The price of still politics

 19 jul 2004

Because Thaksin’s style of politics is new in Thailand, it’s easy to imagine it’s new in the world. Not so. Governments which combine strong backing for business, populist policies, and repression of civil society have been common in Latin America for two decades. Academics label them “neoliberal populism” or “globalised populism.”

 One of these was the rule of Alberto Fujimori in Peru from 1990 to 2000. He was elected by a landslide in the aftermath of an economic crisis. He prioritised economic growth. He achieved an economic recovery. He gave powers to the security forces to achieve what is sometimes called kanmuang ning, still politics.

 Thailand and Peru have different cultures and histories, and hence the details of their political life are very different. But the comparison is still fascinating. Fujimori entrusted his national security chief, Vladimiro Montesinos, to manage the politics, both in parliament and outside. Montesinos was given a huge, secret budget to achieve this – about US$ 1.5 million a month at its height.  Montesinos documented his use of this budget in detail. He made everyone sign receipts, and kept them in files. He recorded himself on video counting out bribes: “Now here comes the good stuff, one, two, three…ten million!”. He wrote contracts detailing what the recipients had to do in return.

 Perhaps he needed this documentation so he could track of what was going on. Perhaps he needed the videos to blackmail his clients into compliance. Whatever. After Fujimori’s fall, a lot of these records have become public. What they reveal is the economics of achieving still politics. How much had to be paid to who. Comparing the sums paid to different clients gives us an insight into this “globalised populist” dictatorship. It shows who offered the biggest threat and hence needed to be paid the biggest bribes.

 Peru at that time had a full set of democratic institutions. Parliament was elected, and the opposition had a significant number of seats. The judiciary was independent in the European tradition. Media freedom was guaranteed by the constitution, and all the major newspapers and television channels were privately owned.

 Montesinos set out to undermine this whole democratic structure on behalf of his president.  His three main targets were the parliament, the judiciary, and the media.

Some MPs were paid a spot sum to switch sides, and then a monthly sum of US$5,000 to 20,000 to stay loyal. They had to sign contracts promising “I will directly receive instructions” from Montesinos. Judges got rather less, between US$5,000 and US$10,000 a month, plus payments for specific rulings.

 The press was managed in several different ways. Some newspaper owners were paid a lump sum of US$ 1 to 1.5 million a year. Others were paid piece rates – so much for a front-page headline, so much for a full article, and so on. Others were rewarded through use of the government’s advertising budget which, as here in Thailand, was a large part of total press ad spending.

But the biggest payments were for the five main TV channels and one cable station. The largest of these received US$1.5 million a month. In return, the stations signed contracts giving Montesinos total control over their political content. He held meetings every lunchtime to “plan what is going to be aired in the evening news.” And he had a team to monitor and make sure they complied.

 In total, Montesinos was dishing out around US$ 0.3 million a month to politicians, perhaps a little less to judges, and US$ 3 million to television stations.  On top there were gifts of cars, houses, jobs, debt relief, travel, and help with personal or business problems.

 The only TV proprietor who defied this regime had his life and business destroyed. Newspapers who were defiant were accused of being “anti-Peruvian.” Dissident activists and local leaders were dealt with by other methods, mainly death squads. Montesinos manipulated military promotions so eventually the top 17 in the hierarchy were his men, including a brother-in-law. Montesinos always claimed “I do it because of my vocation of service to the nation.”

 The most significant thing is that the largest sums by far were paid to the television stations – around 100 times the amount for an MP or judge. Montesinos believed that the biggest threat was not a few MPs or an honest judge, but the weight of public opinion. Newspapers were read by only a few hundred thousand people, but television reached 28 million. He said “If we do not control the TV, we do not do anything.”

 There was just one piece missing from Montesinos’ jigsaw, and this eventually was the downfall of him and Fujimori. This was a small cable TV station. Montesinos considered it too small to bother about. But also, the owners had a reputation for honesty and principle, and they may have resisted Montesinos’ bribes. Eventually this cable channel got hold of some tapes of Montesinos handing out bribes, and started running them. Activists set up large-screen TVs in the street, so the audience was much larger than the few cable subscribers. The news became so hot, that other channels had to follow. Montesinos was arrested, and is still in jail. Fujimori fled to Japan and stayed there. Both face multiple charges for corruption, murder, torture, running death squads, and overseeing drug trafficking. Peruvian prosecutors reckon they looted US$ 600 million.

 Of course, between Fujimori’s Peru and Thaksin’s Thailand the details of culture, political structure, media ownership, ways of making money from politics, and so on are very different.  

But the Montesinos story has a lesson which is universal. Democracy is very vulnerable to money. The big threats to authoritarianism are independent MPs, honest judges, and a free media. Of these three, the biggest threat is a free media, especially television.