The passing of former prime minister Banharn Silpa-archa is cause for reflection of where Thai politics has been and where it is going. By definition, as a former Thai premier, Banharn was a very important person. Yet the praise being heaped on him by many, including leaders of the current government, for his achievements and ostensibly glowing legacy, are both superficial and hypocritical.
While vindictiveness would be undue and in poor taste, this is a time when our collective memory must not run short. The Banharn era in the mid-1990s witnessed some of the worse infractions, graft and cronyism Thailand has seen. It is a period Thailand is trying to get away from in charting a fresh course based on good governance and cleaner government.
Banharn was not without attributes. He was a family man through-and-through who built himself and his financial fortune with his own efforts, not through inheritances like certain political leaders today. His wealth from a construction enterprise was gained in Bangkok but accumulated in and benefited his home province, Suphan Buri, in the Central region. In fact, Banharn was the first upcountry politician to amass provincial capital to compete successfully for a seat of power in Bangkok. His construction business depended on government largesse, government procurement and bureaucratic lobbying.
Thitinan Pongsudhirak is associate professor and director of the Institute of Security and International Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University.
A major lesson from the Banharn months in office was the politicisation of the Bank of Thailand (BOT). His then Chart Thai Party was held together by an up-and-coming crop of young politicians, known as the Group of 16. These politicians leveraged their solidarity and provincial patronage networks to gain clout within his administration, with several assuming a clutch of portfolios. Their rise to office through vote-buying was enabled by their dubious dealings with the now-defunct Bangkok Bank of Commerce (BBC). The Group of 16 politicians obtained huge loans from BBC using obscure land plots in the Northeast as collateral.
The BOT turned a blind eye to its supervisory obligations over BBC partly because senior central bankers were catering to political bosses in the Banharn administration. BBC eventually collapsed and sparked financial sector turbulence, compounded by speculative pressure on Thailand's pegged currency regime at the time, culminating in the full-blown economic crisis in 1997-98.
The damage to the BOT's reputation and credibility has been largely repaired since, and the central bank is once again the anchor of Thailand's macroeconomic management. The financial sector has also returned to sound health, and the baht is now flexible and consistent with market direction, thereby reducing the scope for speculation compared to pre-1997. But the 1997-98 crisis was a profound and devastating price to pay for this cycle of adjustment and reform.
Moreover, the Banharn era is antithetical to Thailand's anti-corruption crusade and its good governance agenda. The government should not be overtly complimenting a poster symbol of Thailand's corrupt past. The draft constitution that will be put up for a referendum on Aug 7, for example, has been designed as anti-politician with politicians like Banharn in mind, devoid of upright political principles and bent only on pursuing vested interests from the electoral system.
Praising Banharn sends the wrong message to politicians today who count on the patronage system to win power, still bereft of a platform based on policy ideas to carry Thailand forward and only meet popular demands and expectations. With their war chest of funds for vote-buying, these politicians are just waiting for any election for coalition-making deals and horse-trading to assume coveted and lucrative cabinet portfolios.
Ultimately, Thailand's democratic future will have to rely on elected representatives. What we want is fresher faces and a new breed of politicians who are responsive and accountable, with much more integrity than those of the old generation.
In many ways, Thailand would not be where it is today without Banharn. We should mourn his passing because he was our 21st prime minister, which is significant in and of itself. But let's not get swept up in an ill-considered pretence of a sad goodbye. Part of Banharn's legacy will be what happens after his time, particularly whether his provincial heirs can rise up to be cleaner and more capable elected representatives on Thailand's political landscape.