The post-coup search for new Thai leadership
By Jon Fernquest[Introduction | Vocabulary | Article | Reading Questions | Answers]
 |
If you had to write a an job advertisement for the next elected Thai prime minister, what qualities, qualifications, and experience would you look for?
That's what the author of today's article asks the reader to do.
Today's article surveys the leadership of Thailand's prime ministers since the 1992 coup.
The article surveys their contributions as well as their deficiencies, and suggests ways that future leaders must emulate and borrow from them.
Thaksin's contribution was to use modern business methods such as marketing research to discover what the people wanted. He also created a vision for Thailand in a globalised world. Any future prime minister will have to improve on his innovations.
How would you write a "Want Ad for Prime Minister" after reading the three "lessons" at the end of the article?
Reading Questions
Here are some questions to guide your reading (See answers at end):1. What was prime minister Anand before he became Prime Minister?
2. What was Anand's approach to leading the country?
3. What allowed Anand to use a business and engineering approach to run the country?
4. What approach did Chuan Leekpai take to running the the country?
5. What were Chuan Leekpai's good and bad points?
6. What was Banharn Silpa-archa's approach to leadership?
7. Was Banharn Silpa-archa's decisionmaking based on policy thought out and planned beforehand?
8. What finally brought the downfall of Banharn Silpa-archa?
9. As prime minister who was Chavalit popular with? What promises did he these people? Was he able to keep these promises? Why or why not?
10. How has leadership in Malaysia and Singapore differed from that in Thailand?
11. What are some concrete examples of how Thailand's development hasn't been held back?
12. What was the problem with Chuan Leekpai's administration after the 1997 economic crisis that led to the election of Thaksin?
13. What was Thaksin's leadership style?
14. What new techniques did Thaksin use to find out what the people wanted?
15. How do Thaksin's opponent's characterise this new approach to policy formulation?
16. What important figures in American business history does Thaksin resemble? How are they the same?
17. How did the Robber Barons accumulate their wealth?
18. Would the Robber baron approach to business be acceptable in modern day America?
19. How did Thaksin's business style of decisionmaking ultimately conflict with Thai culture?
20. What did Thaksin do that all future national leaders will also have to do?
21. Is running a country the same as running a company? Is marketing enough in running a country? What were some of the costs of Thaksin's administration?
Bangkok Post Article: November 1, 2006
FOCUS / THAI POLITICSWanted: Leadership Thailand 2007
By PHILIP HALLINGERFollowing the 1992 coup, Anand Panyarachun, a respected business leader was appointed to become prime minister by the coup leaders. Mr Anand's style was transparent, technocratic and results-oriented. Although Mr Anand was a highly effective prime minister, his leadership by engineering approach was largely possible because he could ignore the political considerations that constrain elected leaders.
The return to democracy in 1993 saw the election of Chuan Leekpai, a lawyer and politician, as prime minister. He undertook the task of moving the country away from the path of corruption and military coups. Like Mr Anand, Mr Chuan was principled and trustworthy, but his leadership style was that of a lawyer - careful, methodical, avoiding risks, focused on the legal process of governing.
Mr Chuan's limitations as a leader were those of the humble lawyer. Although he was a convincing speaker, Mr Chuan avoided seeking personal credit or trumpeting his accomplishments. Indeed, he was so humble that one always wished he had a more effective PR team behind him. Mr Chuan was often criticised for the snail's pace at which his government made decisions. This reflected not only his lawyerly leadership style, but also the realities of the weak coalition with which he governed.
|
In 1995, when a commonplace land scandal erupted, his government lost public trust and his razor-thin coalition collapsed. Alternatively, one could say Mr Chuan's government fell due to collective boredom with leadership by lawyering.
In 1995, the forces of globalisation were now being felt in Thailand. New trade organisations -- WTO, Apec, Afta - were finding their way into the global vocabulary and reshaping Thailand's place in the regional and world economy.
Yet, as a nation, Thailand remained remarkably complacent, accepting features of globalisation deemed beneficial and largely ignoring those deemed inconvenient.
In the absence of obvious leadership choices, the role of prime minister went to Banharn Silpa-archa, a career politician.
