The development of political science in Thailand

Abstract

This paper recounts the development of political science in Thailand and identifies the subfields and approaches used in political science studies. The paper argues that the orientation of political science has been a product of the historical process of semi-colonialism and Thailand's pattern of development based on internal colonization with a high degree of centralization in Bangkok in all dimensions, whether economic, political, or cultural. Moreover, the alternation between varying forms of military rule and prolonged colour-coded politics have been major factors influencing the debates and the substance of political science in the country which has also brought about the politicization of Thai academics. The paper seeks to assess the current situation of and challenges to the study of political science in Thailand. IntroductionThis paper has two goals. It first gives an account of the setting and evolution of political studies in Thailand. It examines university course structures and subject matter published in the two foremost political science journals to give an overview of the sub-fields of and the approaches to political science in Thailand. Then the paper proceeds to identify three factors affecting the development of political science in Thailand, namely the historical background, the political regime, and conflicting perceptions and enduring political disputes. Much of the analysis focuses on opposing standpoints and the attempts to influence, shape, and construct political discourse and the political science discipline in Thailand.

Critical reflections on Samuel Huntington’s thesis of regimes and political science

“…In the Philippines the birth of modern political science, in particular with public opinion research, was closely associated with democratization. ‘The development of political studies in Thailand paralleled the country’s democratization program; it thrived better in a democratic atmosphere’, as Swaasdee (2016: 97) points out. In Mongolia, political science emerged and developed with the erosion and end of socialist ideology in the wake of democratization in the late 1990s.…”

“…To compare China and Japan, Chinese political scientists enjoy a higher level of internationalization, and a higher number of English publications than their Japanese counterparts despite Japan having a better record of democracy than China. In Thailand, Swaasdee (2016: 98) points out that:this relationship [between regimes and political science] has never been dichotomous. Given the authoritarian inclination of Thai society in general, interference and obstructions occurred both under the military regimes and in a more democratic atmosphere, but to different degrees and to varying extents.The linear relationship between democracy and political science overlooks an important issue – the internal tension and even contradiction between democracy and political science.…”

“…The themes of political science conferences are often focused on democracy and democratization. For example, nine out of 22 of the themes at the 1993–2014 Philippine Political Science Association Conferences were devoted to democracy and democratization, and three out of 15 of the Thailand Political Science Conferences between 2000 and 2015 were on themes of freedom, democracy, and democratization (Sawasdee, 2016: 90).…”