From: ssg9328@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Samart Srijumnong)
Subject: Dhammic Socialism (9 & Conclusion)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 04:29:18 GMT
Keywords: Buddhism


At last, we have come to the conclusion of the article "Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's 
Dhammic Socialism: Lessons for Thai Democracy," which is written by Tavivat 
Puntarigvivat, and was presented at the conference of "60 Years of Suan Mokkh 
and The Quest for Thai Democracy" at he Buddhadhamma Meditation Center, 
Chicago, on May 29-91, 1992.


******* begins

......................


Dhammic Socialism: Lessons for Thai Democracy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     The signing of the Bowring Treaty between Siam and Britain
1855 during the reign of King Monkut (Rama VI) marked the modern
history of Siam with the threat of Western colonialism. Although
Siam managed to preserve her independence politically, the country
has gradually been influenced economically and culturally by
Western capitalism which was the basic drive for colonialism. The
1932 Revolution led by groups of civilians and bureaucratic and
military officers, which ended the Thai absolute monarchy and put
the monarchy under constitution, was influenced by the Western idea
of democracy and marked the beginning of new political system in
Thailand.

     Thailand has experimented with the so-called democracy for the
last 60 years during which time Thai politics has been overwhelm-
ingly dominated by the military--there were 17 coups d'etat or
attempted coups and 11 rewritings of the constitution. For the same
period of time, Thailand has also experimented with capitalism and
has been influenced by the global market economy. From the 1932
Revolution to the fall of Phibun's regime in 1957, Thailand had
largely experienced military dictatorship under democratic
constitution...(see note #1)

-------------------
[Note #1: From 1932 to 1957, Thailand had the interim government of
Phraya Mano Pakorn (1932-1933), the military-led parliamentary
government of Phahon Phonphayukasena (1933-1938), the military-led
parliamentary government of Phibul Songkham (1938-1944), the
civilian government of Khuang Aphaiwong and Seni Pramoj (1944-
1946), the civilian government of Pridi Phanomyong (1946-1947), the
interim government of Khuang Aphaiwong (1947-1948), and the
military-led parliamentary government of Phibun Songkham (1948-
1957).]
                                                ------------------

...and the economy of state-owned enterprises. The name of the
country was changed from Siam to Thailand by Phibun's government
shortly after he became prime minister at the end of December 1938.
During this period, the military--particularly Phibun Songkhram--
suppressed the institution of monarchy and "raced for virtue"
(khaeng barami) with the king.

     From 1957 coup d'etat led by Sarit Thanarat to the fall of
Thanom-Praphat's regime in 1973, the country was occupied by
absolute military dictatorship without constitution...(see note #2)

--------------------
[Note #2: From 1957 to 1973, Thailand had the interim government of
Pote Sarasin (1957-1958), the short military-dominated parliamenta-
ry government of Thanom Kittikachorn (1958), the absolute military
dictatorship of Sarit Thanarat (1958-1963), and the authoritarian
regime of Thanom Kittikachorn (1963-1973), with a short period of
military-dominated parliamentary experience between 1969-1971.]  
                                              ----------------------

...,with the economy of rising private-enterprises and capitalism.
During the same period of time, the Thai monarchy has gained
support from the military and wide respect among the Thai people.

     From 1973 student-led Revolution to the 1992 middle-class
Revolution...(See Note#3), 

---------------------
[Note #3: From 1973 to 1992, Thailand had a short period of
political freedom with interim government of Sanya Thammasak, the
civilian governments of Seni Pramoj and Kurit Pramoj (1973-1976),
the military dictatorship under "civilian" government of Thanin
Kraivichien (1976-1977), the military-dominated parliamentary
governments of Kriangsak Chamanan (1977-1980) and Preme
Tinsulanonda (1980-1989), the elected civilian government of
Chatichai Choonhavan (1989-1991), the military-appointed civilian
government of Anand Panyarachun (1991-1992) and the short-lived (48
days) of military-dominated parliamentary government of Suchinda
Kraprayun (1992).]
                                        --------------------------

...Thailand has experienced for the first time in its modern
history the people's revolutions both in 1973 and 1992. Although
both revolutions did not change the fundamental social and
political structures of the country, they demonstrated that common
people, particularly the middle-class, are increasingly a new
bargaining power in Thai politics. Thailand has had an economic
boom under the global market economy (dominated by the United
States, Western Europe, and Japan) with the widening income gap
between urban and rural people and with the destruction of forest
and natural environment. However, Thailand has experienced the rise
of middle class in its political economy.

     During this period of time, the military exerted their power
by staging a number of coups d'etat and through military-dominated
parliamentary governments. During the same period, the monarchy has
continued to gain wide respect and support from the Thai people and
has increasingly gained a negotiating power with the military,
witnessed by the king's intervention for the resignation of Thanom
Kittikachorn in 1973 and Suchinda Kraprayun in 1992 and for the
appointment of Sanya Thammasak as prime minister in 1973.

     The pro-democracy movements of the Thai people, especially the
1992 Revolution, has gained international support in the post cold-
war era. The 60th anniversary of the Thai democracy in 1992 may
mark a turning point when a more democratic parliament and a
civilian government may eventually begin to take shape. Under this
historical moment, what lessons should we learn from the history of
Thai democracy and the struggle of the Thai people for democracy,
an what could we learn from the Dhammic Socialism of Buddhadasa?

