Politics is a game played by those in high and low places. They may perceive politics from different angles and approach it from different standpoints. But there is one thing they share in common; they condone a culture of vulgarity.
Vulgarity is an asset as well as a weapon that belongs to no particular class. It is celebrated in everyday life to serve a variety of purposes. Vulgarity is practised as a component to disparage enemies. Verbally or using signals, vulgarity is a powerful instrument in politics. But it renders negative consequences on society, too.
World leaders have gone to great extents in revealing their inner vulgarity to destroy their political opponents. This is because vulgar language is simple, yet hard-hitting. It can penetrate the consciousness of members of society, in a much easier way than language of extreme eloquence can do. Vulgar as it may sound, the right colourful phrase, deftly delivered, can effectively get the point across. Vulgarity connects esteemed leaders with local reality.
Coarseness has long ruled national politics. During the US presidential campaign, President Barack Obama called his opponent, Republican candidate Mitt Romney, a "bullshitter". It suggested the lowest point in the US election campaign. In 2004, former US vice-president Dick Cheney swore at Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont on the Senate floor during the Senate's class photo, telling him to "f*** off". Mr Cheney refused to apologise while his spokesman described this as "a frank exchange of views".
Right before a speech in Illinois during his 2000 campaign for president, George W Bush, in a comment to Dick Cheney, was overheard calling a New York Times reporter a "major league asshole".
Vulgarity is not a sole property of male leaders. Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard raises her "middle finger" to the opposition in the parliament.
Closer to home, filthy language was used by the Democratic Action Party (DAP) to defame the Malaysian Chinese Associate (MCA) leader as a political device adopted ahead of Malaysia's general election on May 5, 2013. One of the DAP members reportedly threatened the MCA leader while deploying obscene gestures, saying: "I want to severe the reproductive organ of an MCA leader and all MPs, and a woman leader does not have an organ which males have".
In Thailand, the culture of vulgarity has been persistent, especially after the military coup of 2006 which led to the polarisation of Thai society. The politics of hatred, segregation, extremism, divisiveness and fanaticism has given birth to vulgarity. Leaders of several pressure groups found it effective to openly use foul language to earn political capital and at the same time deprive that of their enemies.
In the world of cyberspace, political camps have been busy Photoshopping and applying image editing techniques to photographs of their opponents to create a profane illusion and deception. But the traditional method of vulgarity has reigned supreme. Verbal vulgarity has proven timeless in the Thai case and is able to stir up support and protest among public consumers.
Recently, a well-known Thai Rath cartoonist, Chai Rachawat, decided to exploit vulgarity in his assessment of Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. He wrote: "Whore only sells her body. Traitorous woman sells her nation." Although without mentioning anyone in particular, readers immediately referred his writing to Yingluck. This incident occurred in the aftermath of Ms Yingluck delivering a bold speech in Mongolia, criticising the military coup that overthrew her brother, Thaksin, and touching upon the killings of red-shirt protesters in 2010 on the streets of Bangkok.
Chai Ratchawat is not the first, nor the last, in basing his comment on vulgarity. Other personalities, politicians and scholars in the anti-government camp have lined up to paint a nasty image of Ms Yingluck. They compared her with a slut, a moron and a lustful woman. She is, to them, an embarrassment to the nation.
But pro-government supporters, too, have entertained the same strategy to belittle the opposition. Former prime minister Abhisit Vejjajiva was called a dog and a monitor lizard, considered extremely rude words in Thai terminology. Some anti-government figures' sexual orientation has become a target of sarcasm. Name-calling is gradually making its way into becoming a part of the culture of vulgarity in Thailand.
What is this telling us? American commentator Michael Ledeen elaborates that vulgarity bespeaks a coarsening of public language. In the West, movie and television have for a long time abandoned the rules that banned certain words and phrases. But here, in Thailand where strict censorship is applied, leading members of society have refused to avoid such vulgarities. Those in high society, in particular, are only too happy to use vulgar language even in their public rhetoric.
Second, as Mr Ledeen argues, it shows the shrinking vocabulary of our political life. There are plenty of usable and powerful synonyms of, say, "whore" or "moron", but many do not have any of them on the tip of their tongue. Or perhaps they just prefer the vulgarity.
Third, and this is my own observation, politics of vulgarity blurs the line of what is public and personal, what is a critique and pure swearing, and what is decent and indecent. Political society will only progress if members respect rules, and more importantly, the "humanness" of even the fiercest enemies.
In the political context, criticising bad policies and dishonest ideologies should be encouraged. Putting too much emphasis on attacking the personality of individuals, particularly those representing the face of the nation, will not only deepen an already divided society, but also allow ourselves to be the subject of ridicule in the eyes of outsiders.
Pavin Chachavalpongpun is associate professor at Kyoto University's Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.