Mr Banharn represented old-style Thai political leadership by back-room negotiation. Always ready to trade today's vote for tomorrow's promises, principles and values, policy pronouncements seldom complicated decision-making during his administration.
|
Mr Banharn was followed by a former general, Chavalit Yongchaiyudh, who also emerged as leader of a weak coalition government. Gen Chavalit's signal contribution was his effort to reach out to poor rural farmers who make up the majority of the Thai electorate. Unfortunately, although he promised to create prosperity for Isan's farmers within a generation, he never formulated a policy platform. Gen Chavalit's fall in the face of the 1997 economic crisis can be traced back to similar limitations as those of Mr Banharn.
The 1997 economic crisis was brought on by the inability of Thailand's political leaders to create a vision and chart a course for the nation's development during the prior decade. Comparisons with leadership in Singapore and Malaysia often focus on the stronger direction provided by national leaders in those societies. However, the more significant difference lies in the inability of Thai leaders to articulate and gain consensus on a compelling vision for the future of the society.
This lack of vision permeated and held back all aspects of national development. For example, even as the global economy was changing at a rapid and irresistible rate, education reform in Thailand's schools was plodding along at a snail's pace. Infrastructure development of roads, mass transit and airports was bogged down by corruption, construction delays and contract cancellations.
Political reforms were constantly hijacked by entrenched interest groups. And Thailand's cultural fabric was being stretched to breaking point by the influx of life-style trends grounded in conflicting global (largely American) values.
In the absence of leadership, the nation's social institutions were unprepared to cope with the consequences of rapid integration into the global economy.
In the aftermath of the economic crisis, the nation again turned to the trustworthy lawyer, Chuan Leekpai, to administer the ship of state. Even boredom was preferable to insolvency, and Mr Chuan deserves credit once again for steadying the ship of state.
However, before long the same limitations seen during the Chuan I administration surfaced, resulting in a ship of state that was stable, but not heading anywhere.
This was the context that led to Thaksin Shinawatra's election in 2001.
A former corporate CEO, Mr Thaksin led through personal initiative, marketing and public relations. Supported for the first time in Thai political history by a large majority in Parliament, Mr Thaksin's can-do, CEO-leadership style contrasted sharply with that of his predecessors.
Mr Thaksin was also the first Thai politician to use American-style, political marketing analysis of voters in a systematic fashion. He gathered data to understand what Thai people wanted, and used the results to formulate and market a distinctive policy platform. While Mr Thaksin's critics characterised his platform as populist pandering to the uneducated electorate, the scale of his success is undeniable.
Unfortunately, Mr Thaksin's reign as prime minister also revealed the dark side of democratic politics in a society burdened by large inequalities in education and wealth. Indeed, Mr Thaksin's behaviour was eerily reminiscent of America's "Robber Barons" - Morgan, Ford, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller - 100 years ago. This term refers to "businessmen who dominated their respective industries and amassed huge personal fortunes, typically as a direct result of pursuing various allegedly anti-competitive or unfair business practices". (Wikipedia)
Following attainment of their riches, the Robber Barons often entered the democratic political system where they employed money and media control to consolidate and protect their personal wealth. Sound familiar?
While the names of the Robber Barons of 100 years ago are familiar today as respected corporate giants, one wonders if their methods would be accepted today in the United States. With this in mind, the American State Department might wish to review American history before taking a "holier than thou" stance vis-a-vis Thailand's coup makers.
Mr Thaksin's background as a CEO, like America's Robber Barons, prepared him to govern by directive, rather than consensus. While Mr Thaksin's self-centred, directive leadership style enabled him to deliver results in business, as a government leader it resulted in division rather than the social consensus valued in Thai culture.
Thus, despite strong electoral support, Mr Thaksin's departure from accepted norms of Thai society eventually resulted in another coup.
|
When compared with his predecessors, Mr Thaksin accomplished enough to win the love of Isan farmers and Bangkok taxi drivers.
This, however, is a dangerous legacy. Political marketing only identifies what it is possible to "sell" to the public; in this case, an electorate many of whom lack education. Moreover, Mr Thaksin's ability to "deliver results" was overstated by the TRT's PR machine and came with a significant cost in terms of human lives, government funds and public morality. Governing a country is not the same as managing a company.
Mahatma Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." This applies first and foremost to leaders. One wonders about the future of Thai society if all citizens followed Mr Thaksin's example with respect to paying taxes, respecting the beliefs and dignity of others, and adhering to the law. Being a leader does not exempt one from responsibility; it increases the standard of conduct that one's followers have a right to expect.
