Urban
indifference to rural resistance
BY
PRAVIT ROJANAPHRUK
The
Nation. July 21, 2000
IGNORE
them if you like, despise them if you wish, and condemn them for being
foolish enough to be manipulated by leaders of non-government
organisations if that satisfies you. The truth remains, however, that
civil resistance as demonstrated by the brief occupation of the Government
House by Pak Mool villagers and members of the Assembly of the Poor is
likely to be here for some time, if not for good.
Civil
resistance is actually the other side of the coin of the dysfunctional
representative democracy that Thailand has become. When rural villagers
spend nearly a decade struggling for justice and still manage to be
ignored by one administration after the other, they can only resort to
wilder and wilder acts to grab the government's attention, as well as that
of the public.
Sitting
quietly in front of Government House means their demand and plight will be
ignored both by the government and the media.
Such
a sense of apathy and indifferences was witnessed when 200 peaceful female
workers were beaten up by hired thugs while protesting inside their Thai
Durable Textile (TDT) factory less than a month ago. They went to
Government House, peacefully - no news and nothing came out of it.
Incredibly,
the police didn't manage to arrest any of these thugs - except one, who
was later released without charge. And the plight of TDT union members was
largely ignored by the media. Their grievances were unheard despite union
efforts to protest peacefully in front of Government House.
They
really became news when co-workers from other factories marched to their
worksite and thus blocked the road, which started affecting car drivers.
Besides the brief media exposure through the traffic snarl, the workers
were largely disregarded.
In
the end they decided to march to the headquarters of different news
organisations to make their plight publicly known. And yet they're still
calling for justice today, albeit silently and oblivious to the public at
large.
The
middle class and the elite have different ways of addressing their
grievances because they have the cash and connections to smooth things
down.
The
poor and downtrodden do not. It's a reflection of how the present
pseudo-democracy does not respond to the poor.
The
use of force by the government in the case of the Pak Mool protest has
already been widely condemned and reflects how hard dictatorial mindsets
persist, despite the self-proclaimed democratic and elected regime
governing under a progressive Constitution.
There
is no reason to believe joining such protests for years on end is fun or
comfortable. All Bangkokians need to do is to drop by Government House and
talk to a few of these villagers to find out.
Nevertheless,
the call by some scholars such as Professor Nidhi Eoseewong of Chiang Mai
University to have Bangkokians support the protesters seems to have been
largely met with silence, if not indifference.
Many
will argue: How can Bangkokians support unlawful acts? After all, these
people invaded and briefly occupied Government House - for the second
time, that is. Can anyone imagine the White House or 10 Downing Street
being invaded?
To
some, it may come down to the strict rule of law. To others, it may be the
intention of the protesters and the larger context of the protest that
counts.
Bangkokians
may ask how they can possibly differentiate an act of lawlessness, from
civil resistance.
Michael
Randle, author of "Civil Resistance" points out two important
characteristics of civil resistance. First, it is a collective action, and
second, it avoids any systematic recourse to violence.
"This
is differentiated from individual dissent on one hand and forms of
collective resistance involving military action on the other," Randle
wrote.
The
author warned, however, that civil resistance actions could backfire if
they did not enjoy public support.
"If
they are used in circumstances where they cannot be justified, and
especially where they are widely regarded within the society as
unacceptable, they are unlikely to be effective," Randle explained.
"Moreover, the disapproval of the public will strengthen the
government's hand in using force to repress its opponents."
So,
now it's up to Bangkokians and how they can or cannot relate to the rural
poor.
In
a way, we can't really blame them for descending on Bangkok. For this city
has accumulated so much it's become the centre of virtually everything:
politics, economics, education, pollution, delusion, media, health care,
cars, crime and you name it.
While
we and the Bangkok-centred national media spend a staggering amount of
time and attention on the upcoming Bangkok governor's election, hardly any
Bangkokians or media organisations question why Bangkok is still the only
place where Thais have the right to choose their governor.
What
is the difference between the May 1992 uprising and the intrusion into
Government House on Sunday?
Is
it the fact that over 3,000 were arrested in 1992, while only over 200
were arrested on Monday? Or was it that one was mostly a protest led by
the urban middle-class, while the other was by poor rural villagers?
It's
not easy for Bangkokians who have nothing to do with the rural protesters,
except insist on their right to consume electricity, to take sides.
Some
claim the best they can do, is to do nothing.
But
by doing nothing, Bangkokians only end up supporting the ongoing
systematic disintegration of the rural life, and gross violations of
workers' rights.
The
villagers are fighting for their rural way of life, while TDT workers are
fighting for the right to belong to unions and participate in factory
management.
This
in turn further threatens the fragile security and sanity of Bangkok.
Failed
people's movements and labour unions mean more people will become
desperate.
And
who knows what desperate and oppressed people may resort to?
Thai
society will become even more divided between urban and rural, rich and
poor - Bangkok and the rest.
More
security guards will be needed to help protect the Bangkokians' way of
life. Not all of the rural poor or formerly rural but still poor will
threaten Bangkok's lifestyle, however, for in a twist of irony the many
security guards working in Bangkok will still be coming from those rural
poor who have nowhere else to go. |
