Fatima Khalil Alhosani
201515786
Instructor: Hala Thabet
Considering the four major theories of contention, the French revolution and the coup d’état in Thailand: what are the factors that led to the change, the main actors involved, the obstacles they faced. Also explain which theory would best describe each case and why, and which of the two cases was more successful (or both, or neither) and why. (Always base your analysis on the four theories)
France was an estate society which basically means the royal family owned everything. France was divided into three groups: the nobility, the commoners, the clergy. The nobility, however, were also affected by France’s “absolutist” crown. Moreover, one of the most important factors that led to the French revolution was the conflict between the nobility and monarchy over the new tax system because it was unfair, another factor was the political instability that France was in. To make it clear, France’s involvement in foreign wars led to it being bankrupt. Problems here arose because every aspect in the population’s life was effected negatively and France went through a financial crisis. Therefore, Citizens faced problems with the food distribution, poverty, most of France’s population were not satisfied. It is easy to say that France had an ineffective ruler, which is clear because the French citizens shouldn’t ask for the daily necessities of life. Moreover, with the spread of nationalism French people started the revolutions to reform the French state. At first, the French went through some of revolutionary contention, it started with collective behavior in street actions and in other words (Social Revolution), mobs attacked the Bastille prison to destroy the symbol of arbitrary authority. Then there was increased violence, this period of time was named “terror” they basically killed anyone who opposed the revolution. The Relative Deprivation theory can be applied to explain the French revolution because the Relative Deprivation theory states that it happens when people demand for social transformation, and when the people within a society feel that they have “less” things than other people. In this case, it is accurate to say that that’s exactly what the French citizens demanded, they lacked the daily necessities of life which triggered everything that came later, they fought for what every person deserves and they wanted equality in the country.
In Thailand, there were several cases were military overthrew the rule. We will be focusing on the one that happened in 2016 when coup took over the rule from the prime minister because of the corruption that was happening. Moreover, knowing Thailand, the majority of the citizens are treated as a minorities, and there are the few rich minorities which have it all, which explains the constants fights between them, this could be a huge factor that lead to this overthrow. In addition, another factor that lead to this overthrow is Thaksin, he was somehow responsible because few months before the coup, he won the reelection but his administration was doubtful and full of controversies and corruption. Thaksin basically monopolized the electoral system, he convinced people that he would work on income redistribution and policy innovation and government activism, but he manipulated his people and the constitution, which meant that people had to overthrow him (anti-Thaksin opposition) Moreover, it is accurate to say that Thailand’s ruling system is weak since the military can overthrow the ruling party several times in Thailand’s history. Back in 1992, the aim for the overthrow was to end corruption and to end money politics, they wanted to find a way to end this continuous cycle. However, the overthrow happened again in 2006, one of the reasons for the 2006 overthrow was to develop a “sufficiency economy” both times wanting more rights for people and asking for things that should be provided by the government. Moreover, it is notable that Thailand’s political crisis lay hand in hand with the traditional old Thailand and the new Thailand. The definition of “coup d’état” is the use of force or threat of force. In other words, one of the obstacles Thailand faced with the overthrow is that when the military overthrow the government, usually the military forces citizens to obey, many citizens are restricted to do things like protesting and fighting for their rights, what people can air in TV and post in social media, people are left being caged and having nothing to offer. Another obstacle is that citizens end up not knowing who to trust, the government or the military because they were some doubts that the government is somehow involved in all of this, behind the scenes. The theory that applies to Thailand is the Resource Mobilization and Political Opportunities, it states that “the most important political opportunity for revolutions is state-breakdown.” When the state falls, other political opportunities might facilitate actions like the military becoming discontent with the order or elite conflicts and so on. This is exactly what happened in Thailand, people were dissatisfied but did not have the chance to show that. However, the military did. Also, this theory is interested in “Material” resources which basically means financing, which is one of the core problems in Thailand and they did not reach to a solution back then, nor now.
The ways these two cases were handled are different. To me, I see the way the French adapted The Relative Deprivation theory in the most successful way. Citizens knew how to approach what is rightfully theirs and they got it. The French Revolution did have downsides to it. But overall, you can see how much France changed, they have basic property rights, rights for French citizens and a strong democratic government and people around the world do see France as a model of governance now.