The search for leadership in Thailand continues today, only with increased urgency. A few lessons come to mind as the nation ponders a "Want Ad for Prime Minister".
First, globalisation is here to stay. Leaders without a global perspective need not apply for the job. The days of selecting leaders on the basis of domestic political bargaining will only yield new political and economic crises.
Second, Thai people should expect the next prime minister to possess a clear and compelling vision of Thailand's role in global society. Any candidate for national leadership must also engage the public in discussion on the enduring values that should guide behaviour in Thai society, now and in the future.
Third, candidates should be able to translate vision and values into a policy platform and communicate this effectively to the public. Modern political leaders ignore marketing and PR tools at their own risk.
However, these political tools should be employed only after leaders have articulated the core values and principles that will define their goals and guide their actions.
Finally, 21st century leadership requires more than vision and strategy. The society's political leaders must accept the challenge to "be the change" they wish to see in Thailand. Only in this way will the nation produce new generations of leaders who can sustain Thailand's future.
Dr Philip Hallinger is Professor of Management at the College of Management, Mahidol University.
Vocabulary
want ad - a job advertisement, looking for a worker and offering a job (also known as "personnel wanted" or "help wanted advertisement")
transparent - visible, can be seen, not hidden (See Wikipedia on transparency in politics and economics)
technocratic - a person in politics who has technical knowledge such as an engineer, scientist, or progressive business person
results-oriented - someone who demands results from themselves and the actions of others
effective - works well, producing the results intended
constrain - limit
principled - has strong moral principles
humble - does not act like they think they are better than other people
give x credit for y - praise x because x was responsible for y
seeking personal credit - trying to get people to praise and believe that you were responsible for something (you probably either: 1. were not responsible, or 2. were only one of many people responsible)
trumpeting his accomplishments - boasting (spending a lot of time telling people all the good things that you've done)
a PR team - a public relations team
a snail's pace - very slow (like a snail)
a coalition - a group of people with different interests (who come together as a compromise)
x deserved credit for y - person x should have been praised for y (because x was responsible for it, instead another person who was not responsible was given credit)
articulated - expressed
a compelling vision - a plan for the future that people would believe in
engage the public - interest the public
razor-thin coalition - a weak coalition (that could break apart easily)
back room negotiation - hidden negotiations between powerful people
pronouncements - things announced publicly (in a forceful way)
a signal contribution - an important contribution
a policy platform - the plan that a politician or a political party expresses to the public
x can be traced back to y - y led to x, y caused x
chart a course for x - make a plan for how to achieve x
a compelling vision - a vision that is persuasive, that makes you want to believe in it
reform - changes that improve
plodding along - going very slowly (an inefficiently)
bogged down by - some great burden or task makes one go very slowly
x hijacked by y - x was used by y for their own purposes
entrenched interest groups - powerful influential people who have been around for a long time (who you have to make happy with your decisions)
grounded in - based on
cope with - deal with a problem (solve or at least keep from getting worse)
the consequences of x - things that are caused by or result from x
insolvency - bankruptcy, when a business doesn't have enough money to operate anymore
pandering to - trying to make someone happy to an excessive degree
eerily - strange (makes one feel uncomfortable)
reminiscent of - reminds one of
allegedly - people claim that (but not proven completely)
Robber Barons - wealthy businessmen who drove America's economy during the 1900s (See Wikipedia)
a stance - an attitude towards, opinion about
a holier than thou stance - an attitude that one is better than another
vis-a-vis - compared to
a consensus - getting most of the people in a group or society to agree about a course of action
articulating a vision - creating and expressing a vision
a legacy - what a person leaves behind after they leave (for example Thaksin's legacy)
a PR machine - the public relations efforts that someone makes to support themselves
overstated - exaggerated
urgency - has to be done quickly or immediately
enduring values - the beliefs of a culture or society that have existed for a long time
core values - the most important beliefs in a culture or society
Answer Key:
1. What was prime minister Anand before he became Prime Minister?
A businessman.
2. What was Anand's approach to leading the country?
An "engineering approach" that was "transparent, technocratic and results-oriented." In short, he transferred his business experience to government.
3. What allowed Anand to use a business and engineering approach to run the country?
He was not an elected official so he could "ignore the political considerations."
4. What approach did Chuan Leekpai take to running the the country?
He ran the country like a lawyer, carefully and methodically. He avoided taking risks and "focused on the legal process of governing."
