Populism by any other name is still populist

“This is not a populist policy, as I am not doing it for votes,” Deputy Prime Minister Pridiyathorn Devakula had rebutted at a press conference. 

Arguments for and against the measure have often reflected the prejudice of observers; some believe the cash handout is not populism because it is aimed at helping those on low incomes. However, critics see it is a populist policy because there is allocation of resources from the national budget for the grassroots people. 

The government also planned to unveil yesterday measures to mitigate the burden of para rubber growers from the falling prices. This move was also expected to be claimed by the government as “not populist”. However, some believe that Pridiyathorn should be told the definition of “populist” does not only mean it is aimed at winning votes. 

The Oxford Dictionary defines “populism” as a member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people. 

The word populism is derived from the Latin word populus, which means “people” in English (in the sense of “folk”, “nation”, as in “the Roman people”, populus Romanus, not in the sense of “multiple individual persons”.

In Thailand, the word populist gained currency when Thaksin Shinawatra was prime minister. His populist policies helped him win the hearts of people, especially low-income earners or the grass-roots population, which also translated into votes. His party’s flagship policies included the Bt30 healthcare scheme, village funds, and a debt moratorium for farmers. 

Since then, populist policies have become a popular tool for politicians and political parties to try to woo the electorate. 

The Abhisit Vejjajiva government spent around Bt18 billion to hand out Bt2,000 cheques to those whose monthly income was not more than Bt15,000. 

One of the flagship populist policies of the deposed Yingluck Shinawatra government was the controversial rice-pledging scheme. The project was blamed for allegedly inflicting huge losses of up to Bt500 billion on the state in two and a half years. Some schemes, especially the first-car and first-home buying schemes, were availed of even by some groups who were not really low-income earners. 

The current government of General Prayut Chan-o-cha says its one-time handouts of free cash to 3.4 million households of rice farmers at Bt1,000 per rai of farm land (subject to a maximum of Bt15,000) is part of its Bt364-billion stimulus package to reboot the economy in the last three months of the year. Total spending on the scheme is expected to be Bt40 billion. 

Some academics are ready to accept economic populism that is good for the country. However, many remain firmly opposed, arguing that though populism might be good in the short term, it causes damage in the long term. Some policies are likely to take a toll on the state budget and damage fiscal discipline while some might pave the way to corruption.

It may be fair to argue that Pridiyathorn is not promoting such schemes to woo the electorate, because there is no underlying political benefit for the current government. But at the same time, it cannot be denied that in its execution, it is as good as any populist scheme, even though the goal may be to help reboot the slowing economy. 

Undoubtedly, injecting money directly into the economy without middlemen would be most effective at a time when exports, tourism and consumer spending are slowing down. 

Why is he so insistent that the measure is not populism? Perhaps it is because of the negative connotation the word has acquired. The term “populist policy” (prachaniyom in Thai) became synonymous with the Pheu Thai Party and its political campaigns, which obviously is a taboo for the current government. But the real question is, is it just old wine in a new bottle?