It would be very difficult to find anyone in Thai society who does not know Seksan Prasertkul, well-known former student leader, revolutionary, academic, thinker, writer, conservationist, artist, and so on. In the current political confusion, his thoughts presented during the opening remarks at the National Political Science and Public Administration Conference on 13 December 2007 at BITEC Conference Centre could perhaps help us re-examine and find solutions for the current political conflict. This is an abstract from a 20-page-speech.  

----- 

Seksan started with three principles of Buddhism to explain the current political situation in Thailand. The three principles are Annimittra, a Buddhist-Zen principle that teaches to look reality without using perspective, theory, or any kind of vision to frame it; Etappajayata, which teaches to see the relatedness of things which creates a certain result; and Anicca, which means the transformation of life. 

Seksan proposes that the central problem of the Thai state at present relates to power. This has different components - historical, economical, and social - that have led to the issue of power-politics in Thailand. The Thai state was established and formed in the Thonburi and Rattanakosin Periods. The incursion of world capitalism also played the role in modernising the Thai state; however political institutions and old cultures still remain in the process. The tensions within Thai society therefore are tensions relating to power relations, not production methods. Therefore the tension did not turn violent. Until today, Thai political conflict remains on the same path. Thai society is still following neo-liberalism and globalisation.  

The problem lies in which power in Thai society consists of a pre-modern political institution; which is a modern structure of political and administrative institutions and modern standards of righteousness; and which has a deracinated culture and international concerns, which Seksan referred to as post-modern. Political relations have therefore become much more complex.  

To Seksan, legitimacy of power consists of its origin, path, and procedure. All of these processes must be legitimate. However, the businesses and corporations that gained political power after the 1997 Constitution ignored these components, which therefore it led to the political crisis. However, the people still have some political space; so the elites have to stay within the lines, consequently leading to the existence of democracy. Seksan called this a consensus crisis.  

In the perspective of the former student leader of the 14 October 1973 uprising, there are two sides to the constitution. First the constitution plays a role in managing power relations among different elite groups and at the same time manages power relations between the state and the society. On the second side, the constitution plays a role in terms of reflecting political idealism. And both sides have to balance one another. In the 1997 constitution, there is the balance of both.  

Seksan sees that a more violent political crisis could emerge questioning the scepticism of existing state power. The Thai state has tied itself to world capitalism. The Thai state has the role in providing services and conveniences for investors, and also in suppressing the poor that are in opposition to the state's development path. Therefore the relations with the poor are in a patron-client structure since the politicians could not really push for policies which would solve the problem structurally. At the same time, Seksan is also sceptical about how much people in Thai society still hold "nationhood" strongly.  

With this scepticism, combined with the role of the elites on the political platforms, Seksan summarised that "the consensus crisis at the government level cannot be compensated by the legitimacy needed in democratic system". Seksan confirmed that he is pointing a finger not only at the group of persons that were in power prior to the 19 September coup d'état, but also at the differences arising from the absolute disparity in Thai society. He views globalized capitalism as weakening Thai democracy. The upcoming election would play a positive role only in passing power to the new government peacefully. He foresaw that politicians and the highest institution will quarrel less after the election.  

Seksan proposed that if the politicians want to receive power or legitimacy, they cannot expect elections to be the only means for the people to give them consensus, but consensus should be asked from the people according to each issue. For example if there is an issue that directly affects the people, consensus needs to be made. Apart from that power relations with the people need to be restructured so that people will have direct power, including decentralisation. This could be a way to counterbalance globalized capitalism. Nationalism is not enough in creating a balance.  

He stressed that political leaders need to have morals and skills in administration. He made reference to Akkayasutr from Buddhism, the concept of leadership according to Plato's "Republic" and the arts of administering people from Taotekkeng - a Confucian work.  

Lastly the former Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University invited the participants of the conference to use Etappajayata as a way of solving political conflict. This principle, to many, is a principle of flexibility and will not seem reasonable. However, Seksan confirmed that it is not a principle of pure flexibility without principle, but it is a way of looking at an issue from a wider perspective. It is an issue of maturity and growth, in which conflict will not go beyond the frame of looking at the wider picture. And conflict will not erupt in violence.

Translated by Pokpong Lawansiri