Grumpy Prayut versus over-dramatic headline writers

Which leaves us wondering if he knows what it is that we like and don’t like. Governing a country should be the other way round, shouldn’t it? In other words, the ruler should strive to serve the citizens and keep what he doesn’t like to himself.

That’s democratic, and Prayut is anything but, say his critics, who must be rubbing their hands in glee. Accepting Prayut means accepting that he doesn’t like to see such words as “fung” (babbling about pipe dreams) or “woe” (boasting) in newspaper headlines, or the name or pictures of Thaksin Shinawatra on the front pages. In short, Thais are getting what they deserve.

There are two ways to look at it. Prayut is either demonstrating, slowly but surely, his dictatorial traits, or he is simply speaking his heart and showing he’s not a used-car salesman. But Thai politics demands that Prayut be less straightforward or demanding. According to the general himself, he did not stage the coup in May to kill off democracy, but to fix a broken parliamentary system threatened by the prospect of civil war.

What he said in Italy was basically that he still cherished genuine democratic values. Whether he genuinely understands democracy is another matter, though. Bad democracy comes in many forms – the one that spawns corruption and tyranny of the majority, or the one that abuses human rights under the guise of national security, or the one that selectively promotes freedom of expression. If Prayut wants to restore Thailand’s democracy and nurse it to good health, he must know what lines are not to be crossed.

Banning political gatherings is not democratic, but, given the bloodshed, violence and major disruption in the city during protests in 2010 and earlier this year, it is understandable. TV blackouts and website blockades are not democratic, either, but they have swept a large chunk of hate speech from the airwaves and cyberspace. Soldiers and bunkers on the streets are a bad advertisement for Thailand, but in the days when they were nowhere to be seen, bombs exploded regularly at political rallies.

Prayut can prove that he staged the coup to deal with the violence, bloodshed and hate speech, or he can have critics point at his media “dictation” and suggest other motives. But in truth, it’s not the critics that he should be worried about. There are genuine fans of his whom have begun to wonder if he’s letting his ego get the better of him. Good leaders try to solve a crisis using only necessary measures; bad leaders often start out as good ones but get lost along the way, becoming paranoid and masking it with words as pre-emptive action.

The Thai media are not the most eloquent or the fairest. But it’s their freedom to use words like “fung” or “woe” that has brought to public attention things that the powers-that-be tried to brush under the rug. In a country where the anti-corruption mechanism is far from perfect and often jammed by political influence, “lopsided” coverage actually has some merit. It keeps everybody on their toes. When “fault-finders” are lurking out there, you’d better watch your back and stay absolutely clean.

Which brings us to what Thais really like. We like and want an absolutely clean politics. And since the “reform” pledged by Prayut still seems a long way off, we still need our “imperfect” media, divided and provocative as it is, to function the way it used to. Nobody likes everything the media says, but everyone will hate it more if it says nothing at all.

Last but not least, Prayut can’t make Thaksin disappear simply by asking the media not to write about him. And, for purely tactical reasons, if Prayut understands today’s politics thoroughly, he will appreciate the difference between Thaksin appearing on the front pages regularly and him emerging only once every two months. It’s a no-brainer which has a bigger impact. Strategically speaking, Prayut wouldn’t want Thaksin to play hard-to-get with the media.

Another word Prayut doesn’t like is “heum” (a popular headline verb which can be roughly translated as “to say something in a threatening manner”. For example: NCPO “heum” that planned rallies are illegal. If he knew how headline writers work, he would realise that their rule of thumb is “the shorter, the better”. “Heum” is shorter than “tuen” (to warn) when written in Thai.

Granted, “heum” sounds more aggressive than “tuen”, but Prayut can’t have the best of both worlds. The newspapers may be just helping him to say out loud what’s in his mind. You can’t beg people not to rally; you have to bang the table and yell “No rally!” It’s as simple as that.

So, ideologically, strategically and realistically, Prayut should not even think about removing those words from the front pages. And make no mistake, it’s not that Thais like those words. It’s just that the public don’t like it if leaders go too far in imposing what they like and what they don’t.