Obama Symbol of Hope

If fear was the currency of Bush's presidency, then hope will be that of Obama's.

On a clear, cold day in Washington, looking at times stern and Presidential, at others smiling, relaxed and fatherly, Obama ushered in a new spirit of inspiration, energy and change in America.

His inauguration, a blend of glitz, glamour and nervous ritual, was watched by a jubilant and relieved planet; keen to herald in Obama and perhaps even keener to bid farewell to the destructive rhetoric and policies of the Bush era, which will likely go down in history as one of the darkest chapters of American history.

Where once the word terror peppered the ragged oratory of Bush, Obama, silver-tongued, his voice booming across the Capitol, spoke eloquently of America's fist being at last unclenched, of a new America committed to rebuilding itself in accord with the morally charged vision of its founding fathers.

Embarrassed and deflated by its failures on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, dishonoured by its arrogant abandonment of once-cherished judicial values and shamed by the excesses and dishonesty which have so completely infected its financial system, America today is a shadow of the superpower that once proudly cast itself as the policeman of the planet; the only superpower willing to use its might in the name of right.

Obama, his breath forming tiny white clouds in the chill air of Washington, declared boldly to the millions listening that he would restore America's pride and honour. He promised to realign his nation's policies with the norms of justice that were once the pillars of its system and to move away from the politics of vengeance that characterised the government of George W. Bush.

To many, especially the descendants of America's slaves, the scene must have seemed surreal. Many sobbed tears of joy as they watched Obama. A black man taking his oath as the 44th President in a city where, as Obama noted, just 60 years ago his father would not even have been served in a restaurant. What more powerful an image of change could there have been than a black man taking over the Presidency from a white Texan and scion of America's political elite?This was truly, as Obama's election slogan so aptly put it, 'change we can believe in'.

As we watched the military helicopter carry Bush into a sombre corner of our memory, one could not help but feel the freshness, optimism, intelligence and humanity that Obama brings to America's highest office. His family looking on adoringly, glowed with pride. Their love and intimacy, captured live on our screens, looks authentic, unforced, genuine.

Finally, one cannot help but believe, or hope at least, that a man whose roots combine oppression, globalism and struggle, a man who has overcome the bitterness of his past and the obstacles that discrimination undoubtedly placed in his way will be better able to understand the needs, fears and aspirations of the many millions of lives his future decisions may affect.

Radio Waves Deepen Thailand's Divide

On the surface, life is normal in Bangkok.

This morning I sat in a traffic jam in a taxi as I have done on so many mornings in this city.

Motorcycles zipped past inches from my window. Neat lines of cars, trundling to work, shimmered in the morning heat haze.

Just as my mind was beginning to grapple with the boredom of my predicament, I became aware of a voice, calm and even in its tone, crackling over the radio. "Aphisit Vejajiva is not a person," said the voice. "The supporters of the democrats are animals."

I can't remember all of the exact words that drifted from the taxi's cheap radio speakers, but I do remember that they were loaded with hatred and menace.

"What radio station is this," I asked my imperturbable driver who seemed as impervious to the invective pouring from his speakers as he was to the mayhem on the streets around him. "Oh this is the taxi radio station," he explained, deadpan. "It's the red shirts' station."

My Thai is good enough now that I feel the weight of words. Phrases emerging from a taxi's radio snag easily in my mind.

I remember thinking how the menace in the words I was hearing reminded me of a scene in Hotel Rwanda, a film set during that country's horrific genocide.

Early on in the film, when the majority Hutus are goading their supporters into killing members of the Tutsi tribe, a voice is heard over a car radio: "“Why do we hate the Tutsis? They are cockroaches…," it says.

Those words were apparently repeated word for word from an actual broadcast on national radio in Rwanda at that time. The ensuing bloodbath and genocide of the Tutsi is one of the great tragedies of modern history.

I was struck by how similar, in essence, the Rwandan broadcast was to what I was hearing on the taxi's radio in Bangkok. The comparison is chilling indeed.

I'm not suggesting that Thailand is about to descend into bloody anarchy on the scale of Rwanda, but the use of radio and television is one of the most powerful means of reaching directly into people's hearts and minds.

Dehumanisation is also one of the best ways of preparing fighters for battle. The subtext behind the broadcast I heard this morning could easily be: The man you are about to hurt or kill is not like you. He is not human. He's just a 'cockroach' or an 'animal'.

Dehumanisation is a tool of war and a justification for cruelty. It was used by the Nazis, who viewed their Jewish victims as sub human. It was even used by a famous Thai monk, called Phra Kittivuttho, who argued in 1976 that it was right for Buddhists to kill leftists because they were enemies of the nation, religion and the monarchy.

"Such killings are not the killing of persons," he claimed. "Because whoever destroys the nation, religion and monarchy are not a whole person, but, evil. Our intention must be not to kill people but to kill the Devil. It is the duty of all Thai... It is like when we kill a fish to make curry to place in the alms bowl for a monk. There is certainly demerit in killing the fish, but when we place it in the alms bowl of a monk we gain much greater merit."

The apparent banality of a radio show blaring in a taxi cab in a traffic jam contrasts starkly with the violence of the ideas and thoughts being propagated over the airwaves.

We are again witnessing the same cycle of incitement and rabble rousing that characterised the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which became famous for its use of satellite TV and radio broadcasts.

