this to becarried out, this would amount to a judicialcoup. While there is no Constitutional basis forthe Constitutional Court to take this action,events of the past five months indicate that inthis time of creeping totalitarianism, this maynot be an obstacle.

What makes Hannah Arendt’s writing sharplyresonant with Thailand in the present momentis her urgent call for the careful thinking in atime of crisis. In “Understanding the Politics(The Difficulties of Understanding),” an essayi n E s s a y s i n U n d e r s t a n d i n g(http://www.randomhouse.com/book/4704/essa

ys-in-understanding-1930-1954-by-hannah-arendt), Hannah Arendt wrote writes,“Understanding, while it cannot be expected toprovide results which are specifically helpful orinspiring in the fight against totalitarianism,must accompany this fight if it is to be morethan a mere fight for survival.”7 In the long fivemonths of the protests of Suthep Thaugsubanand the PDRC, anti-democratic vigilanteviolence has been fomented by self-proclaimedpractitioners of civil disobedience, over sevenyears of careful rebuilding of democraticprocess destroyed by the 19 September 2006coup have been dismantled, and civil war hasbecome a distinct possibility. With each passingday that Suthep Thaugsuban and the PRDCattempt to ensure a coup, whether military orjudicial, and the institutions, such as theConstitutional Court, meant to protectdemocratic principles fail to do so, the need forunderstanding and analysis of the elisions andreversals taking place becomes ever moreurgent. What Hannah Arendt realized, andwhat Nidhi Eoseewong realizes, is that if thestruggle for the future is divorced from astruggle for understanding within the polity,the resultant future will be shot through withan absence of either justice or peace.

*

Totalitarian Dictatorship

Nidhi Eoseewong

A translation originally published on Prachatai(http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3476)

Regarding Pitak Siam, Khun Nattawut Saikuaopined that there is no clear signal that anti-democratic movements can function in acoordinated fashion. Consequently, it isunlikely they will upend the political field. Butthey cannot be underestimated.

I agree with Khun Nattawut in every respect,p a r t i c u l a r l y o n t h i s i s s u e o f n o tunderestimating anti-democratic forces. But I

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

7

do not accord any significance to the movementof these clowns, at all. What should not beunderestimated is bigger than Pitak Siam. It isthe tenor in Thai society throughout the lastdecade, which may lead us into a new form ofdictatorship which is nearly totalitarian.

Let me first explain that ordinary dictatorship,which Thai people have been familiar with formany centuries, and totalitarian dictatorshipare different. In an ordinary dictatorship, anindividual or a group of individuals seize statepower and categorically close off all space totheir political opponents. They conduct thecountry’s dealings either for their own interest,the common interest, or a combination of thetwo. Ordinary dictatorships are backed byvarious power groups. As for totalitariandictatorship, it has to be supported by themass. Totalitarian dictatorship endeavors tocontrol the daily life of the people, or, actually,to control the brain, or the thinking of the massas well (it caused the German aristocraticgenerals to obsequiously listen to the orders ofSgt. Hitler).

There has not yet been a total i tariandictatorship, and many conditions make itdifficult for there to be one, in Thailand. To putit simply: it is that we are unable to “liquidate”a large number of people in the way that Hitlerdid with the Jewish people (and others). Or asStalin did with millions of people in Siberia.This is for the simple reason that we are notpopulous enough to be depopulated, or for thepopulation to be reduced by that degree. EvenHitler was only able to devastate the Jewishpeople after he expanded and extended theterritory of the Reich.

Therefore, the chance of Thailand becoming atotalitarian dictatorship is slim (even more sothan Thailand becoming a full-fledgeddemocracy). But there are some notablecharacteristics of potential totalitariandictatorship in Thailand.

I employ the work of Hannah Arendt, a political

th inker , in her book The Or ig ins o fTotalitarianism (and my own personalexperience, which has not aided in making memuch shrewder) to explain the unsettlingdirection emergent in politics over the lastdecade in Thailand. The trend is not limitedonly to the movement of the yellow shirts, butalso includes the red shirts, the multi-coloredshirts, and the clowns of Pitak Siam as well.This, in fact, also includes Khun ThaksinShinawatra, or even the political tenorpreceding him as well.

