In defence of the grass roots

The reason behind this abrupt declaration of a new linguistic order? “I am exercising my absolute power under Article 44 to ban the term ‘rakya’ because Thailand doesn’t have a class problem. No more ‘ammart’ [‘elites’] and the like.”

It was probably no coincidence that on the same day, at a separate function, Prawit also publicly suggested that “grass roots” shouldn’t be used to describe poor people in rural areas. He indicated that such a description could underscore the gap between the rich and the poor.

But “rakya” didn’t start off as a negative term for poor, disadvantaged or downtrodden citizens in rural areas. It is a literal translation of the English term “grass roots”.

“Grass roots” is defined as “people at a local or low level rather than at the centre or upper levels of an organisation or movement”. It also means “the lowest or most basic level of an organisation or movement”.

In political and social terms, a grass-roots movement is usually driven by community politics. The term implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it are natural and spontaneous.

In that sense, a “grass-roots movement” is different because it’s not orchestrated by traditional power structures. Grass-roots movements take on a character of their own because, in many cases, volunteers in the community give their time to support local activities that could help propel national politics.

But populist policies launched by Thai politicians aimed at winning votes among rural people put a new, derogatory twist on the term.

“Rakya” became a target of manipulation by Bangkok-based politicians who diverted tax money to local communities, known as “village and tambon funds”, to win their loyalty and votes in elections at local, regional and national levels.

The meaning of grass roots under these highly politicised programmes was gradually twisted to suit the politicians’ goal of drawing a line between urban and rural voters. 

The grand plan of the populists was to win a majority of seats in the House through “grass-roots” votes so as to fend off scrutiny about how rural communities were being exploited for the next elections.

It wasn’t long before the terms “grass roots”, “middle class” and “elite” were redefined to suit the semantic game of winning political loyalty. “Rakya” was pitted against “ammart”, while “chon chan klang” (middle class) was put somewhere in between.

Then came the blatant division between “amnart” (elites serving the establishment) and “prai” (commoners or proletariat). The paradox, of course, is that the populist politicians, by exploiting “rakya” with freebies and handouts to win elections, were in fact manoeuvring the whole political machine to make themselves the all-powerful “amnart” and ensure the “rakya” remained under their control for an extended period.

The premier, by accepting the tweaked connotation of “grass roots”, has apparently fallen into their trap. Instead of throwing out the term, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha should revive the original meaning of “rakya” by empowering the grass roots through all possible means so that they represent the real engine in ensuring genuine reform for the country.

Populism was misguided and abused. Dictatorship is disastrous. But there is nothing wrong with “rakya”, politically or semantically. Genuine grass-roots movements that reflect local aspirations and ambitions are the real force that could establish sustainable democracy that neither populism nor military coups can offer.