Dictatorship threatens to bury Thai democracy

by Michael Connors

It'S NOT the kind of Thailand you will see in travel brochures advertising "Amazing Thailand", but even casual observers can sense the nation is on the edge of a political meltdown.

Last year, the world's longest serving monarch, 79-year-old King Bhumipol Adulyadej called it "the worst crisis in the world", referring to the political crisis that wracked Thailand. The then prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, was fighting for his political survival amid mass demonstrations, military machinations, charges of lese majeste, corruption, and abuses of human rights.

He lost.

In September Thaksin was overthrown in a coup and by year's end a military appointed government was in place.

A Constitutional Drafting Assembly was formed to draft Thailand's 18th constitution since 1932.

No one has great hopes the new constitution currently being drafted under the shadow of the military will solve the country's woes.

The fragility of constitutional rule in Thailand has as much to do with vested and conflicting interests between old and new wealth as it does with flawed constitutional design.

And this is why it is possible to speak of meltdown.

During Thaksin's five years in office the government was charged with policy corruption that benefited his private business interests at the expense of rivals. While prime minister, his family firm invested heavily in AirAsia to compete against the national carrier, Thai Airways. He won tax concessions on his media activities, and the Export-Import Bank of Thailand provided soft loans to the Burmese regime to contract Thaksin's satellite and telecommunications firms.

As Thaksin's cronyism intensified, different groupings of business interests began to mobilise against him. They rallied under the convenient, though not completely inaccurate, cry that Thaksin was challenging the power of the king.

The current military-backed Government is now moving against Thaksin's wealth, and thus his political power. Last week, Thaksin's children were ordered to return half a billion dollars to the tax office. As more cases of corruption come before the courts, pro-Thaksin forces in Thailand are mobilising protests against the Government while Thaksin, in exile, claims disinterest in politics.

Whether the crisis will end in compromise, or will be fought to the end, is unclear.

So what of the prospects of democracy in Thailand? The Government promises an election will be held at year's end under the newly-drafted constitution. But pro-democratic and some pro-Thaksin forces are calling for the constitution to be rejected.

A rejection could be interpreted as condemnation of the coup and support for Thaksin paving the way for his political comeback in some form. Others fear that should an election be held pro-Thaksin forces will win anyway.

That's why some people have given up on democracy all together, saying the rural masses in Thailand are not ready for it. Instead a mixed system that incorporates the people, the aristocracy, and the king should be devised until the masses are ready to act like democratic citizens.

Such criticism of the electoral process betrays aristocratic disdain for the masses; and it might suggest that one of South-East Asia's most liberal of democracies (from the 1980s-1990s) might be headed down the road of Singaporean guided-democracy.

The principal charge against the masses is that they sell their votes to opportunist and corrupt politicians for less than 1000 baht ($A40) and have no regard for public interest. They elect corrupt governments that plunder the public purse, so what's the point of democracy?

Thais have dubbed pre-election nights "the night the dogs howl" because vote-canvassers make late-night visits to those they have paid to ensure they vote appropriately. Their nocturnal meanderings stir sleeping dogs and whole villages wake up to the howling: an apt sound for an aching democracy.

The question of succession is another potential site of meltdown. There is no doubt that without the presence of the current king, who has immense moral power in Thailand, political order in the interests of the old elite will be hard to guarantee. And this is where the political divide on regime form among the Thai elites opens up as they decide on a form of right wing electoral populism as exercised by Thaksin or someone like him, or a guided-democracy under the tutelage of the old establishment. Between both, the promise of Thai liberalism appears to be diminished.

The third significant site of meltdown centres on the continuing insurgency in the Muslim-majority provinces in the south of Thailand. Thaksin's demise was supposed to bring an end to the daily killings by insurgents and para-military state apparatuses. It was believed his insensitive incompetence had fuelled the insurgency. Instead, the killings have intensified, and taken on a more sectarian nature between Buddhist and Muslim.

The current Government appears no more competent than Thaksin's in dealing with the crisis. The three thousand lives lost in the last three years of the insurgency may be small compared with what may soon come.

Looking at the bleak prospect of Thai politics in the coming year it is hard not to conclude that it is more than just the dogs who will be howling.

Michael Connors is a specialist in Thai politics at La Trobe University. He is the author of Democracy and National Identity in Thailand (NIAS Press).

Didn't even read the article......don't you think it has already gone beyone threatening?