Khun Arendt’s theory of the origin oftotalitarian dictatorship is very exciting to me.Totalitarian dictatorship begins from the loss ofclass as the basis of belonging in the nation-state. In Europe, World War I caused statesbuilt on class to wholly disintegrate. Peoplewho no longer felt class belonging became the“mass” or unattached individuals who were nolonger connected to anything at all.

Socioeconomic changes over the past severaldecades have undermined traditional forms ofbelonging in Thailand. Families have changedfrom belonging within the broad kinship of theextended family to the limited belonging of thenuclear family. And even the relationshipswithin a nuclear family are not very strong, ashas always been mentioned by many about theweakness of the Thai family in various aspects.So, there is no need to speak of the belongingthat Thai people used to have with the temple(preceptors), with their friends, (If we have tomove to make a living, how can we maintainour belonging until death as we used to dobefore?), with their teachers, with their village,with their alma mater, etc.

If we are going to belong to anything at all, itseems as though it is to something as far fromourselves as possible. Such as nation, religion,king, or King Naresuan, Ya Mo, or Preah Viheartemple, etc.

The “mass” is being born or has already beenborn in Thailand.

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

8

Being an individual in the vast mass makes lifebleak, desolate and meaningless. So individualshave to grasp those distant things to hold on to.More importantly, these desolate individualslong to be politically organized, because beingpolitically organized provides them with a clearmeaning for their life. For example, they mustgo join the protest. They must wear a colorshirt and feel unified with people who wear thesame color shirt. Life comes to be lived tostruggle for things they hold to be of thehighest worth, whether it is nation, religion,king, or justice and democracy, etc.

Many people have offered the observation thatboth yellow and red protestors yearn forcommunity. I agree with this observation. Butthis is not community in its traditional meaning.This is a new kind of community that clingstogether via “ideology.” This is not acommunity held together by kinship and theuse of common resources as in the past.

When there is a mass starving for politicalorganization, just like this, a movement in thestyle of a totalitarian dictatorship can emerge.This yearning does not emerge without cause.Khun Arendt explains that the mass that comestogether as a “mob” (from Khun Arendt’sperspective, this is a group of people who wereagitated to become the leaders of the masses)or that actually, the majority of the mass havenever been interested in politics beforehand.They are people who earn a living from day today, and are surrounded by feelings ofdesolation, a lack of worth, and beingabandoned.

They feel abandoned by politicians, bybureaucrats, by the media, by everything thatcomprises their existence. Khun Arendt statesclearly that when the classes in Europecollapsed, political parties collapsed as well.This is because political parties could no longerbe the representative of a given group. InThailand, political parties have never been therepresentatives of any given group of people.

Bureaucrats have never recognized the mass.Both of these entities issue edicts which affectthe mass, who have never had a negotiatingvoice.

The media are interested only in the politiciansand the bureaucrats. Or individuals who dounusual things, such as rape and murder, orclimb electrical poles.

It is always said that that people who come tojoin the red shirt protests are people who arepolitically naive. In one sense, this is true.These are people who have not been interestedin politics enough to join demonstrations withothers in the past. But think about it again --the dames and ladies who join the yellow shirtsare the same. Each is a demonstration of thosewho have been similarly abandoned. Incontrast, the Assembly of the Poor, the anti-power plant group in Prachuab, the land reformgroups, etc., were all uninterested. They didnot join with any color at all. This is becausethese are people who were already interestedin politics and already politically organized.They could not be agitated.

Think way back, those who tied cloths aroundthe bellies of General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh,Khun Banharn Silpa-archa, Khun ChuanLeekpai, and Khun Thaksin Shinawatra werealso abandoned. Except they did not joindemonstrations to demonstrate against thosewho abandoned them then. However, what isnotable about this group is that they surrenderthemselves to the “leaders.” They did notpolitically organize themselves. They did notbring pressure to bear on political parties. Theydid not create media of their own to negotiate,etc. “Leaders” are their representatives. KhunSonthi Limthongkul, Khun Chamlong Srimuang,Khun Jatuporn Prompan, and Khun NattawutSaikua are representatives who can reachinside their desolate hearts.

