Any time an insurgent political movement captures political power at some level, even a partial victory, it faces a critical and weighty choice. Does the movement stay true to its grass-roots supporters who demand genuine and often substantial change in how elite political culture operates, or does it compromise and make peace and find its own cut of the pie and take the support of its supporters for granted in what amounts to merely intra-elite competition for positions and spoils with a fundamental agreement not to change the modus viviendi for the elite system as a whole. This is a weighty decision because both options are fraught with serious dangers, and because few elite aspirants are sufficiently noble-minded to hold power without abusing it, leading to a never-ending cycle of abuses and insurgent movements against corrupt elites. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss,” as some cynical but prescient musicians once sang [1].
Most elites choose the option of accommodation rather than seeking to make real and substantial change to a corrupt political system. There are several reasons for this. First, few insurgent political movements are able to initially win total political power. Indeed, most political systems are designed to favor entrenched conservative interests by design. For example, the American political system has three branches of government–and while it is possible to take control of the House of Representatives fairly quickly, elected every two years, presidential elections are only once every four years, it takes six years for the entire Senate to face elections, and Supreme Court justices may sit in office for decades at a time. Change is supposed to be slow, by design.
This is even more true in political systems (like that of Thailand) where there are extra-political figures, like kings and advisers and generals, who hold power without even indirect suffrage, making it very difficult for insurgent political movements to build up sufficient power to hold onto their own positions of elected authority in the face of the threat of coup attempts or politically motivated court cases from corrupt judges who are not answerable to the will or pleasure of the people even indirectly. Naturally, these barriers to change are formidable even for those leaders who have the nobility of spirit and the strength to maintain their convictions even in the face of such strong barriers to change.
Of course, it is lamentable but also common that the vast majority of leaders of supposed populist movements against corrupt authorities (which are everywhere) are themselves corrupt and seeking to piggyback off of legitimate grievances to gain political power for themselves to use for their own selfish benefit. Given the difficulties of fighting against corruption, it is far easier for the ambitious to claim to be corruption fighters while participating (even excelling) in such corruption themselves, ensuring themselves a permanent but cynical political platform of being anti-corruption because they have no interest in actually doing anything about corruption, as that would endanger their own wealth and success and enjoyment of the spoils of office.
The combination of self-serving and hypocritical political platforms and the structural barriers to even necessary and beneficial change (not all change is good, after all) often lead to a prolonged state of crisis where the majority of politically active citizens strongly desire change and join and campaign for parties promising change, while change is frustrated. The real danger to the choices comes at this level of frustration where years and years have gone by and change has been frustrated either by the existing elites or corrupt elites who would rather make peace with the status quo rather than change it as their constituents demand. At this point, the options to the populace are limited to either seeking more radical and less compromising leadership that is able and willing to fight for change if necessary, at which point the political crisis will almost certainly turn very sanguinary and violent, or seeking to provoke a confrontation themselves and drag their leaders along (perhaps unwillingly) to a fight.
Unfortunately, once a political system has reached a point of crisis between two (or more) sides, there are precious few options for peace, since the legitimacy of the political process itself has been called into question and no side is content with half a loaf when others are denied legitimacy for their positions, or are personally attacked and demonized for their political stance. Once politics have taken such a nasty course, in a nation or in an organization, there are no good options. All of the choices that remain are fraught with difficulty and risk and suffering. We ought to understand this, lest we feel too glad about forcing a crisis or lest we beat ourselves too greatly about not being able to preserve peace when an honorable peace is no longer an option, because our opponents lack honor and assume the same of us.
It seems a sign of our times that system after system has been forced into crisis, and there is no escaping from the reality that warfare of intense kinds, rhetorical and physical and cultural, has been forced upon us if we wish to retain our sense of honor and dignity as human beings. We may not have wished it to be so, but given the circumstances of rigidity within our social systems and the urgency of change, and the lack of statesmanship among our ruling elites, who consider themselves above accountability to the people, there are no pleasant options. The doom of choice is upon us, and let us choose wisely, for we may have to face life or death choices to see whether our convictions are genuine and noble, or if we are craven cowards merely interested in preserving our own share of the spoils of the corrupt games and preserving our own skin in the face of dire threats. The clock is ticking, and tensions are rising. Let us choose wisely.
[1] “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” by the Who