5. What were Chuan Leekpai's good and bad points?
Good points:
a. He was a "convincing" public speaker.
b. He was humble. c. He never tried to take excessive credit
d. he never bragged about his accomplishments
e. He restored the country's international image. f. He increased the confidence of Thai people in their government.
Bad points:
a. He worked slowly.b. Without public relations work he only had a weak coalition, making it difficult to govern.
c. He did not get the public involved in new policies and visions for Thailand's future.
6. What was Banharn Silpa-archa's approach to leadership?
An old style of leadership that stressed private "back-room negotiation."
("...old-style Thai political leadership by back-room negotiation. Always ready to trade today's vote for tomorrow's promises, principles and values.")
7. Was Banharn Silpa-archa's decisionmaking based on policy thought out and planned beforehand?
He didn't formulate much policy.
8. What finally brought the downfall of Banharn Silpa-archa?
He didn't have the skills necessary to be the leader of a country in the modern globalised world, skills such as an understanding of economics, English, and international affairs.
9. As prime minister who was Chavalit popular with? What promises did he these people? Was he able to keep these promises? Why or why not?
a. Chavalit was popular with the rural poor.
b. He promised to "create prosperity for Isan's farmers within a generation," but he never formulated an adequate policy for how to achieve this.
c. Like Banharn, he didn't have the skills to run a country in a modern globalised world and his government ended with the 1997 economic crisis.
10. How has leadership in Malaysia and Singapore differed from that in Thailand?
Leaders in Malaysia and Singapore have given their "countries stronger direction."
They have been able to articulate a "compelling vision for the future of society" and gain a consensus in society for it.
They have been able to "chart a course for the nation's development."
11. What are some concrete examples of how Thailand's development hasn't been held back?
Development has been held back by:
a. lack of educational reform in Thailand's schools.
b. Transportation infrastructure such as roads, mass transit, and airports has been slowed down by: i. corruption, ii. construction delays, and iii. contract cancellations.
c. "Entrenched interest groups" have prevented political reform.
d. Thailand's culture has been weakened by so many conflicting "lifestyle trends" from outside the country, many from America.
12. What was the problem with Chuan Leekpai's administration after the 1997 economic crisis that led to the election of Thaksin?
Thailand was stable but not heading anywhere.
13. What was Thaksin's leadership style?
As a businessman he led through "personal initiative, marketing and public relations."
14. What new techniques did Thaksin use to find out what the people wanted?
He used the techniques of marketing research using surveys and opinion polls to determine the demographics on different issues.
("Mr Thaksin was also the first Thai politician to use American-style, political marketing analysis of voters in a systematic fashion. He gathered data to understand what Thai people wanted, and used the results to formulate and market a distinctive policy platform.")
15. How do Thaksin's opponent's characterise this new approach to policy formulation?
His critics described it as "populist pandering to the uneducated electorate."
16. What important figures in American business history does Thaksin resemble? How are they the same?
a. The Robber Barons (Morgan, Ford, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, Stanford), three of which have universities named after them.
b. After they became rich they "entered the democratic political system where they employed money and media control to consolidate and protect their personal wealth."
"Mr Thaksin's background as a CEO, like America's Robber Barons, prepared him to govern by directive, rather than consensus."
17. How did the Robber Barons accumulate their wealth?
By using anti-competitive and unfair business practices.
18. Would the Robber baron approach to business be acceptable in modern day America?
Probably not.
19. How did Thaksin's business style of decisionmaking ultimately conflict with Thai culture?
Traditional Thai decisionmaking is based on forming a consensus. Business decisions are passed down from high levels and cannot be questioned or debated very much.
("While Mr Thaksin's self-centred, directive leadership style enabled him to deliver results in business, as a government leader it resulted in division rather than the social consensus valued in Thai culture.")
20. What did Thaksin do that all future national leaders will also have to do?
Future leaders will have to:
a. Articulate a "vision and policy agenda."
b. Get the job done" like Thaksin did.
21. Is running a country the same as running a company? Is marketing enough in running a country? What were some of the costs of Thaksin's administration?
a. No, running a country is different. ("governing a country is not the same as managing a company")
b. No, marketing is not enough. ("Political marketing only identifies what it is possible to 'sell' to the public; in this case, an electorate many of whom lack education...Mr Thaksin's ability to "deliver results" was overstated by the TRT's PR machine")
c. There was a "significant cost in terms of human lives, government funds and public morality."
