Noble ideas usurped for ignoble causes

When Thaksin Shinawatra was in power, he would occasionally drop the names of esteemed Western philosophers – in an attempt to seem intellectual, his critics invariably judged. Not always in context, Thaksin would refer to Baron de Montesquieu or Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The former made another appearance this past week when the self-exiled former premier ended a long hiatus from Twitter to 
evidently denounce the Thai justice system as tyrannical.
“Montesquieu once said, ‘There is no crueller tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice,’” Thaksin tweeted. His motivation was clear enough. Yingluck Shinawatra, his sister and successor as prime minister, had just fled the country to escape a possible prison sentence, just as he’d done nine years earlier. 
Thaksin’s invocation of ideas such as the “social contract” or “justice” was never to be taken seriously, since he was merely wielding them as linguistic tools. Thaksin is not just morally bankrupt – he’s also an opportunistic politician who unabashedly borrows words and ideas as a means towards an end. His priority is the pursuit of wealth and power, not the pursuit of noble ideals. 
The military junta now ruling Thailand, like those that preceded it, fares no better in this regard. Defence Ministry spokesman Maj-General Kongcheep Tantrawanich sounded utterly foolish on Monday when he told reporters that no politician or any other participant in the national reconciliation process is obliged to sign any “memorandum of understanding” as a commitment to the government’s so-called “social contract”.
The junta has revived the notion of a social contract, which gained  currency during the European Enlightenment, and it’s gone a step further in attaching it to proposals for the way in which our society is to be governed. A social contract is fundamentally an agreement between ruler and populace. The people promise to obey the law in exchange for good governance, including protection from external threats. 
But it’s obvious that skill in governing has not guided the junta’s approach to reconciliation, which has included an unhelpful public forum that assembled people fond of military rule – mostly government officials who’d been ordered to attend. Several suggestions about what’s needed for reconciliation were discussed. This is not what constitutes a social contract, It felt more like the generals telling the public what must be done, whether the citizens like it or not. 
Thaksin and Yingluck were 
products of an earlier form of that same social contract. Both had 
popular mandates to occupy the highest political office. They may have subsequently violated the 
public’s trust, but by the same token, voters endorsed no “social contract” for the military to seize power, 
govern, or be above the law. After two coups in a decade, it is appalling that the generals speak in terms of a social contract.
Thaksin’s other friend, Rousseau, famously insisted that no man has natural authority over his fellow men – and that legitimacy to rule cannot be obtained by force. The sceptic is tempted to reach instead for a copy of “Animal Farm” by George Orwell, a lesser philosopher but a revered social thinker nonetheless. Whether in the military’s shadow or the Shinawatras’, we realise we’re living in Orwell’s barnyard, and we can 
easily identify the pigs.