If the only change in a society is from a societyof groups or classes to one of individuals, itmay not become totalitarian. Individuals in the

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

9

society must first go through the process ofbecoming atoms (atomization). That is, theybecome separate units lacking relationships toeach other or anything else. They cannotdecide on anything. They spin without anyintention of their own. They depend on the“mob” and the mob leaders to push them torevolve.

The desolate individuals, who themselves feelthat they have been abandoned, areuninterested in the collective (such as politics).What is important is their grave discomfortwith the conditions of their being. This is agroup ready to be transformed into atoms.During Stalinist times in the Soviet Union,relationships within the family or with friendscould become dangerous. Those accused by thestate of being a class enemy did not have anyfriends or family who came to their aid. Theyimmediately leapt to deny having had anyrelationship (with the accused). In 1984, evenlove was dangerous to the state. This isbecause love created a bond between twoatoms, unrelated to their bond with the state.Atoms began to become individuals.

I have heard of many instances of husbandsand wives, fathers and children, mothers andchildren, brothers and sisters, etc., in severespats because one side is red and one side isyellow. This has actually happened to manypeople in Thailand. Color is often pulled out tobe the basis of the relationship among friends.This demonstrates the atomization of a notinsignificant number of Thai people.

The purpose of “Freeze Thailand” was to cutand reduce the connections with anything thatseemed to be universal and diverse.

We arrive at the ideological aspect oftotalitarianism. There is none, or it lackssubstance altogether, so to speak. This isbecause it is not the power of ideology thatpulls the atoms into a “mob.” However, themajority of totalitarian ideology comes fromideas that thrive in such times. These are ideas

that can be simplified (and are simultaneouslystupid), such as: anti-Semitism, the reduction ofMarxist-Leninist theory to a theoreticalremnant comprised only class struggle,nationalist sentiment for Preah Vihear temple,Thai politics cannot develop because politiciansare bad, or “We Love the King,” which is notany kind of way out for the institution of themonarchy in the present-day world.

The totalitarian mob does not imagine that itwill come to hold political power (like the mobleaders of every color proclaim directly --whether it is true or not is unimportant becausethey are representatives of a mob that trulyfeels that way). They are the people who werenever interested in politics before. A largenumber of them are middle-class, from lower-middle-class to upper-middle-class. The mob isbored with politics. They deem politics tosimply be a series of arguments. Politics is awaste of time from their work earning a living,as well as something that destroys theirlivelihood. Therefore, if they were able toarrange the purge and elimination of thepoliticians, the mob would like to return hometo earn a living. The totalitarian mob wouldpermit the “good people” to administer thecountry, without being involved as well.

I think that all sorts of things in the pastdecade in Thailand could perhaps lead us intodemocracy, could perhaps lead us intototalitarian dictatorship. But there is no waythat it could be full in either way. There arecertainly many obstacles to both. But to keepgoing in this fashion? That is perhapsimpossible.

T h i s i s w h y I t h i n k t h e y c a n n o t b eunderestimated.

*

The Great Mass of the People

Nidhi Eoseewong

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

10

A translation originally published on Prachatai(http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3802)

Both in print and on television, I have warnedthat the (great) mass (of the people) hasalready been born in Thailand, and that themass politics of the people could take twodifferent paths. One path was the expansion ofthe democratic apparatus and politicalparticipation, if the apparatus and variousinstitutions were prepared to adapt. Or theother possible path was the emergence oftotalitarian politics. Without a (great) mass (ofthe people), totalitarian dictatorship cannot beborn.

In saying this, I do not want to intimate that Iam more brilliant or profound than otherpeople. I also failed to foresee the swiftappearance of totalitarian politics.

