Morality and its place in Thai politics

General News - Saturday December 15, 2007

GUEST COLUMN

Morality and its place in Thai politics

SONGKRAN GRACHANGNETARA

The fact that morality has all but disappeared from Thai politics is obvious to observers and everyone living in this wonderful country. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources, vast sprawls of arid countryside and, generally speaking, a diverse but unified population living together in peace and social harmony.

However, when it comes to finding moral political leaders to guide this great country in the right direction, we have instead, as a nation, often elected or ended up with unethical and incompetent leaders.

This leads us to the really important question: Do we, indeed, require our leaders to act morally, or does morality have no place in politics?

Well, it was Thomas Jefferson himself in his second inaugural address on March 4, 1805, who stated: ''With nations as with individuals our interests soundly calculated will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties.''

I do not think many people would find many occasions to disagree with Thomas Jefferson, but in this instance I would beg to differ.

The notion that by pursuing our own self interests we are therefore always acting morally, seems to me to be a rather unrealistic and self-centred way to conduct yourself in a social environment. I can recount so many examples in Thai politics when politicians acting out of pure self interest have acted immorally, unethically and with total disregard for the public good.

The case of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his family's tax evasion schemes have cost Thailand billions of baht in lost revenue, which could have been directed to building much-needed schools, hospitals and various other projects for the less fortunate in our society. This is a clear-cut example of how self-interested politicians act immorally to the detriment of society as a whole.

But he is hardly the only one. Vote buying is also a political act done out of self interest and an act as immoral as it comes, an act which all political parties are allegedly involved in.

This is why I found the mass ceremony held at our most revered religious image, the Emerald Buddha, in which the leaders of all political parties took turns in swearing that they would not participate in vote buying in any way, shape or form, to be a complete joke, in which the only people the politicians are fooling are themselves.

I firmly believe a nation's political trends are governed by several factors _ the state of the economy, the vested interests of politicians and bureaucrats, the attitudes of the media, and many others. But the fundamental factor is moral: the beliefs people have about right and wrong, good and bad; their aspirations for their lives; the virtues they practice and vices they denounce; the responsibilities and obligations they accept; the things they feel entitled to; the standards that govern their sense of fair play; the ideals that shape their sense of what is worthy. Without the vital compass of morality, Thai politics will be like a ship lost at sea, heading towards the open ocean without any sense of guidance or an intended destination.

But to define morality is a cumbersome task, for even the great philosophers like Jean Jacques Rosseau, John Locke or Machiavelli, could not seem to agree. Then how would a mere mortal such as myself succeed in defining morality when others far wiser and more erudite have failed to agree on a definition?

Well, I offer this very simple explanation which I believe lay persons would adhere to. To be moral, we must know the difference between right and wrong. We must listen to what our conscience tells us. But how do we know that a certain action is morally wrong or right? The simple answer is, you will know it when you see it.

However, with the elections looming, all political parties seem to have decided that morality is too heavy a burden to carry when you want to win. Again, it was Mr Thaksin who epitomised the divorce of politics from conventional morality. It is even sadder to see the next generation of politicians carrying on this destructive legacy, where political parties will say anything, promise everything and deliver absolutely nothing but shame and heartache on the suffering people of Thailand.

This method of winning elections comes straight from the political play book of Machiavelli's The Prince, where he stated: ''A wise ruler... cannot and should not keep his word when such an observance of faith would be to his disadvantage and when the reasons which made him promise are removed. And if men were all good, this rule would not be good; but since men are a sorry lot and will not keep their promises to you, you likewise need not keep your promises to them.''

In The Prince, Machiavelli puts the case for political expediency in its starkest, most electrifying form. Here, he is associated with the divorce of politics from conventional morality; the justification of all means, even the most unscrupulous, in the quest for political power.

Machiavelli recognised the true nature of ''reasons of state'', the place of ''necessity'' in political conduct. According to the doctrine of ''reasons of state'', what is necessary to preserve the interests and security of the state takes precedence over all other considerations. ''Necessity'' knows no laws and morality has no place when the interests of the state are at stake. These arguments have taken a new lease of life in recent times in Thailand's political landscape.

In the face of the southern insurgency during Mr Thaksin's second term, namely the Tak Bai incident and his war on drugs where accusations of extra-judicial killings were rampant, upholding absolute rules against torture and arbitrary detention, rights to a fair trial, freedom of conscience, thought and expression has been dismissed as naive. Moreover, currently this military-backed Surayud Chulanont administration in the name of ''national security'' has justified infringing on these rights as a lesser evil, necessary to protect Thailand's security.

There is never justification for suspending the basic rights of Thai citizens. Our leaders should realise that Machiavellian political principles are simply not conducive to Thailand. What the people of Thailand require and deserve is moral leadership based on the principles of fairness, equality, liberty and the right to pursue happiness.

We are all far from perfect, but it is not unreasonable that those in public service, entrusted with the governing of our nation should be expected to act on a slightly higher moral plane than the rest of us.

I think Sir Winston Churchill expresses this most succinctly when he said: ''All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honour, duty, mercy, hope.''

I sincerely hope these words will eventually find a small place in the hearts of Thailand's future political leaders. It is better late than never.

The writer is a businessman with a background in international affairs from Columbia University and the London School of Economics.

Bangkok Post