Didn't even read the article......don't you think it has already gone beyone threatening?

Chownah , have a heart. Have some consideration for us simple-minded members and

make your posts less cryptic. What has "gone beyond threatening"? The situation in

Thailand or ferengi like this issuing alarmist statements to gain their 5 minutes of fame?

I am surprised to see posted something which includes a taboo subject , a subject which

is far more worrying than the competence of the current administration or the violence

in the south.

Succession is going to be the biggest crisis Thailand has ever seen. All bets are off at that point.

Didn't even read the article......don't you think it has already gone beyone threatening?

Chownah , have a heart. Have some consideration for us simple-minded members and

make your posts less cryptic. What has "gone beyond threatening"? The situation in

Thailand or ferengi like this issuing alarmist statements to gain their 5 minutes of fame?

Chownah is referring to the topic title which is "dictatorship threatens to bury Thai democracy" he is intimating that he thinks it has already. I personally agree with him. Any democracy that can be taken over by the military at any time is not a democracy but a government acting under military tolerance at best. The current military government have said on several occasions that they are willing to hand over power to the elected government, unless it is one that they (the military) don't like or think is suitable eg a reincarnation of TRT

I am surprised to see posted something which includes a taboo subject , a subject which

is far more worrying than the competence of the current administration or the violence

in the south.

My understanding of the forum rules is that in THIS forum we can discuss Thai political subject as long as it remains a civilised and rational discussion. Moderators will overwatch and make sure it doesn't turn into a mass flame war. This was an outcome of a previous thread requesting such an outcome.

Ok back on topic.

I think this is an interesting thread and something that parallels what has been discussed re the Burma Junta thread (under the sex tourist thread). I don't think that the present military government has gone anywhere near to the extent of the Myammar situation but Thailand has a long and established tradition of the Military taking power for "the good of the nation". I think it is part of the psyche of this country that permits this and to some extent encourages military control. I think that there is some basis in the theory that the "upper echelon" of society think they are much more suited to governing and that the average Thai peasant farmer is incapable of making a valid judgement. I hasten to add before someone jumps on me for this statement that I don't think it is right but vote rigging and buying is done and happens.

CB

Didn't even read the article......don't you think it has already gone beyone threatening?

Chownah , have a heart. Have some consideration for us simple-minded members and

make your posts less cryptic. What has "gone beyond threatening"? The situation in

Thailand or ferengi like this issuing alarmist statements to gain their 5 minutes of fame?

Chownah is referring to the topic title which is "dictatorship threatens to bury Thai democracy" he is intimating that he thinks it has already. I personally agree with him. Any democracy that can be taken over by the military at any time is not a democracy but a government acting under military tolerance at best. The current military government have said on several occasions that they are willing to hand over power to the elected government, unless it is one that they (the military) don't like or think is suitable eg a reincarnation of TRT

Thank you for the clarification. And for wearing your democratic credentials on your sleeve.

There are two radically opposed viewpoints in this country (and indeed on this board) as to

what constitutes a healthy democracy. One would view the entire Thaksin era as a hi-jacking

of "democracy" whereby populist policies (funded by state coffers) were used to gain power

and power (once gained) was used to stifle any opposition to the rape of a nation. You see

this as a lesser evil compared to the status quo and are of another persuasion. You speak of

a "military government" and indeed the interim PM still enjoys the title of General (it is hard

to find someone in Thailand above the level of street food vendor who does not possess a

uniform) so did you consider the reign of Pol. Colonel Thaksin a "police government"?

I am surprised to see posted something which includes a taboo subject , a subject which

is far more worrying than the competence of the current administration or the violence

in the south.

My understanding of the forum rules is that in THIS forum we can discuss Thai political subject as long as it remains a civilised and rational discussion. Moderators will overwatch and make sure it doesn't turn into a mass flame war. This was an outcome of a previous thread requesting such an outcome.

My understanding is , and this for a decade , is that there are subjects you do not discuss in public

and this is nothing to do with being flamed on TV. I have discussed such subjects with Thai friends

and was reassured by the pragmatism they expressed.

Ok back on topic.

Are you suggesting I was off topic ? Or just a cheap shot ?