In the first article I wrote about totalitarianism,I drew on Hannah Arendt’s ideas. The politicalchaos of the last two weeks, and doubt andbewilderment as the movement of “The GreatMass of the People” of Khun Suthep unfolded,caused me to return to read her work onceagain. The puzzle which I am compelled by isnot who is behind Khun Suthep, but why alarge number of people (even if one does notcount those who were brought from the south,it remains a significant number) joined thedemonstrations against the government.

A totalitarian dictatorship can be born out of apolitical movement or it can emerge from thestate, a state which transforms into atotalitarian state. But in Arendt’s view, a smallstate without a large population, such asThailand, has no way of becoming a totalitarianstate. However, this does not mean that atotalitarian-styled political movement cannot beborn in a small state such as Thailand.

As I have already mentioned, the power base ofa totalitarian dictatorship is the mass. Thisword does not refer to any given people, but topeople who are free from all attachments that

they once had, such as family, community,locality, religion, political parties, and evenclass (even slum dwellers can admire the royalsand men of the Chuthathep family) [theChuthathep family is a fictional family of minorroyals who appeared first in a series of novelsand then in the last year in a popular televisionsoap opera—trans.] and have become singularindividuals. Ajarn Kasian Tejapira argued withme and said that individuals can still think forthemselves, and that to be correct, I should saythat they were individuals who split off intoseparate atoms. Yes, absolutely. They areatoms who are unable to think anything asidefrom competing in the market in order topreserve their lives. They are the center of theuniverse. For this reason, at heart, their livesare bleak and desolate. They search for themeaning of life and find nothing.

Thai society is undergoing a transformationinto an atomised one. The only attachment thatremains in the lives of the atoms who compriseThai society is the institution of the monarchy,for which there is “excessive” loyalty,especially among the middle-class. That themiddle-class have become atomised more thanothers [classes] is an often-found phenomenon.

This makes it possible to surmise that thecenter of the totalitarian-styled politicalmovement of Khun Suthep is in Bangkok.

Khun Suthep’s “Great Mass of the People” iscomprised of atoms. If they were not atoms,they could not become the “human masses” (inArendt’s terms). As they are atoms, they havebeen able to fuse into the “Great Mass of thePeople.” They were not fused together by KhunSuthep, no, they fused together on their ownand included Khun Suthep as well. In this, theyhave found the purpose of their bleak anddesolate lives: to be a part of the “Great Massof the People.” This mass has a life and mind ofits own, channeled through Khun Suthep. And,the “Great Mass of the People” speaks for all ofthe people.

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

11

So it is irrelevant to ask how many are in KhunSuthep's “Great Mass of the People.” Far fromthe number of 65 million, the population ofThailand. Totalitarian politics do not rely onnumbers, but for whom one speaks. Where hasthere been a totalitarian regime that emergesfrom the voice of the majority? Even the Nazis,who obtained a majority in parliament, beganas a gang of rogues in the streets and thenincluded groups of people who failed in everyaspect of life. Mussolini seized the state with aminority in parliament. The Bolsheviks were aminority, but were the representatives of the“Great Mass of the People.” The claim thatKhun Suthep’s mob is a dictatorship of theminority is right on target and likely pleasesthe mob as well. The entire movement isbecause they want to be a dictatorship of theminority, the dictatorship of the “good people.”This desire to be a dictatorship of the minorityis similar to that of the dictatorship of theproletariat and the Aryan dictatorship.

Totalitarian dictatorship, no matter where itarises, destroys the principle of the democraticmajority entirely. A majority that holds thatevery person is politically equal is the veryproblem. Everyone should not be politicallyequal — not when they have different levels ofeducation, hold different shares in the country,and view the collective differently. Those whohave allowed themselves to be swallowed intothe “Great Mass of the People” will be equalwith others who are solely concerned with theinterests of themselves, their spouses, andchildren.

This is why you should not ask about thenumber of people involved. The “Great Mass ofthe People” will not know what you are talkingabout.

When the principle of the majority is destroyed,it dissolves the legitimacy of the institutions ofthe majority as well. The government that camefrom the approval of the majority in parliamentis null and void. Even the parliament or

assembly that gave the approval is null andvoid. The state offices that are under thedirection of those who have become null andvoid inevitably are as well.

