Thailand's Security Sector "Deform" and "Reform"

Trotz der Wahl im Jahr 2019 wird Thailand weiterhin vom Militär und der Monarchie dominiert. Das PRIF Working Paper von Paul Cambers und Napisa Waitoolkiat "Thailand's Security Sector "Deform" and "Reform"" diskutiert die Sicherheitssektorreform, die der Staat auf nationaler Ebene und auf regionaler Ebene im tiefen Süden durchführte, vor und nach dem Militärputsch 2014. Sie zeigen eindrucksvoll, welche Fallstricke und Widersprüche mit der Reform einhergehen.Despite a 2019 election, Thailand remains dominated by the military and monarchy. The state implemented security sector reforms at the national level and the Deep South regional level, before and after a 2014 military coup, which overthrew the country's frail democracy. Thailand offers an impressive example of pitfalls and contradictory practices in security sector reform (SSR) because the country's military junta supported globally transferred notions of SSR but applied them distinctively at different regional levels. Nationally, the military utilized universalist SSR notions to rationalize its prolongation and even expansion of autocracy. But regarding the Deep South insurgency, the junta applied a more progressive version of SSR, continuing negotiations with insurgents while reducing military abuses in the Deep South region. This study analyzes Thailand's simultaneous "deform and reform" dynamics in the field of security sector governance. The authors examine why national SSR has been such a deform of more sincere SSR efforts in Thailand's South

Review: Askew, Mark (ed.): Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand

Review of the edited volume: Askew, Mark (ed.) (2010), Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books (= King Prajadhipok’s Institute Yearbook No. 5 (2008/09)). ISBN 978-974-9511-97-8, 340 page

Review: Askew, Mark (ed.): Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand

Review of the edited volume: Askew, Mark (ed.) (2010), Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books (= King Prajadhipok’s Institute Yearbook No. 5 (2008/09)). ISBN 978-974-9511-97-8, 340 page

Review: Askew, Mark (ed.): Legitimacy crisis in Thailand

Review of the edited volume: Askew, Mark (ed.) (2010), Legitimacy Crisis in Thailand, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books (= King Prajadhipok’s Institute Yearbook No. 5 (2008/09)). ISBN 978-974-9511-97-8, 340 page

Information costs and voting in Thailand : explaining party- and candidate-centered patterns

Includes bibliographical references (pages [149]-156).Voting allows the preferences of citizens to be translated into mandates to govern. Voting behavior thus deserves our attention. In recent years, the question of voting patterns in Thailand has gained attention among students of Thai party politics and elections. Participants in the literature have generally focused on describing and accounting for the prevalence of personal or candidate-centered voting in Thailand. While candidate-centered voting is the norm, scholars have noted that voting behavior has varied across both space and time in Thailand. However, little systematic work exists that seeks to account for such variations in voting behavior. This dissertation contributes to this literature by adopting and modifying an American model to explain voting behavior in the Thai context. The main research question is whether information costs play a key role in affecting voting decisions among Thai voters. The dissertation hypothesizes that information costs regarding candidates are an important determinant of voting patterns (party-centered vs. candidate-centered voting). As such, the study analyzes electoral data from Thailand's 1992 (September), 1995, and 1996 general elections. The findings clearly show that information costs are essential to voting decisions and that voting patterns (party-centered vs. candidate-centered) are strongly influenced by the information costs incurred by voters. These findings are consistent over time.Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy

Faction Politics in an Interrupted Democracy: the Case of Thailand

Though dominated by the monarchy and military, Thailand in 2020 has a highly factionalised, political party system ensconced within a defective democracy. When not under military rule, such a situation has been common. The country's excessive level of factionalism across parties and over time is due to a long history of regionalised and decentralised parties that have invariably been dependent upon finance from faction leaders who have rarely been reined in by laws to limit factionalism. Only under Thaksin Shinawatra (2001-2006), did factionalism diminish in importance on the national level owing partly to 1997 constitutional alterations. Following a 2006 coup and the 2007 adoption of a military-endorsed constitution, a high level of intra-party factionalism returned across parties. Though the 2014 coup again ended the country's faction-ridden democracy, the 2019 general election resurrected factionalism, which guaranteed weakness for party politics while benefiting the aristocracy and military