💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dindeng-abolish-the-capital.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:57:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Abolish The Capital Author: DinDeng Date: Apr 9, 2021 Language: en Topics: Thailand, decentralization Source: https://www.dindeng.com/abolish-the-capital/
Part 1
Writer and Illustration: Karuna Tilapaynat
Translator: W.Where
A: “No skytrain back at your hometown, huh? …Took y’all here to see it.
Like it?”
B: “Yes, sir.”
A: “Would you come again?”
B: “If it’s an order, yes, sir.”
Above was a disdainful conversation disguised as a light-hearted tease
between the Police Chief Commander and an officer from outside of
Bangkok, which took place right after the crackdown on the mass protest
at Patumwan intersection. Contrasting with the rage of the pro-democracy
protesters, such a tone-deaf conversation eventually lead to the viral
joke online: “Don’t you have a skytrain at home?”
This is just one example that demonstrates Thailand’s issue with
inequality, a result from the state’s heavy emphasis on centralisation,
both in terms of power and the economics. If I were to mention all the
consequential problems, this article could perhaps be endless.
When the centralisation of power is so concentrated in the capital that
we question the state itself, what can we do to decentralise such power?
Move the capital to a new city? But moving is just transferring the
power to another centre! My friend once asked me:
“Given the news that Bangkok will drown in our lifetime, if we were to
move the capital city, where would it be?”
“Can’t all cities be the capital?”
My answer may sound fanciful, even impossible. It seems like an ideal, a
utopia, as opposed to the popular and current governance we all know.
But instead I found the question very interesting because it spoke to a
time back when there was no country, no state, no capital.
To imagine a governance without the capital may seem impossible in
reality. However, many countries are characterized by the lack of the
capital city, from small countries that are city-states like Singapore,
the Vatican, and Monaco, to countries with no cities due to the small
number of population like Nauru, and Tuvalu. The aforementioned
countries are of specific qualities, whether that be the size of the
country or the population. Nevertheless, Switzerland has no official
capital city. Switzerland distinguishes itself from the other
aforementioned examples as it has a relatively large size and
population.
“Abolish the capital” may sound dubious. Why abolish it? For what? To
what end? To be honest, I don’t know where the answer to this question
will lead, but I’m interested in testing the bounds of what’s common
sense, normal or possible, so as to spark conversations on both the
problems and the benefits, amidst this current moment in Thailand where
so many are advocating for a better future.
“For people to be equal, cities must also be treated equally.”
Part 2
Writer: Pathompong Kwangtong
Translator: W.Where
Today, a writer submitted the above short article to Din Deng. The
writer said himself that there is no concrete answer to the question he
raised at the end. Nevertheless, I still think the article did answer
the question, at least partly.
If you follow us online (and speak Thai) you would have seen our post
with a picture of a huge sign: “Abolish the Capital.” Such was the
boldness of this slogan, so new to our discourse, that the police didn’t
even know how to handle the situation. It was unlike when there were
discussions around the monarchy. Then, the government did not allow any
dissent. What was different about this message was perhaps that because
people had never even thought of such a topic, let alone its
consequences. Between the topics of “abolish the capital” and “a
communal society,” while both seem to be impossible, the latter had
already failed miserably in the 20th century. The former was never
mentioned.
At least, in our beautiful country of Thailand, the “Republic of
Thailand” is a topic deemed intolerable to the ruling class who enjoys
the benefits of this centralised unitary state, as the question
challenges the sanctity of the central power, established towards the
end of the absolute monarchy, and solidified, almost absolutely, during
the anti-communist civil war. The republic is a common form of
governance. As such, it doesn’t use too many of the ruling class’s brain
cells to imagine its practice and possible consequences, resulting in
fear, panic, and an urgent need to control.
However, the call to abolish the capital is different. It is not a
phenomenon, demand, or a mainstream movement. Unlike the change in the
form of governance or secession, the call to abolish the capital is to
radically question how we might live collectively in a large society,
rather than to present itself as a political project that is obvious and
immediately possible. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the writer’s
tone does not sound like a mobilization; nor is it confident in its
proposals to work with the issue promptly. To abolish the capital may
sound absurd or even compromising.
But then again, I do not think what the writer proposes is completely
impossible. Instead, as someone who admires the collective life of the
Rojava, I find this proposal compelling, albeit still skeletons of
structure, in need of flesh and organs. It could be a transitional
project towards other forms of societies. Or it could be a political
project aiming to gently liberate all of us, alleviating the pain
derived from the state’s centralisation, and functions as a channel to
discuss novel forms of society in which the state could not silence us
with its wrongful might.
Finally, I would like to amplify the writer’s invitation. Whether you
agree or disagree, contemplate, share, talk about it online or offline
with your friends, and demonstrate the power of the people to the ruling
class, who can never draw all the blood and sweat of our labour only to
fuel the skytrain close to their home.