The power of boycotts
text size

The power of boycotts

Protesters convene at Democracy Monument. (Photo: Thana Boonlert)
Protesters convene at Democracy Monument. (Photo: Thana Boonlert)

Soon after Move Forward Party (MFP) leader Pita Limjaroenrat failed to gather enough support for the premiership, some voters launched retaliatory campaigns with the hashtag #senatorbusiness to boycott business networks of handpicked junta senators who rejected him or abstained. Senators then took legal action against those who they believe harass them and their families. Voters are not only cutting off social relations but also punishing senators for committing crimes against democracy.

Diverse in forms and goals, a boycott is an act of banning goods, services and activities for a particular cause. If there is enough support, this kind of collective action can lead to structural change. Dating back to the pre-revolutionary colonial struggle, especially the Stamp Act and the Boston Tea Party, a boycott, which was treasonous in those days, paved the way for the founding of the United States in the 1770s. In Britain, activists used this tactic for abolishing the institutional practice of slavery. Following William Fox's boycott pamphlet in 1791, hundreds of thousands abstained from the consumption of slave-grown sugar, despite criticism over the limit of their philanthropy.

It was not until 1880 that the term "boycott" gained currency in Ireland, which had been conquered by Britain since the 16th century, and further afield. Because of falling crop prices and poor harvests, tenants demanded lower rent and an end to eviction. Captain Charles Boycott, land agent for the Earl of Erne in County Mayo, soon became the target of ostracism. People around him were pressured to keep their distance, hence the eponymous term in newspapers, dictionaries and other languages. It is undeniable that the printing technology of the day helped spread the idea beyond its local origin.

It is not clear when boycotts really started in Thailand, but the student movement of several decades ago adopted the strategy for nationalist opposition to foreign influence. In November 1972, Thirayuth Boonmi, a student activist who led the National Student Centre of Thailand, launched a campaign against Japanese goods to raise public awareness about Japan's economic influence. A university coffee house published a book titled Yellow Peril to critique its power. Student demonstrations garnered public support and snowballed into the restoration of democracy, which culminated in the popular uprising of Oct 14, 1973.

With the advent of social media, campaigners have mobilised support for banning businesses that connive with the dictatorial regime. In February 2020, following exposure to the network of Gen Prawit Wongsuwon, some launched a campaign to stop going to conglomerate-owned convenience stores. In July 2021, demonstrators held a stand-in rally (window shopping) at its major branch in Silom to protest capitalists who supported the Palang Pracharath Party. Activists successfully pressured companies to withdraw sponsorship from a pro-government television channel, where its reporter had feigned an identity to interview protesters.

Following the first round of voting on July 13, some people have not only blacklisted senators but also staged symbolic rituals, such as burning books, jinxing and holding a mass funeral for them, in anger over their refusal to abide by the election's result. On July 19, protesters burned funeral flowers, cursing the Upper House and the Constitutional Court, at Democracy Monument. Despite the chance to switch off their power, most of the senators shamelessly continue to sell their souls. Mobs are erupting in response to last week's blatant trampling of democracy.

Boycotts overlap with other forms of social sanction. Exposure of scandals, for example, extramarital affairs and media shareholding, underscores moral hypocrisy and double standards of legal proceedings. Some have hijacked the abbreviation sor wor (senators) to imply swa (dregs of society). Shunning came to light after a senator who abstained expressed concern that his son would be avoided at university. An activist warned that someone would visit their homes. It might be intimidation, but it has not yet constituted a real threat. Due to the crisis of the rule of law, people are meting out punishment with their own hands. These cases highlight that the public attitude to senators could not be more abysmal.

Senators should learn from history. Junta leader Gen Suchinda Kraprayoon reneged on his promise not to become a prime minister. Around 200,000 gathered in Bangkok. However, officers were heavy-handed in their response, using a plan for communist insurrection. Following Black May of 1992, Suchinda resigned, paving the way for a new election and constitution. That saw the downfall of the military's status. Men in uniforms were abused on the street and denied hospital treatment.

Mene, mene, tekel, uparsin. It is the writing on the wall for auxiliaries of dictatorship.

Thana Boonlert is a feature writer for the Life section of the Bangkok Post.

Thana Boonlert

Bangkok Post columnist

Thana Boonlert is a writer for the Life section and a Bangkok Post columnist.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (2)