     The Three Revolutions in modern Thai history (1932, 1973, and
1992) were led by urban Thai people, especially in the capital city
of Bangkok. They were the "revolutions from above." The 1932
Revolution was staged against the absolute monarchy by a relatively
small numbers of Thai civilian, bureaucrat and military elites and
brought a radical change of power structure from above to the so-
called democracy with the constitutional monarchy. The 1973
Revolution was basically student led uprising against a dictatorial
regime; although it was a successful uprising, the movement has no
real bargaining power to establish a new regime nor did it effect
the change of the basic social and political structure. Again, it
was a "revolution from above," and soon the military staged the
bloody 1976 coup d'etat that wiped out the student's, farmer's and
labor's movements and returned to its domination of Thai politics.

     Although the 1992 Revolution was in many ways similar to the
one in 1973, the phenomenon of the Thai middle class as a new
social force has emerged. The social and economic structure of the
urban Thai society has changed over time for the last two decades.
The 1992 middle-class Revolution may bring a new face to the Thai
democracy and the business elites may have more to say in Thai
politics; again, it is the "revolution from above." The military
and the business elites from now on will continue their struggle
for power inside and outside of the parliament.

     The social and economic development of Thailand within the
global market economy in the last several decades has created a big
gap between urban and rural Thai societies. While industries and
services in urban areas have been emphasized, the agricultural
sector in rural areas has been neglected. Education and economic
growth have been concentrated in Bangkok and other urban areas,
leaving most of rural people, especially in the northeastern
Thailand, undereducated, poor and far behind. Tenancy and agribusi-
ness corporations have uprooted Thai traditional farmers from their
own lands and forced many of them, especially younger men and
women, to migrate from the countryside to the cities in search of
jobs. This social dislocation has caused the continuing decline of
rural social structure, tradition and culture and problem of
overpopulation in a big city like Bangkok. Most of the rural young
men migrating to cities have become labors and, in the 1980's have
been exported to work in the Middle East; while many young women
from the countryside, particularly from the northern region, have
become prostitutes in Bangkok and other cities.

     The widening income gap, as well as educational gap, between
urban and rural Thai societies has virtually turned Thailand into
two worlds: the world of urban rich and growing middle class, and
the world of rural poor. While the demand for democracy among urban
Thais is increasing, it still remains very low in the countryside
were economic problems are more urgent than political ones and
where votes can be bought and corrupt politicians can continue to
be elected.

     The Thai democracy needs a foundation not only from the
growing urban middle-class but also from the majority of people who
live in the countryside. For the Thai democracy to continue to
grow, the livelihood of the rural people needs to be dramatically
improved to reduce the income and educational gaps with the urban
sector. The Thai government, under capitalism and the influence of
multinational corporations, have failed to address the real issues
facing Thai farmers and rural people. The government development
projects only draw human and natural resources from the peripheries
to the centers, leaving the country people, especially in the
northeastern Thailand, in desperate poverty.

     In the declining Thai rural social structure and culture,
revitalized Buddhist tradition could be a solution. In the past,
before Thailand modernized the country under capitalism, the
Buddhist monastery was the center of a Thai village life. The
Buddhist monks were the cultural leaders of the village. Buddhist
Sangha (community) provided not only Buddhist teachings, culture
and ceremony, but also education, medical care, occupational
advise, and so on, to the villagers. In such a Buddhist community,
the spirit of sharing and cooperation prevailed; and the villagers
were independent culturally and economically. The Thai rural social
structure, with the Buddhist Sangha as the center, however, has
collapsed over time under the development projects from central
government.

     Buddhadasa's Dhammic Socialism expresses the spirit of sharing
and cooperation in such Buddhist community. As a social and
political program in Thailand, Dhammic Socialism, with the
leadership of well-educated and well-informed Buddhist monks, could
bring back the Buddhist community in the rural life in Thai society
and, within a new context, solve many of their problems. By being
culturally independent, Thai rural society, with a strong Buddhist
community, would respect its own tradition, culture and social
value. The Buddhist teaching as well as rural society's self-
respect and self-confidence would reduce the impact of consumerism
which in recent years has been exacerbated by the contents of and
advertisements in television, radio, and popular magazines. This,
along proper guide from well-informed professionals, would
eventually earn back the economic independence and physical well-
being that Thai rural people need. Under more culturally and
economically independent circumstances, the rural sector of Thai
society can take a more active role in promoting Thai democracy.
The task of rebuilding such a healthier rural society, however,
belongs to all Thais; with a pivotal role undoubtedly being played
by Thai Buddhist monks who are widely respected, who demographical-
ly represent the rural people, and who resides all over Thailand.


References
~~~~~~~~~~

Buddhadasa, Bhikkhu
1933	Nangsuphim Phutthasana (Buddhist Journal), 1st year, 1st issue,
	May, Chaiya: Khana Dhammadana.

1974	Prachathipatai Baep Sangkhom-niyom (Demoratic Socialism)
	Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission.

1975	Dhammika Sangkhom-niyom Baep Phadetkan (A Dictatorial Dhammic
	Socialism), Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission.

1976	Sangkhom-niyom Chanit Thia Chuai Lok Dai (A Socialism Capable of
	Benefiting the World), Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission.

Donald K. Swearer
1986	Bhikkhu Buddhadasa's Dhammic Socialism. Bangkok: Kokon Khimthong
	Foundation.

1989	Me and Mind. New York: State University of New York Press.

Charles F. Keyes
1987	Thailand: Buddhist Kingdom as Modern Nation-State. Boulder and London:
	Westview Press.


[Notes: Donald K. Swearer is a professor at Swarthmore College (sp?)
        and Charles F. Keyes is a professor at U of Washington, Seattle...
	the poster]

Newsgroups: soc.culture.thai