To handle the crises การรับมือกับวิกฤต (3 กุมภาพันธ์ 2552 )

Prof. Dr. Likhit Dhiravegin
ศาสตราจารย์ ดร. ลิขิต ธีรเวคิน
Fellow of the Royal Institute
ราชบัณฑิต
ที่มา http://www.dhiravegin.com/detail.php?item_id=000675


The U.S. is faced with the financial meltdown and credit crunch. The immediate problem for the new administration to tackle is to assist the ailing financial institutions and big industries notably the automotive industry from falling. Other nations have been doing likewise. One commonality is to breathe life into the sluggish economy due to the breaking down of the market system resulted from the absence of what is known as corporate governance. Being or rather having been the most powerful nation on Earth in terms of economic wealth and military prowess, the U.S., whether one likes it or not, is a world giant. But as China of old used to be characterized as “the sick man of Asia,” due to its under-development, the U.S. today, due to its economic woes, along the same vein, could be looked at as “the sick man of the world.”

But the crux of the problem is the disease which the world giant is suffering from is contagious and for good or for ill, the well-being of others depend on the well-being of the patient whose ill health has sent shock waves throughout the entire areas where its influence has been pervasive. Ironically, the giant cannot be allowed to die for it will pull down all the others with it. One consolation is that the whole world realizes this critical problem and seemingly has been trying to lend a helping hand. Every nation is praying for “the sick man of the world” to recover and recover fast. Barak Obama thus not only has the support of the American people but the world nations at large for him to succeed in his economic reviving plans.

The economic problem of the U.S., acted like the first piece of an economic domino sending Europe, Asia and other areas to plunge into a dangerous pitch-dark hole. The primary policy of the U.S. is to revive its ailing economy so that it will go back on track and business will run as usual. The problem which Obama has to tackle is to bring the economy back to life and to extricate from the entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan. But for other nations, they have to tackle the economic woes in their own countries, in addition to praying for the recovery of the U.S. economy. The reviving plan of each nation hopefully will bear fruit pari passu with that of the plan of the U.S. The situation is such that the measures taken by the smaller nations may not bear fruit fully unless the giant nation succeeds in its crusade. The success of the smaller nations is thus contingent upon the success of the U.S. The exception will be those nations with a vast area and a big population. China, India and Russia, for example, all have big enough domestic market where consumption can be boosted.

First, the recovery of the economy and business will depend on the policies launched by the government and hinges upon the recovery of the giant country, the U.S., as well as such crucial trade partners as Japan, China, or the E.U.

Second, Thailand is still caught in political conflict with bickering manifested in demonstrations, exchange of contentious polemic verbal abuse. Certain ministers cannot even venture into a certain area in the country. The scene is both worrisome and pathetic. A business as usual in which the government can attend affairs of state is still far off.

Third, social cleavage is undeniably rocking the nation apart. The situation has developed into conflict between or among regions. While the south will welcome the Democrat ministers, the north and the northeast may protest the appearance of ministers who make a trip to the two regions. The divisive sentiment, localism, and regional bias are not healthy for the nationhood. This problem is more serious than sheer power struggle.

Fourth, there exists a serious ideological difference between or among groups of different political ideological leanings. In certain aspects, the difference is related to the first three articles of the constitution regarding, unitary statehood, a democratic form of government with the King as Head of the State and sovereign power comes from the people with the King exercising the power through the parliament, the council of ministers and the judiciary in accordance with the constitution and good governance. The conflict is thus not just a conflict generated from power struggle in the narrow sense of gaining state power but going beyond with ramifications of political and social implications imaginable. Many would view this problem with grave concern.

Tackling the economic problem is not easy. Success in problem resolution will also be predicated upon the political parameter. The simple argument is that the possibility of a good outcome of efforts will be greater if the government can operate under a stable political situation and a cooperative social milieu. But those elements are the luxury which the government does not have at this moment. Moreover, the recovery of the ailing economy resulted from policies of the government will take time but the public mood is to have a quick going back on track. The gap between what can be done and what the people want to have been done is worrisome.

The goal of economic recovery and the measures taken by the government may be noble but the multi-dimensional nature of the situation will not likely enable those who are entrusted with the job to feel sanguine about the outcome. The multi-faceted problem has also turned the mission into a Herculean task.

The government will need public understanding, empathy and moral support. In addition, the government will need time for policies to be formulated, measures to be implemented and some duration of time for the results of the action programs to bear fruit. Indeed, at this particular juncture in time, cooperation of all the sectors in the society is a sine qua non for the success of the governmental effort.