Farming and Politics

I thought I might make an attempt to sort through some of the confusing aspects of Thailand’s political situation that I’ve been confronted with so far. First of all, Thailand is a constitutional monarchy, with a parliament and such. However, unlike many other constitutional monarchies, the King of Thailand still wields a great deal of influence and real authority. Thailand only began experimenting with democracy in 1932 when a coup by the military and some government bureaucrats wrenched absolute power away from the king. Also, the king is absolutely revered by the Thai people. His picture can be seen on the side of buildings, on billboards, and in framed pictures in an overwhelming number of homes and businesses. The people of Thailand regard him almost like a god. This concept is of course hard for me to wrap my American brain around since our country was essentially founded by rejecting monarchy in favor of democracy.

During his long reign, which began in 1946, the Thai king has made agricultural development one of his pet projects. He has poured lots of his personal wealth into agricultural research and has even developed his own theories on the best ways for small farms to become more diversified so that they can be better insulated from the tumultuous forces of the world market. It makes sense since most of Thailand’s population is made up of rural farmers, so the best way to develop the country is to help them be successful. On Wednesday, our group was taken on a field trip to see the Chitralada Royal Agricultural Projects, which is built on the grounds of one of the king’s palaces in Bangkok. It’s basically a center for agricultural research that showcases innovative farming methods and means of food production that minimize waste and maximize efficiency and sustainability. For example, they have machinery there that husks rice, then sends the leftover organic material to other machines that can turn it into fertilizer or a charcoal-like substance that can be burned in stoves. All the machinery and products were very clever. My favorite product was a new type of snack chip that’s made from spirulina algae, which is a hugely popular supplement right now due to its high nutritional value.

Still, as I wandered through the grounds of the Projects, something felt amiss. I felt like I was looking a modern Potemkin Village as I gazed at its exhibits. (Note for non-history nerds: The term “Potemkin Village” is named after Grigori Potemkin, who was an advisor to the Russian Empress Catherine the Great. After Russia conquered the Crimea, Potemkin had elaborate facades of attractive buildings set up so that when Catherine toured her new territory, she could see how the territory would look when it was “civilized.” Apparently she preferred seeing fake towns rather than seeing ramshackle huts and starving peasants.) From the introduction video that lavishly praised the king’s wisdom on the subject of agriculture to the exhibits showing how rare mushrooms could be grown, there was no mention of how this new technology was being implemented on ordinary Thai farms. The exhibits were much more concerned with making it clear to the visitor that it was incredibly generous of the king to set aside land on his private property to tinker around with farming equipment. Isn’t this machine neat? Can you believe how innovative we are being?

So, if all of this efficient, environmentally friendly technology is being developed, why isn’t it being implemented? Luckily, I got a chance to ask this question during a lecture we had on Thursday. The lecture was given by a professor at Kasetsart University, which is Thailand’s largest agricultural university. Let me preface my description of this lecture by saying that this guy was an absolute jerk. First of all, he showed up half an hour late. When he finally started the lecture he began by wasting twenty minutes asking us inane questions about ourselves such as, how big our houses were, what did our parents do, etc. His lecture focused primarily on the king’s agricultural theories. He seemed to think it was especially important for small farmers to have a fish pond and that they divide their land into specific amounts of different crops. The lecture consisted mostly of buzzwords and generalizations with little real substance. Finally it was question time (during which he was actually holding us over for the thirty minutes he was late). It went something like this:

Me: So how widespread is the Royal Theory of agriculture in Thailand? How does the government help farmers implement it?

Professor: Not very widespread, it doesn’t really work in a lot of regions of Thailand anyway. We send officials in to tell people about the theory and then they can come together and dig ponds and plow fields together. It’s a community activity.

Me: But does the government give the farmers money to help them do this? Do lots of farmers want to try this new method?

Professor: Well, there are some subsidies. Also, many farmers resist changing to the new method (duh, its expensive and radically alters their lifestyle).

Me: So what else is being done to help farmers besides this theory? Aren’t lots of farmers facing severe debt and in danger of losing their land?

Professor: Well there are many programs. For instance we have a competition to see which village can make the best whiskey. The village that wins gains lots of prestige! (This was his actual answer, I swear)

Me: That’s not really what I wanted to know. I meant programs for debt relief, loans, that type of thing.

Professor: (Lots of ums, avoids the question. At this point he’s making his poor assistant, who obviously didn’t speak very good English, try to answer our questions)

Ryan: So is the technology that we saw at the Chitralada Royal Projects being implemented on a wide scale on Thailand’s farms?

Professor: (exchanges looks of confusion with assistant) Um, I don’t really know about that. I would guess no, not really that much.

This was all very revealing. To think that this man had a PhD and was somewhat in charge of helping farmers improve their lives was disturbing. He didn’t seem to understand or to care that these crazy projects and this clever technology was doing very little good whatsoever. The technology is hardly being used outside of a little museum at a royal palace and the new farming methods ask farmers to radically alter their time-honored methods of farming with little assistance from the agency who advocated that they change in the first place.

All of this highlights the huge disparity between Thailnd’s rural poor and the urban elite and middle class. The rural population far outnumbers the more privileged urban population yet only recently have they been able use their numbers to their advantage.
In 2001, the rural population voted overwhelmingly for the Thai Rak Thai Party led by Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin had won their support on promises to alleviate poverty and increase healthcare coverage. He was reelected in 2005. After five years of butting heads with Thailand’s elite establishment he was overthrown in a bloodless military coup in 2006. This was the same time the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) became active in Thailand as well. They recently made international headlines for taking over Bangkok’s international airport in an effort to throw out former Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat, who is Thaksin’s brother-in-law.

One of the PAD’s main arguments was that the rural poor had only voted Thaksin’s party into office because he was buying their votes. This mostly came in the form of promising development money for rural areas, something Thaksin actually followed through on. Therefore they feel that the rural poor are too irresponsible to be trusted with the power to vote. The PAD was actually arguing that a much higher proportion of Parliament should be appointed rather than elected. But is it unreasonable for the poor to vote for the party that promises to help them and then actually does? The PAD also felt that Thaksin was making decisions outside the traditional framework, wherein the prime minister walks a fine line in order to keep the king, the military, and the elites happy. Thaksin didn’t much care to play that game and that upset a lot of people. In all fairness, he’s no saint. The charges of corruption leveled at him are most likely true, he was involved in suppressing the media, and he oversaw a very violent campaign to suppress drug trafficking. However, he did do much to help the rural poor even if it was only to win their votes.

The problems of rural farmers are therefore important contributing factors to the current political turmoil Thailand is experiencing. The elites, led by the king, feel they know the best way to alleviate rural poverty and they keep using the same theories and methods they’ve been using for years. When Thaksin came along and used different methods to help rural farmers gain access to affordable loans and healthcare, it upset the whole political order. He acted as if he knew better than the king and the agricultural experts. And what was horrifying to the elites was that the rural poor liked his methods better too.

It’s amazing that a simple visit to an agricultural research center brought all these issues of class, politics, and economic development into clear focus for me.

Well, that ends my spiel. I’ll be leaving on a weeklong trip to Northern Thailand tomorrow morning as part of our program. We’re going to some somewhat remote rural areas, so maybe I’ll be able to gain some more insight into this issue. Expect another long entry or two when I get back!