The relentlessness of the broadcast I heard as I sat in the traffic was hypnotic, chant-like. It was as if you listened to it long enough, like one of those catchy tunes that gets aired incessantly, it would lodge in your brain. It was like a sermon teaching its listeners how to hate.

If one ignores the substance of the arguments on both sides of Thailand's political divide, there should be real concern that the country is continuing along a path of divisiveness in which the opposing groups are using propaganda techniques designed to prepare their supporters for eventual combat.

I can only hope that the Thais will invoke their miraculous ability to pull back from the brink of disaster and thereby avoid the violence which seems to be one of the logical conclusions to the current situation.

The Roots of Thailand's Turmoil

Even with Abhisit Vejajiva at the helm of government, few believe that Thailand's youngest ever Prime Minister, Eton educated and Oxford graduated as he may be, can calm the political turbulence that continues to batter Thailand's democracy.

With his boyish looks and impeccable pedigree, Abhisit was clearly born to lead. Yet while his polish, breeding and academic credentials may make him a seemingly ideal Premier - a man cut from finer cloth than most of his roguish political contemporaries - Abhisit is far from being the unifying figure Thailand needs to navigate through the current crisis.

An almost flawless embodiment of Thailand's privileged, paternalistic and often foreign educated 'high society'; Abhisit's formative experiences are a universe removed from the majority of people he will rule. Though he may have the allure of a Thai-style Obama, Abhisit, youthful and eloquent as he is, remains an icon of elite power.

His accession to the premiership, the result of political horsetrading in the aftermath of the collapse of the previous government, shines a spotlight on the mounting tensions between the concentrated power of privilege in Thailand and the increasingly urgent pressure for popular participation from below.

Such tensions, which are now challenging the stage-managed appearances of democracy, are arguably the most significant underlying factors behind Thailand's ongoing crisis.

In its coverage of recent street demonstrations, the Western media has focused on the most visible and immediate manifestations of Thailand's malaise.

A litany of articles have portrayed the yellow-clad supporters of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) as the centurions of a self-serving, conservative and undemocratic elite; a simplistic explanation of a movement that has a surprisingly diverse support base and which is also driven by a sincere desire to see a clean-up of corruption in government.

The PAD says Thailand's problems are developmental, even cultural. Thailand is not suited to a one-man-one-vote system its leaders argue. The PAD spews nationalistic and royalist rhetoric while characterising the rural majority it seeks to disenfranchise as uneducated, hopelessly venal and by conclusion unfit to vote.

The Economist magazine scandalously pointed an accusing finger at Thailand's revered monarchy: blaming it for deliberately holding back Thailand's democratic development. Again though one cannot deny the relevance of the monarchy to any discussion of Thailand's political future, this argument was misleadingly narrow.

Viewed from a broader perspective, today's political storm is better explained as a fundamental conflict between tradition and modernity, between the reality of privilege and the rhetoric of democratic equality.

Tradition has provided a vital historical and cultural continuum, allowing this relatively young nation state to define its roots by pointing to ancient rituals and cultural traits that can be claimed to be shared by all. The State has promoted tradition by propagating the concept of Thai-ness (kwam pen Thai), a largely artificial cultural construct, as a unifying reference for all of its citizens.

Historically and traditionally, the monarchy has always been the focus of political power in Thailand; a reality that remains partly true to this day. Traditionally, however, the monarch's power was not defined by physical borders but by the fluctuating reach of his aura.

Though Thailand was never colonised, its recent leaders, both monarchs and politicians, have sought to redefine the Thai Kingdom within the framework of a Western style, modern nation-state; complete with the associated apparatus of government and the legitimising clothes of democracy.

Since 1932, when absolute monarchy was abolished in Thailand, the political establishment has tried to balance the need for historical and traditional continuity with their desire to transform Thailand into a modern democratic nation. During this period, punctuated by coups and counter coups, successive governments have see-sawed between liberal and authoritarian forms of democracy.

Unlike their Western counterparts, however, many of whom took centuries to establish stable democratic systems, Thailand has attempted to build a Western-style democratic culture in a matter of decades.

In many ways, there have been astounding successes. The Thai State has succeeded in creating a very palpable sense of nationhood among its citizens, asking its population to rally around the triumvirate of nation, religion and monarchy. Meanwhile it has implanted the machinery of government throughout the land and inculcated the population with a strong notional sense of individual rights and democratic duty.

One of the Thailand's enduring charms is its apparent ability to combine tradition, its religious reverence for its 'god king', colourful Buddhism and Hindu-style rituals, with the trappings of a modern nation complete with skyscrapers and skytrains.

The "Land of Smiles", as it has become known is place where Western tourists can sample the flavour of traditional Asia while never being far from all the familiar comforts of modernity.

Despite Thailand's successes, the country's recent turmoil suggests that the inherent contradiction between the reality of elite privilege and a State sponsored ideology of democratic equality are finally beginning play out on the streets.

The stakes are high on both sides of the divide. On the one hand, the established elites must find a justifiable argument or the physical means for perpetuating their control of government. On the other, Thailand's majority must now decide if it is to stand by and accept a social contract which will cede considerable power to the political elite or if they are willing to stand and fight (with all that entails) for a more open and equitable democratic system.