The Politics of Change in Rural Thailand

Abstract

A common conception of rural Thai politics is that Thai make no demands on the political authorities. Those who argue this position generally support their view by citing the Thai political culture, which sets up narrow criteria of appropriateness both for demand articulation by the and for demand conversion by those in authority. The political culture has been characterized by deferential authority relationships, isolation of the from political authorities, and nonbinding social and institutional relationships. It is argued that these basic orientations have mitigated the number and intensity of demands which come from the general population. The conception of the apolitical villager and the all-powerful officialdom has led to a simplified view of the Thai political system. Such a view, however, ignores the persons and institutions of a middle group which acts as a bridge between the great masses of and the minority group of authorities. Clearly the members of the village political stratum who are in contact with the officials, who join interest groups, and who participate in political activities cannot be classed as villagers in the same sense that the apolitical can. Teachers, temple priests, merchants, wealthy landowners, middlemen, commune leaders (kamnan), and village headmen (puyaiban) have both village and urban interests and ties-a dual existence which allows them to play an important role in national integration and development. The growth of functional associations, too, has made a change in the simplistic notion of a two-class society imperative. The economic and social self-sufficiency of the Thai village has tended to mask a complex pattern of interactions which extends beyond the village to the district and national system. At both the village and district levels, there exists a competent group of individuals-the politicals-who have the capacity to carry out the