M.R. Kukrit Pramoj's *Farang Sakdina*, written in 1957-1958, serves as a critical analysis of Western development theories, specifically modernization theory promoted by the Americans and Marxist historical materialism espoused by the Soviets, as applied to Thailand. Kukrit argued that both perspectives erroneously equated Western feudalism with the Thai system of *sakdina*, leading to inappropriate policy prescriptions. He posited that the historical contradictions and subsequent changes in Europe and Thailand were fundamentally different. In Europe, land scarcity resulted in a peasantry tied to the land, owned by nobles. In contrast, Thailand's *sakdina* system, characterized by abundant land and labor scarcity, saw peasants attached to the nobility based on proximity to power rather than land ownership. This difference resulted in contrasting dialectical processes of historical change. Kukrit's work proposes a theory of good governance and political change rooted in dialectical tensions and cultural predispositions, suggesting that Western models are ill-suited for Thailand's unique historical context. The persistent role of the military in Thai governance, despite efforts by international actors to promote good governance, underscores the limitations of applying Western theories to non-Western contexts. This paper aims to analyze Kukrit's theory, contrasting it with Western assumptions and evaluating its relevance to understanding Thailand's development trajectory.

The paper draws upon existing scholarship on Kukrit Pramoj, Thai history, political science, and comparative sociology. It engages with works on Thai nationalism, the *sakdina* system, Marxist interpretations of Thai society, and post-colonial theory. Key scholars referenced include Jit Phoumisak, whose Marxist analysis of Thai feudalism Kukrit challenged; Pierre Bourdieu, whose concept of *habitus* helps explain the persistence of cultural predispositions; James C. Scott, whose work on zones of refuge in Southeast Asia complements Kukrit’s analysis; and Max Weber, whose concept of the Protestant ethic and its influence on capitalism provides a Western parallel to Kukrit’s argument. The paper also draws upon works examining the role of modernization theory and good governance initiatives in shaping Thailand's political landscape.

The paper employs a textual analysis of Kukrit Pramoj's *Farang Sakdina*. It meticulously examines Kukrit's arguments, comparing his analysis of English feudalism and Thai *sakdina* to highlight the contrasting historical trajectories and social structures. The analysis involves a close reading of the text, identifying key concepts and arguments, and comparing them to relevant theoretical frameworks in comparative historical sociology and post-colonial theory. The paper also considers Kukrit’s broader intellectual context, examining his political career and writings to understand his perspective on Thai society and governance. The comparison of English and Thai systems is structured through a detailed examination of institutional differences, including kingship, nobility, legal systems, land ownership, and the relationship between rulers and subjects. The paper further analyzes Kukrit's use of dialectical reasoning, drawing on concepts from Marxist thought and Thai Buddhist traditions to illustrate the dynamic interplay of contradictions and tensions in shaping political and social change. By carefully analyzing Kukrit's work within its historical and theoretical context, the paper aims to extract a robust understanding of Kukrit's theory of good governance and political change from a distinctly Thai perspective.

Kukrit's central argument in *Farang Sakdina* is that Western theories, whether capitalist or Marxist, are inapplicable to Thailand because they are based on European experiences and fail to account for Thailand’s unique historical development. He emphasizes the crucial difference between Western feudalism, focused on land ownership, and Thai *sakdina*, characterized by personal loyalty to the king and a less rigid hierarchy. The paper highlights Kukrit’s dialectical approach to understanding historical change, where contradictions within a system lead to its transformation and regeneration. This approach is informed by both Marxist dialectical materialism and Buddhist concepts of karma. Kukrit’s analysis of English feudalism reveals the enduring influence of historical predispositions (*habitus*) on contemporary governance structures. He contrasts this with the centralized nature of Thai *sakdina*, where the king’s authority was paramount, and personal loyalty was more important than land ownership. The study identifies the flawed assumptions of Western development planners who attempted to impose democratic institutions on Thailand without considering its unique cultural and historical context. The persistent influence of *sakdina* traditions is evident in contemporary Thai society, as seen in the continuing role of the military in politics and the persistence of hierarchical social structures. The 2020 student protests, which utilized the term *sakdina* to critique existing power structures, exemplify the ongoing relevance of Kukrit's analysis. The paper concludes that Kukrit's work offers a valuable alternative to Western-centric theories of good governance, providing a more nuanced understanding of Thailand’s political development and highlighting the limitations of imposing universal models.

This paper demonstrates that Kukrit Pramoj's *Farang Sakdina* offers a compelling critique of Western-centric approaches to understanding political development in non-Western contexts. His dialectical framework, informed by both Marxist and Buddhist thought, provides a richer understanding of the dynamic interplay of tradition and change in shaping Thai political institutions. The enduring relevance of Kukrit’s analysis is evident in the persistence of hierarchical social structures and the continued influence of the military in Thai politics. By highlighting the limitations of applying universal models of good governance, Kukrit’s work calls for a more context-sensitive approach to development and political reform. This study’s findings challenge the assumption that Western models of democracy and governance are universally applicable and underscore the importance of incorporating local cultural and historical factors in policy-making.

This study offers a detailed analysis of M.R. Kukrit Pramoj's *Farang Sakdina*, demonstrating its enduring relevance in understanding Thailand's political development. Kukrit's unique dialectical framework, blending Marxist and Buddhist perspectives, provides a valuable alternative to Western-centric theories of good governance. His emphasis on historical context and cultural predispositions challenges the universal applicability of Western models and offers insights into the persistent influence of *sakdina* traditions in contemporary Thai society. Future research could explore the broader applicability of Kukrit’s framework to other non-Western contexts and investigate the ongoing implications of his ideas for political reform and development strategies.

The study's primary focus on a single text, *Farang Sakdina*, limits its generalizability to other aspects of Kukrit's extensive body of work. Furthermore, the paper primarily analyzes Kukrit’s work from a secondary source, relying on existing translations and interpretations. Access to original Thai text might provide additional nuance to the analysis. The analysis is limited to a textual interpretation and does not involve empirical data collection to verify the claims presented in Kukrit’s book.