Land rights struggle mustn’t be in vain
As the country’s land conflicts have intensified, many will recall the role of the Farmers’ Federation of Thailand, which struggled fiercely for land justice during the 1970s. There is a general impression that the movement was a wing of the defunct Communist Party of Thailand (CPT), which I would dispute. While it’s true that the federation had some connections with the party, to focus only on this aspect reduces the meaningfulness of farmers’ struggle in that era.
That commoners rose up against the state is no less important, compared to their alliance with the CPT, which is only one aspect of the farmers’ movement. In fact, the struggle of the farmers’ movement, which began in 1973, in bargaining with the state as commoners was a meaningful socio-political process. And it would be wrong to think the movement was totally dictated by the CPT.
The year 1973 was a turning point for the farmers’ movement while Thai society experienced drastic socio-political change following the students’ uprising. Before that they were just villagers who succumbed to state and capitalist power. But after the 1973 upheaval, farmers who interacted with students activists started to see themselves as citizens. The connection with the CPT transformed them into revolutionary fighters who wanted to change the country for the better. But the fighting spirit as commoners, which was particularly strong among the rank and file, remains today.
The transformation of villagers into citizens was driven by development policies, especially in education and transport under the Sarit Thanarat and Thanom Kittikachorn regimes. Commercial agriculture intensified. It was the expansion of commercial agriculture that connected the farmers to the outside world as the socioeconomic structure altered, but so did villagers’ world view. It was the beginning of change as they saw the injustice of the inequality in the patron-client relationship with landlords with whom they had to pay rent. They started to find exploitation under the system intolerable. They began to recognise that such unfair relations between landlords who controlled the land and poor farmers would prevent their children from having an opportunity for a better life.
These structural changes raised farmers awareness and their frustration. The farmers became allied with students, consulting on how to free themselves from this unfair system. Associate Professor Rangsan Chanta, recalled how he, as a student activist, tried to make farmers’ problems an issue. It should be noted that students did not lead the change; their moves were based on farmers’ needs. What they did was to raise the issues and they acted on their own; it was nothing to do with the CPT.
The farmers’ movement resulted in a law on land rent. Their demand was made in the name of Thai citizens who wanted equality and a chance in life. It was not about a change in the governing system. Yet, the move triggered conflicts between landlords and farmers. Before 1975, state authorities colluded with landlords so the latter, who had never thought about equality, could resort to violence when dealing with farmers. By the end of 1975, a state mechanism was used in silencing farmers’ leaders who had to flee into the jungles. Before their escape, they demanded a clause limiting land ownership. Despite its short lifespan, the farmers’ movement set the foundation for networking with the hope of land justice.
It’s unfortunate that this issue has been ignored by the state which allows land ownership to be concentrated in a few families. And it’s necessary that farmers maintain the demand and struggle for justice while land conflicts intensify, with tens of millions of people losing opportunities or the land crisis will become a social crisis.
With regard to our fully fledged commercial agriculture, farmers are deprived of their rights to land ownership. While the state blames our farmers for not using technology in improving yields, the fact is they cannot do that without security.
A new election may bring a new government but that will not help as long as the old structure remains. We have to fight on for structural change and land justice. If you read the Farmers’ Technologies journal, you will see that only farmers with land are able to think of technological improvements. This is because they are financially secure. It’s unfortunate that the Thai state has never recognised this.
This is different from Japan where smallscale farmers who are financially secure can produce a variety of produce to primarily supply the domestic market.
The Prayut Chan-o-cha regime boasts about the land and building tax law, which contains a dichotomy. They mention justice, saying those with more land have to pay more. This is hypocrisy. While the tax rates are minimal for landlords, this scenario gives illegitimate justification for landlords to acquire more land. There is not a single statement about the need for this country to impose limitations on land ownership.
But this is fake justice. A crisis will arise from this law. The regime still uses the same old structure of extracting money from the majority poor to satisfy the minority rich. Land security is the key to empowerment. Only with such security can farmers do more and create niche markets to serve domestic demand. This will help us escape the middle-income trap. But the state does not think about this. They do not understand the importance of making a domestic market strong, as has been done in Japan.
It is necessary for Thailand to impose limits on land ownership so land will not be a commodity that is up for price speculation. In that way, we could have land distribution with the poor having access to land. Under such circumstances, we could have farming security.
Thai society faces a big problem. We have to work harder to achieve land justice, which will secure a better life for our children. We must make the state and the public realise why land justice with fair land distribution matters.
Finally, I wish to stress the role of the farmers’ movement and the need to continue the fight as citizens. We have to be engaged citizens, pushing for land justice and land distribution. This is our call of duty.
Attachak Sattayanurak is professor in history, Chiang Mai University. This is an adaptation of his keynote speech at a recent conference, ‘Land is life: How to end land conflicts’. The full, original speech appeared in Prachatai news webpage.
‘‘ We have to work harder to achieve land justice, which will secure a better life for our children.