Everything is completely null and void. Oreverything has been cleared out for the “GreatMass of the People” to create anew, or for a“good person” prime minister selected by the“good people” to be royally appointed.

The objection that all of this is unconstitutionalis irrelevant because the “Great Mass of thePeople,” which claims to be the voice of theentire mass of the people does not intend togive legitimacy to the constitution, which hasprovided an opportunity for scoundrels to holdpower. This has not yet been explicitlyannounced because the time is not right to doso.

Why has the political plan of the “Great Mass ofthe People” not been announced clearly yet?Arendt’s explanation is very penetrating. Anygiven project or plan turns the atoms intoindividuals, because they have to have one oranother firm principle. If the atoms begin tohold principles, and have to think either tosupport or oppose [a given idea], they cease tobe atoms. Then, the (great) mass (of thepeople) dissolves and simply becomes a mob inwhich each person has a different purpose. Thefusing into the “Great Mass of the People”cannot occur.

This is why the movement of the “Great Mass ofthe People” is only planned from hour-to-hourand must slowly advance day-by-day. The goalor the plan is to destroy the “Great Mass of thePeople” itself. Do not forget that if there is aplan, when it succeeds or fails, then what next?The policies of the parties of Stalin and Maochanged every year, in order to make the“Great Mass of the People” always strong,alert, and engaged in battle.

Things must be found for the mob to do. Don’tsimply demonstrate. This is the explanation in

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

12

terms of tactics. But there is a deeperexplanation at the level of strategy.

Khun Suthep’s “Great Mass of the People” hasbeen criticised for violating the law in stagingan insurrection. Sometimes they may have alsobeen criticised for violating morals inprovoking violence. Some people have dug upand “revealed” Khun Suthep’s past in order tolessen the legitimacy of the “Great Mass of thePeople.”

Extraordinarily, Arendt points out that thisviolation of the law and morals is one charmthat causes the (great) mass (of the people) tocollide and fuse with the leaders. Many leadersof totalitarian movements talk about theirviolent pasts with pride. Khun SonthiLimthongkul admitted on stage how he hadbeen a “villain” (his word) and now he hadturned to dharmic practice until he was onestep away from Angulimala. My simpleexplanation for this phenomenon is that the(great) mass (of the people) actively abhor thesociety that does not bring them happiness.The laws and morals of this society should beviolated. This causes them to rise up to jointogether as the (great) mass (of the people).The violation of laws and morals strengthenstheir belief that the movement will lead tosomething new and better than their old lives.

A large number of those who have joined inKhun Suthep’s “Great Mass of the People”(discounting the mob that was hired and thepeople who were brought from his electiondistrict) did not join due to Khun Suthep’srhetoric. They did not join for personal benefit.But you cannot say that they share an ideologywith Khun Suthep, because ideology comesfrom pondering ideas and from significantargument and contestation. If they participateout of conviction of emotion and feeling, that isa reaction to being dissatisfied with theirexperience living in a society lacking anybelonging, and it is also a state in which theycannot see any other exit. Khun Yingluck, the

Pheu Thai Party, and Khun Thaksin are theconcrete victims of this conviction of emotionand feeling. One day in the future, the concretevictims of this conviction will may change. I amconfident that they will, and they may be thearmy or other institutions, such as thejudiciary, or religion, or many other possiblethings.

This is because totalitarian mass politicsinevitably and constantly needs to createenemies to function as the objects of hatred.

I may be able to refer to Arendt in order tounderstand Khun Suthep’s (great) mass (of thepeople) far more extensively. But let me stopwith simply this, in order to say with certaintythat Khun Suthep is clearly leading the “GreatMass of the People” in the direction oftotalitarian dictatorship. Khun Suthep is not thefirst person to do so. But it has never been asclear as it is this time.

How can we move away from mass politics thatare proceeding towards dictatorship? I thinkthat elucidating the illegitimacy and illegality ofthis movement is something that must beswiftly done. Not in order to accuse those whohave joined the demonstrations, because the(great) mass (of the people) will not hear us.But we must create greater understanding forthose outside the movement, a not insignificantnumber of whom also live in the atomisedsociety, so that they will believe that there isstill a democratic option, if we give it a chance.

