Pad Thai Democracy

It's an interesting time to be in Thailand right now especially in Krungthep (Bangkok). This is the redux of the mass protests in 1973 that brought down the military regime, the 1976 counter-movement (Hok Tula - October 6) that toppled the democratic government and ushered back the authoritarian regime, and the 1992 protest that kick-started Thailand on the path of democracy again. A friend of mine, who's Thai-Malaysian (born and raised in Malaysia but her grandparents were from Thailand), asked me for a summary of the current conflict in Bangkok, about what really happens and what are the root causes. Here's my sort of lengthy response to her question:

Thailand actually has a very interesting political history, and except for the frequent coups, it's actually not that different from ours. It's a constitutional monarchy just like us with the same parliamentary system. The situation in Thailand now is actually nothing new. In a nutshell it's actually a conflict between the elite/middle class in Bangkok and its surrounding area (the center) versus the mostly rural outer regions (periphery). Unlike Malaysia, where most of the population are concentrated in the urban areas especially Lembah Klang, in Thailand, most of the people live outside of Bangkok. It means that there's always tension between the center and the periphery, and it's made worse by the allocation of seats in the Thai parliament (90% of the seats are in the provinces). The provinces wield a lot of power by virtue of electoral strength and the minority elite/middle class in Bangkok doesn't like it very much especially when economic power is concentrated in the center.

So, in the 2005 general election, Thaksin's party, Thai Rak Thai (TRT) won an overwhelming majority in the parliament due to its huge popularity in the provinces. TRT came out with programs that appealed to the poor rural masses such as 30 baht health care and other anti-poverty measures. He also carried out a brutal but very popular anti-drug campaign in Bangkok where the police was given a free hand to murder drug dealers and gang members. Thaksin was the only PM in Thai history who managed to serve a full term without being overthrown by coup or simply kicked out. But this is not to say that Thaksin is a nice and clean politician; actually far from it. He used his vast wealth to buy votes and pay off other politicians to jump party and manipulated the "godfathers" (chao po), who are the real powers in the provinces, to "harvest the votes" for him. That, plus his TRT's populist platform, had resulted in an overwhelming electoral win.

Of course many of Thaksin's enemies in Bangkok didn't like it at all. They felt that he had grown too powerful for his own good - which he did - and needed to be taken out of power. The main sponsor of the anti-Thaksin group (the yellow-shirt) is the super wealthy media tycoon, Sondhi Limthongkul. He, along with other enemies of Thaksin including the pro-royalist faction led by the Privy Councillor Prem, managed to whip up mass support for deposing Thaksin. This was also helped by Thaksin's own arrogance and hubris especially when the ShinCorp scandal broke out (he refused to pay taxes on the sale of his telecommunication company, ShinCorp, to Temasek Holdings). There were also a lot of grumblings on the heavy-handed way Thaksin dealt with the separatists in the South. The Thai monarchy was also feeling threatened by the immense popularity of Thaksin, words on the ground told me that Thaksin actually controlled the royal princes and princesses by essentially putting them on his payroll.

In the end, the convergence of all these factors resulted in the 2006 military coup. Well, of course, the huge number of TRT (and Thaksin) supporters (the red-shirt) were not happy with this takeover because they believed - and rightly so - that it was Thaksin who should be in power because TRT had won the election overwhelmingly. Hence the political stalemate and the stand-off that last until today. It can generally be seen as a class-conflict between the rural peasants and the elite/middle class of Bangkok even though the leader of these rural peasants is the richest man in the country. It's hard to say which side is right. Even though Thaksin won the election - by dirty means nonetheless but where actually in the world can you find squeaky clean politics? - he had almost become a dictator, on par with the King, and this fact didn't sit well with the entrenched powers that-be in Bangkok. Instead of trying to depose Thaksin via democratic means i.e. election, they decided to take a short-cut and staged a military coup. I guess, in short, this conflict is not exactly black-and-white and there many shades of gray in between. Such is the nature of political conflict.

For a brief Q & A of the current crisis in Bangkok, refer to this BBC article.

Thai military so far has uncharacteristically promised not to intervene and has beseeched all feuding parties to find a peaceful political solution to end the conflict. It seems like there's a dissension among the military ranks and the support is divided between the two factions of the conflict. The military is not solidly behind one faction or the other. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how long the military is willing to stand down.

The only way to end the conflict, I think, is to call for a fresh election, in which Thaksin's allies will surely to win handily. But then that is the nature of democracy and the best thing Thai government can do now is to close all the loopholes that had allowed Thaksin to operate with impunity and to also strengthen the rule of law in the country. The electoral laws also could use some tweakings, but most importantly there is a serious need for transparency and the professionalization of political parties. There must also be a provision that allows the political minority some stake in the decision-making process. A fully realized democracy is the one that protects the rights of the political minority, and not to impose the tyrannic rule of the majority.