New nationalism to defeat the white peril

13 November 2000

Last week a seminar was held, book published, articles written, and interviews given to announce a “new nationalism” to save Thailand. One page in the book is laid out as a multiple-choice question with two tick boxes: “Choose the future for Thailand’s children and grandchildren: a) being Tai (free); b) being slaves.” The page is signed off with a warning, “choose today while you still have the right to choose”.

Since the baht float, there have been many attempts to spark a nationalist wave. Businessmen suddenly discovered the language of Marxist anti-colonialism and inveighed against “imperialism”. Senators accused the government of “selling the country”. Organizations appeared with names like the Alliance for National Salvation. People handed over baht notes and gold bangles to monks for bailing out the economy.

At the depth of the crisis, this movement never achieved critical mass. But now, after the IMF has declared victory over the crisis and the economy is supposedly recovering, nationalism is coming on strong.

All three of the new political parties have chosen names with a strong nationalist streak: Thai Rak Thai (Thai loves Thai), Thin Thai (Thai Motherland), and Thai Maharat (Great Thai Nation). A year ago Chang Noi scanned the airwaves looking for evidence of popular nationalism and found very little. Over recent months that has changed. Two TV dramas have drawn big audiences by plugging nationalist themes. Khon Khong Phaendin (People of the Country) restaged something very like India’s anti-colonial nationalist movement in a local setting. The Tai country is invaded by foreign imperialists who get the support of greedy businessmen and power-mad generals. They are opposed by nationalists led by a Gandhi-like figure of moral authority, and by his appealingly strong-but-vulnerable daughter.

More recently Rak Nagara (Roots of the City) has been based loosely on the British colonial takeover of the Thai/Shan states a century ago. The old ruler teaches his children that a state is nothing more than its people, and that they must defend its independence to the last. Squeezed between the ambitions of British and Siamese, and tangled up in a romantic plot of extraordinary complexity, these appealingly beautiful children sleepwalk towards the inevitable tragic ending. Apart from these two ambitious dramas, there has been a clutch of Ayutthaya period pieces in which speeches about “saving the country” punctuate the sword fights.

How does this new nationalism differ from older versions? In European nationalism, the new nationalists say, the nation grew from an ethnic identity. This led to race hatred, fascism, and wars of nationalist expansion. In Asia, history has been different. States were formed before nationalist ideas appeared. Countries like Thailand are a mix of different ethnic origins. The nation is simply those people who have been bundled together within the territorial boundaries by historical fate.

But nationalism still needs an enemy, an Other. New nationalism’s enemy is not defined by race, colour or creed, but by power. The demon is international capital which has taken advantage of the crisis to invade Thailand on an unprecedented scale. Behind this demon stands the shadowy figure of America, orchestrating the economy on a global scale. Together they are phai khao, the white peril. They are helped by Thai politicians who “soft-headedly” follow foreign advice and allow multinational capital to “dominate the country”. The new nationalism is not racism but victimism.

The key principle, argue the new nationalists, is that the interests of the people bundled together in this nation must be paramount. The advanced countries pursue their own national self-interest, but label it as globalisation. They then broadcast that globalisation (=their own self interest) is the only alternative, while nationalism (=other countries’ self interest) is unacceptable. If other countries accept this, they will be dominated, disadvantaged, and ultimately absorbed. This new nationalism, its protagonists claim, is not aggressive and expansionist like the old kind, but defensive. Nor is it anti-globalist in the long term. Less advanced countries need to integrate with the world at their own pace so that they can participate “on fair and equal terms” and retain their cultural identity.

Under this rhetoric there are two important principles. The first is about the role of national government. Under extreme outside pressure, national governments see their major role as integrating the national economy with the outside world, and particularly with international finance. The new nationalists want to switch the focus back from outside to inside, from international integration to national priorities. The second principle is economic nationalism. The free market globalist model is creating an increasingly divided world, dominated by large companies free from any social control. A few benefit. Many don’t. Environments suffer. The antidote is to restore the national government’s duty to manage the economy. The new nationalists’ guiding principle is the King’s concept of a sufficient economy, expanded to a national scale.

Three main groups seem to be driving this new nationalist trend. The first contains selected veterans of 1970s radicalism. As Nithi Eoseewong noted, there was always a strong nationalist streak in the social commitment of that era. Now it is resurfacing. The second are businessmen who feel the management of the crisis unduly favoured foreign interests. The third are cultural conservatives who worry that the pace of change threatens Thailand’s ability to preserve its cultural identity. Three political parties had some participation in last week’s launch events, including a “new nationalist group” from the Thai Rak Thai (TRT) party.

There are lots of problems. One business supporter inveighs against foreign capital’s invasion of Thailand and then laments Thai businessmen’s failure to exploit the neighbouring countries. The TRT group vilify businessmen “who pursue self interest rather than national interest”, which seems a rather good description of their own leader. The supporters of new nationalism seem uneasily divided between those who want a strong state, even a dictatorial military state, and those who want more participatory or direct democracy.

The contributions are short on specific policy. The TRT group argues that the priority is to “plant the love of country in every person in every corner of the country” so that “the power to rescue economic sovereignty will grow of its own accord”. The whole effort seems heavy with debating points, and short on messages with easy popular appeal.

But don’t expect logic, consistency, clarity and detail. Many feel it is vital to prevent Thai leaders blindly following the dictates of international organisations. This new nationalism is the child of Michel Camdessus and the second Letter of Intent, nurtured quietly through the Democrat night, and now tottering into the daylight. Ignoring it, or laughing at it will not make it go away.