Thai culture still relies far too much on relationships, rather than ideologies. Time and again we see democratic ideals sacrificed for the sake of relationships on both sides of the political divide. This is why our political structure is often termed a feudal system rather than a true parliamentary democracy.
And if both sides of the political divide, from the grass roots to the top, devote their efforts and loyalties more to a cult of personality, or to their brothers and sisters, friends and fellows, factions and networks, instead of the overall concept of Thailand as a democratic nation, it is only because ours is a culture embedded in relationships, while ideologies are but a new fad.
Loyalties are sometimes torn and ideologies are at times in conflict. Both concepts have positive and negative aspects. A balance must be found, while at times hard decisions need to be made.
The social structure based on relationships is grounded in the long-standing patronage network. It is defined in how we behave and the language that we use, which is a reflection of our cultural mindset.
It exists in rural villages and urban cities. We all have phi nong (brothers and sisters). We all have pak puag (factions and groups). In school, in the workplace, in politics and in society at large, personal relationships define who we are.
It's a social system based not on laws or ideals, rights or liberty, but on who we know and which group we belong to. If corruption and nepotism flourish it is because we have to help out our phi nong and our pak puag, and if corruption and wrongdoing are covered up, it is because we have to protect these relations.
Whether we are part of the so-called ammart political machine or the prai political machine, we have nai (bosses) and bao (servants), while all those in between are phi and nong. And, of course, there are phu yai (social superiors) and phu noi (social inferiors).
This is a tribal mentality. Hence, we strive to do things for the good of the tribe, not the nation. As such, tribal identity is strong, while national identity is illusive. At all costs, we must protect the image and reputation of our tribe - our organisation, institution and network.
It's a matter of honour and duty to have complete loyalty to the tribe.
We are all familiar with the significance of the different graduating classes of the military college _ they become tribes for the rest of these officers' military careers and are all important when promotions are handed out. Rival school gangs and office political factions are also well known tribes. So it's not surprising that political parties are founded not on ideology, but tribal networks.
Of course, this sort of tribal mentality exists in every society. However, in developed democracies there is some kind of a balance between relationships and ideologies. When the two forces come into conflict, often times the hard decision is made and ideology wins out. Hence, the high value of democratic ideals in developed democracies is somewhat justified.
But in a developing democracy like Thailand, too often, overwhelmingly in fact, when hard decisions have to be made, the tribal mentality takes precedence. So while national leaders in other countries may offer tearful resignations by way of taking responsibility for mismanagement, in Thailand, national leaders would never dream of such a thing. It would be tantamount to betraying the dignity and the integrity of one's tribe.
The concept of national identity, while often used by politicians to stir nationalistic fervour, in actuality comes second to the tribe.
Both relationships and ideologies have virtues and flaws, but for Thailand to progress democratically, a balance must be struck, rather than the scales weighing so heavily in favour of relationships.
A while ago I came across an excerpt from a book called The Thai & I: Thai Culture and Society (1996) by Roger Welty, who was at one time a lecturer at a Thai university. Here's an excerpt:
''Once, when I was supervising an examination at the university, I caught a student apparently receiving answers from someone just out of my sight, beyond the open door. I quietly left my post near the front room and approached the student's desk. I was right, beyond a shadow of a doubt: He was attempting to receive an answer from someone just outside.
"That person saw me first, made a signal, and disappeared. The student, unaware I was standing behind him, only noticed when I removed the exam paper from the top of his desk and impounded it. He sat there glumly until the end bell and then disappeared.
"A day or so later, the dean sent for me. 'Perhaps you should take the week off. Go home and don't come back for a week. Mr So-and-So was very angry that you caught him.' [Mr Welty then recounted a conversation with a friend over this incident.]
"'Why did you see it?' my friend asked.
"'See what?''
"'See the student cheating.'
"'That was my job. I was supervising to prevent cheating.'
"'Yes, yes, I understand. But why did you see him?'''
This scenario exemplifies how the tribal mentality dictates social values. Ignoring a wrong is encouraged because to expose it would lead to a loss of face, not only for the student and his family, but also the institution. We might also assume that the dean has a personal relationship with the student's family
The tribal mentality kicked in: Protect your network at all cost. The key phrase here is ''why did you see it?'', which reveals the cultural thinking that it's inappropriate, disloyal in fact, to question the integrity of the tribal network. Maintaining the image and illusion is more important than what's really going on.
Thailand is a patronage network built on connectivity. One way or another everyone is connected, directly or indirectly - the ''six degrees of separation rule'' applies. Our personal importance is defined by who we know, or which group we belong to. There are exceptions, of course, and to be fair, honour, loyalty and relationships are important.
Living, breathing people should be valued. To be entirely devoted to ideals is to be lacking in humanity. However, when the scale is tipped too much in favour of relationships, it means that while we chant democracy and champion its ideals, when push comes to shove, our tribal mentality kicks in.
Hence, we are more interested in saving face than in justice. We are more interested in kwam moh som (being appropriate) than in freedom. We are more interested in hai kiat (bestowing honour) than equality. We are slow to change, saying mai pen rai (never mind), because we believe our tribe will take care of us.
This is a dysfunctional marriage between relationships and ideals; there is too much spousal abuse and negligence. For Thai democracy to progress, we must strive for a better balance.
Contact Voranai Vanijaka via email at voranaiv@bangkokpost.co.th