How did the opposition to Thaksin blow up so quickly and so dramatically? Only a few weeks ago, Thaksin announced that he would ignore politics for the next three years until another election approached. But now he's swamped by politics, with competitive street demos, a snap election, constitution amendments, fierce emotional exchanges and a game of blind political poker.

Have we learned anything new about Thaksin recently? Is that what has suddenly impelled people to call him a thief, liar, cheat, dictator and so on? Hardly. We have known ever since the assets-declaration case of 2001 that Thaksin has a pretty cavalier attitude towards business law and ethics. We could see his readiness to use violence rather than the law since the murderous anti-drug campaign of 2003. We have watched the checks and balances in the Constitution being undermined since the first reappointment to the Election Commission in 2002.

We have admired how state power can be used to assist business since the deals over ITV, Thai AirAsia, the investment privileges for Shin Satellite and the telecom concessions. We have smelt the stench wafting from Cobra Swamp. We have heard him disdain democracy, claim infallibility, appropriate sole ownership of the nation and insult his critics countless times. What has made 2006 any different from the past five years?

The first reason is that Thaksin has completely lost control of the noise level. For five years, he had the media bottled up tight. The English-language press was allowed some freedom, with just occasional bits of intimidation, so foreign readers easily got the mistaken impression that things were not too bad. But the Thai press (save a few brave exceptions) was kept on a short leash, and the broadcast media were treated as propaganda arms of the regime in true authoritarian style. But this grip has now been loosened.

Suddenly there was a community of defiance. Against this background, Sondhi Limthongkul made a public show of turning against Thaksin. Over the last month and a half, the mainstream dailies have become virulently critical. In the last week, we have seen things on the TV screens that have been absent for five years - protest leaders being interviewed, academics giving independent analysis, and (my god!) debate.

This change in the public sphere has been critical. When you control the media tightly, you can fool most of the people most of the time. A few days ago, Thaksin told his audience quite brazenly that he wanted to pay lots of tax on the Shin deal but the Revenue Department would not accept it. This line is so preposterous it takes your breath away. But it's also very instructive. Thaksin had got used to saying such things with impunity, because there was no alternative voice that got through to his mainstream audience.

But as the grip on the media has loosened, such thick-faced behaviour has become less effective. The rapid spread of distrust in this government is related to the wider spread of information. More people are dissatisfied because more people know what is going on. And with more criticism and debate swirling around the public sphere, critics and doubters of the government no longer feel so isolated.

The second reason for the rapid spread of distrust comes from the Shin deal. Thaksin has been clamouring that he had no liability to pay tax, and that the law is the same for him as for others. Many letters to the English-language press have made the same point. They say it's just a business deal, he hasn't been found guilty of any serious lawbreaking, so what's the problem?

All this misses the point. While he may have committed no crime, he made a huge cultural blunder.

Since coming to power in 2001, Thaksin has adopted a tough-guy (nak leng) style of leadership. He acts as if he's in sole charge. He makes decisions quickly. He bullies opponents. He deliberately abuses critics in foul language. He disdains rules, institutions, procedures. It's a leadership style that works well, because it's rooted in the culture. It's the style of the local boss who gives protection and gets things done. Thaksin didn't behave like this five years ago. He learnt this style because people understand it, and it helped to make him popular.

But there's a catch. One key element of this style is that the tough-guy leader must be generous. He can use power to benefit himself, but then he must have a big heart to share that benefit with others. He can break all the rules, but he must make this acceptable by showing that he is at heart a good man. But the tax exemption on the Shin deal made Thaksin look mean and greedy.

An upcountry vendor said to Chang Noi a few days ago, "The only thing this guy ever gives us is our own tax money back." This vendor had formerly been a strong Thaksin supporter. A business friend recently asked, "Suphan Buri is smothered with hospitals, schools and bus shelters supported by the charity of Banharn [Silapa-archa] and his wife Jaemsai. Where do you ever see something sponsored by Thaksin and Pojaman? They don't give, they only take."

The tax exemption may have been legal, but it made Thaksin look the very opposite of generous. Suddenly people noticed the corruption, conflicts of interest, violence, hogging of opportunities, earlier examples of tax evasion and general lack of moral principles.

Many of the people at the anti-Thaksin demonstrations come from a lower-middle class of small business owners, shopkeepers, minor officials and salary folk. They have a moral sense that they apply to themselves and their leaders. And they're offended.

You can fool a lot of people for a lot of the time, but only if you control the noise level, and only if you really are the character you're playing.
(Source: The Nation)