This post is a comment to Avudh's blog: Loudmouthed Samak - an arse or a pain in the arse?

.........

Although Samak's arrogance and loudmouth have a lot to do with his personality, I think there is something more systematic at work behind his behavior.

Looking at politics in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries, one thing stands out: individual personality matters a lot in politics! 

Thaksin, Marcos, Lee Kuan yew, Ho Chi Minh, Mahatir, Magsaysay etc.

One way or another, these leaders are/were “charismatic” figures! In SEA, individual's personality matters a great deal, probably because "party" or "institutions" are generally weak. 

Focusing on Thailand, I highlight below what I think have given rise to this fondness for charismatic, and sometimes rude and arrogant, leaders.

First of all, as mentioned above, the various "institutions" are weak. For example, political parties in Thailand do not represent any ideology. All parties are pretty much the same in terms of their policies. Thus, you can't rely on your party's ideology or policy to win votes, simply because there is no significant difference between different parties' policies! No matter how good you think you are, you can't be a "dull" party leader because you won't be able to attract people's attention.

So, if you are a leader of a party, how would you "sell" yourself to the public and differentiate yourself from other party leaders? Well, you have to stand out and use your personality to attract people's attention. You have to appear to be "the man of the people", daring and courageous, even arrogant at times. You have to show the people that you have that power to be a strong leader. That is, personality matters as much as (or even more than) policies in this political environment.

That's why we see people like Samak or Thaksin often playing down or saying rude things to the media or the academia. It helps build up their power status in the eyes of many people, especially the less educated and less economically sound.

Second, like you argue, the use of direct, authoritarian and "rude" language is indeed appealing to rural voters, workers and other lower class people. But why is this so? I believe it is because this is actually the way life is for these lower class people. For them, these "rude" words are commonly used in daily life and thus are not considered "rude". It’s embedded in their way of life.

Thus, when Samak or other politicians use this kind of language, it makes the lower class people feel like these politicians belong to the same group as they are, and that these politicians can thus represent and speak out for them. The use of “rude” language is thus an effective way for Samuk to differentiate himself from typical educated middle-class Abhisit, and win the heart of the lower class.

In my view, this phenomenon is thus another aspect of the gap between the educated urban middle class and the poor lower class that I talked about in my blog. While the educated middle class may find Samak to be rude and unacceptable by their high standards, the lower class might find his personality to be attractive.

Thus, although I dislike what he does, I could not blame Samak for his rude behavior. It is indeed not an irrational thing to do given the kind of culture and social structure that exist in Thailand right now.

What do you think?