As a student of both geography and politics, I am constantly intrigued by election maps.  In looking at election maps over a period of time, one can gain a sense of the cores and peripheries of different nations and political parties, and gain an understanding of the territory one needs to have in order to win an election.  In many cases, geography brutally exposes the deep divisions within a country, and the stakes of victory in elections.

In order to demonstrate this fact, let us look at the electoral geography of two nations, Thailand and the United States, and examine what geography is necessary for victory on either side.  In looking at the geography of elections we can determine the “core” regions of the two different political camps, and give a little bit of explanation why politics in both nations (and many others) are so divisive, offering some historical context to explain the results on the map.

No Land Of Smiles

When it comes to politics, Thailand is no land of smiles.  Rather, Thailand’s democracy has a history of frequent military coups to depose undesirable majority governments because elites do not seem willing to accept the democratic results of elections based on a combination of history and demography.  First, the maps, and then the historical context.  In Thailand’s most recent series of elections, in 2011 [1], 2007 [2], 2006 [3], 2005 [4], and 2001 [5], the result has been the same.  Every election since 2001 has led to victory for the same political coalition of “populists.”  Whether one likes or dislikes this result, the voice of the people is clear and consistent.  Only the frequent and illegitimate involvement of the military has kept that party and coalition from power for long stretches of time.  From 2001 to 2011 the electoral geography has remained pretty constant.  The North and Northeast is dominated by the “red”, the South is dominated by the “blue,” and the “red” has a significant presence in the Central Province apart from Bangkok itself.  Other minor parties have smaller provinces they dominate and happily join the coalitions of the winner.

Let us ask ourselves a very simple question.  Why is this the case?  The answer is very straightforward.  Thailand’s elite culture has traditionally been based out of Bangkok.  Those who are deeply connected with that elite, as well as those whose security needs are paramount (provinces on the Burmese border like Mae Hong Son, or those in the South threatened by the Muslim insurgency) tend to support that elite.  None of this is remotely surprising.

On the other side, those whose political goals are hostile to the Bangkok elites have made their base in the Northern and Northeastern areas of Thailand.  This is no accident.  The leaders of their party hail from Chiang Mai (the same province where I reside), and Chiang Mai was the capital of the Lanna kingdom that sought freedom from both the Burmese and the Thai kingdoms, and has often been the “middle ground” between the two, fought over for centuries.  The North of Thailand is the traditional territory of the Lanna, with a deep hostility to oppressive elites in Bangkok who never really fully accepted Lanna as part of the elite.  Likewise, in Northeast Thailand, the population is dominated by Isan Lao-Thai, many of whom were captives or slaves of the early Chakra kings who dominated Laos.  They have never been fully accepted as Thais either, and their domination of electoral politics because of their population (despite their notable poverty) is unacceptable to the elites of Bangkok, who only wish to be ruled by one of their own but can’t seem to master the principles of demography that are required in order to achieve success in a democracy.  You have to outbreed your opposition if you want to outvote them, unless you are willing to co-opt others to your point of view by granting them increased status as subsidiary elites.  Without either giving respect and favors to build a winning coalition or having large enough families to dominate by sheer numbers you cannot legitimately hold power in a democracy.

The results are not that complicated.  The question is, would elites rather retain their monopoly over power and the license to overturn democratic results whenever it suits them, or do they wish to commit to democracy and resolve some of the centuries-long grievances that some of the regions (which have acquired political strength due to numbers) in the periphery of Thailand have.  With the proper amount of respect, no longer calling people ‘peasants’ because of where they come from, a genuine sense of nationhood can be formed for all, without the need for fake populists to fan hostility to the core regions.  If you want peace and democratic victory, sometimes you have to pay the price of showing respect to others instead of contempt as inferiors when they have the vote to punish your contempt by voting for your enemies.

Divided We Stand

It has become almost cliche for people to comment on the closely divided state of America’s politics, to divide America between Red and Blue, growing steadily more hostile to each other.  This hostility started very strongly in the late 1980’s, though the beginnings of the culture clash stem from a couple of decades or so before that, when racial and cultural politics came to the forefront of American political life, destroying the wide and moderate consensus that had existed before that for more than a generation.

To keep the picture roughly parallel between the United States and Thailand, let us look at the 1996 [6], 2000, 2004, and 2008 elections.  Unlike in Thailand, the United States showed changes in the elections (the Democrats won in 1996 and 2008, the Republicans in 2000 and 2004, there were no coups).  Nonetheless, a comparison of the maps finds some similarities.  What areas are core and periphery for the two parties?  How does one construct a winning “coalition” of votes in the United States?

In all four elections between 1996 and 2008 the Democrats won the following states:  California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, New York, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, and Illinois.  Likewise, in all four elections, the Republicans won the following states:  Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.

Neither of these coalitions are enough to win.  There are a few states that the winers had in common in each election:  Nevada, Colorado, Florida, Ohio.  So, it would appear that to win an election, one has to be able to appeal outside of either core region and win some of the states of the Midwest and some of the more evenly divided states like Florida and the Far West.  It is not surprising, I suppose, that I come from a fiercely divided state (my own personal roots are Appalachian, and that area has been fiercely divided as well).

The electoral dynamics of the United States are not greatly dissimilar from the divisive politics of the period before the American Civil War, only the issues are couched around the culture war (where my sympathies are strongly with the pro-life, anti-evolution conservatives) as well as economic matters, which seem to be a dual between the loathsome alternatives of a libertarian paradise without any kind of community or familial social net in case of troubles and a socialist paradise.  As politics have gotten increasingly nasty and divisive, I am concerned about the long term viability of peace and stability for my republic.

Conclusion

Both in Thailand and in the United States, the divided electorates are a sign of longstanding unresolved issues going back centuries.  Without a historical perspective on why some regions see others in an unflattering light and fail to show respect for others or concern for the legitimacy of their goals and aspirations, it is difficult to understand why politics is often so divisive.  Nonetheless, an understanding of culture and history can help one see that the geography of elections often reflects a deeper and far more troubling history beneath the surface that allows elections and behavior to follow narratives of divisiveness and opposition, that can only be resolved when a shared commitment exists to common identity and common dignity.  Such commitment appears to be lacking, leading to divisive electoral politics that lack decisiveness as they do not address the deep-set issues at stake between the two sides in both nations, and many others besides.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2005

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2001

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004

[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008