There is a mob like the “Great Mass of thePeople” in every atomised society, but it doesnot invariably have to hold the power tooverwhelm alternatives in society like the mobsof Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or Mao. It dependson whether or not the majority of people in thesociety possess enough sense, forbearance, andunderstanding to not allow the (great) mass (ofthe people) to blindly lead.

All of us, including Khun Yingluck Shinawatra,in Thai society have arrived at a life-or-death

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

13

critical juncture. If all of us help support Thaisociety to break loose from the option oftotalitarian dictatorship this time, mygrandchildren and Khun Yingluck’s childrenwill have lives in which they can say whateverthey think. They will be able to oppose andcounter the thinking of other people, withouthaving to be afraid that the (great) mass (of thepeople) will punish them by blowing whistles,detaining, exiling, or executing them.

Tyrell Haberkorn i s a fe l low in theDepartment of Political and Social Change atthe Australian National University. She is theauthor of Revolution Interrupted: Farmers,Students, Law, and Violence in NorthernT h a i l a n d(http://uwpress.wisc.edu/books/4798.htm)(University of Wisconsin Press, 2011) and manyarticles and translations on human rights, stateviolence, and history in Thailand which can bef o u n d h e r e(https://anu-au.academia.edu/TyrellHaberkorn)

Recommended citation: Tyrell Haberkorn,Hannah Arendt, Nidhi Eoseewong, and theSpectre of Totalitarianism in Thailand, TheAsia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 12, Issue 14, No. 4,April 7, 2014.

Notes

1 Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism(New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company,1951), vii. The book is available as a free PDFor RTF file sponsored at the Internet Archive oft h e C a l i f o r n i a D i g i t a l L i b r a r y(https://archive.org/details/originsoftotalit00aren).

2 Nidhi Eoseewong taught in the Department ofHistory at Chiang Mai University from the late1960s until his retirement as a Professor in2000, when he was also awarded the FukuokaPrize. He is the author of over forty books andhundreds of newspaper articles. While most ofhis writing is only available in Thai, one of hismost important books, Pen and Sail: Literature

a n d H i s t o r y i n E a r l y B a n g k o k(http://www.silkwormbooks.com/each_titles/e_thailand/pen_and_sail.htm), has been translatedinto English, as well as several articles inaddition to the two reprinted her, including" T h e T h a i C u l t u r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n , "(http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue2/article_243.html) “Understanding theSituation in the South as a ‘Millenarian Revolt,”(http://kyotoreview.cseas.kyoto-u.ac.jp/issue/issue5/article_380_p.html) and “Mass Politics andR e c o n c i l i a t i o n . ”(http://www.prachatai.info/english/node/3527)

3 “ T h a i l a n d a t t h e B r i n k(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/opinion/thailand-at-the-brink.html?_r=1),” New YorkTimes, 27 February 2014. Accessed 1 April2014.

4 See “PDRC guards torture after finding a UDDguard before they threw him in the BangP a k o n g R i v e r(http://prachatai.com/journal/2014/03/52079),”(in Thai), Prachatai, 4 March 2014. Accessed 1April 2014.

5 The Assembly for the Defense of Democracywas founded on 10 December 2013 ,Constitution Day, and one day after Parliamentwas dissolved. Their first, founding publicstatement, issued on 10 December 2013, canb e r e a d h e r e(http://www.prachatai.com/english/node/3785).Their second statement, issued on 23 March2 0 1 4 c a n b e r e a d h e r e(http://prachatai.com/english/node/3903).

6 David Streckfuss, “Risky road ahead ina v o i d i n g c i v i l w a r(http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/401769/risky-road-ahead-in-avoiding-civil-war),” Bangkok Post, 26 March 2014. Accessed1 April 2014.

7 Hannah Arendt, Essays in Understanding,1930 -1954 : Fo rmat i on , Ex i l e , andTotalitarianism (New York: Schocken, 2005),

APJ | JF 12 | 14 | 4

14

page 310.