I think this is an interesting thread and something that parallels what has been discussed re the Burma Junta thread (under the sex tourist thread). I don't think that the present military government has gone anywhere near to the extent of the Myammar situation but Thailand has a long and established tradition of the Military taking power for "the good of the nation". I think it is part of the psyche of this country that permits this and to some extent encourages military control. I think that there is some basis in the theory that the "upper echelon" of society think they are much more suited to governing and that the average Thai peasant farmer is incapable of making a valid judgement. I hasten to add before someone jumps on me for this statement that I don't think it is right but vote rigging and buying is done and happens.

I think your comparison of the CNS (and I am not their advocate) to the Burmese junta is totally outrageous.

CB

In summary Crowboy , while I respect your opinion , I feel you adopt too much of a "four legs

good two legs bad" approach and have a view of "democracy" more suited to your native land.

I have already criticised your citation of the Burmese junta. I would ask you whether the military

should have intervened when the FIS won a democratic victory against an admittedly corrupt

power structure in Algeria? And whether the Turkish military are justified in their recent statements

that they will guarantee the non-secular status stipulated in their constitution.

Politics and religion are two subjects that I try to stay well away from, it nearly always gets personal, sometimes nasty and rarely changes opinions.

This is my opinion.

All politicians enter the game for personal gain, some throw back the odd trinket to keep them popular. That worked for more than a couple of years for a certain individual and it is the main reason why the military are loosing popularity now, it's all well and good to command an armed force with a "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" policy, but that doesn't work country-wide for a civilian population.

The rural masses are restless, few would doubt that, and why re-write a constitution that nobody will read and will get totally ignored anyway?

I wonder if democracy, whatever we individually consider it to be, is the right form of government for Thailand or, for that matter, any south east Asian nation?

Lets face it, the vast majority of Thai people don't give a toss who's in government. All they care about is the food on the table now, everything else may as well be on another planet.

I wonder if democracy, whatever we individually consider it to be, is the right form of government for Thailand or, for that matter, any south east Asian nation?

Lets face it, the vast majority of Thai people don't give a toss who's in government. All they care about is the food on the table now, everything else may as well be on another planet.

I think you are very wrong there. The TRT success at the elections, mostly because of the populist development programs, has shown that most people do care who is in power. People vote for the party which is doing most for them - TRT was the first major party that has campaigned on a policy platform, and was the first party that has been elected, served its full term, was re-elected, was re-elected again but the elections were annulled, and would have been re-elected again if there would not have been a coup.

People in the past have never cared because the parties that were available had no policies for the people, especially the rural poor, and only promoted the upholding of the status quo. As much as TRT opponents would like to (and i would count myself as a TRT opponent as well) blame Thaksin's success on vote buying, corruption and media control, they do underestimate the discontent of the people with what they perceive as a basically unfair system that is designed for the advantage of the rich, and also disregard that the TRT was the party that for the first time had some development policies in its program for previously neglected and only ruled over sectors of society.

People were obviously aware of the corruption under Thaksin, but from their view point the difference between TRT corruption and previous administrations was that this time at least something was done for them as well.

Democracy is foremost a social contract of all sectors of society to initiate change at the ballot box and through other constitutional means, such as censor motions in parliament, and not through violent actions of institutions that are supposed to be under the constitution which does not allow military coups.

In a democracy people are allowed to make their mistakes, and learn from them. Thaksin may have been a mistake, but given the available alternatives, people had not much choice other than voting for TRT as it was the only party that had any policies.

Military coups may be a short term fix for political problems, but they open a far bigger can of worms than a authoritarian PM with corruption issues does. In the long run - such power grabs are far more damaging.

Will functioning democracy without the threat of interference by military etc. have a chance in Thailand? One day it will. But some serious changes have to happen before. I feel that we are only at the beginning of those changes, will have at least ten years of enormous turbulence and instability in front of us before we see some improvement.

Thaksin was only a small part of a much larger problem in a country that has some very serious leftover feudal issues to deal with.

If the current military administration choose to consolidate their power who will stand in their way?

A revolutionary group with a political insugency, a civil war between rich and poor?

I think it is highly unlikely.

So after a period of turmoil you would have a authoritarian but stable establishment in an unassailable position,

with a politically ignorant and/or enfeebled poor population that are easily exploited.

The big multinational companies must be wringing their hands with anticipation.

If the current military administration choose to consolidate their power who will stand in their way?

The military itself - because of their incompetence and their traditional infighting between factions and classes.

Succession is going to be the biggest crisis Thailand has ever seen. All bets are off at that point.

Not sure if we're allowed to say anything about this. But I agree with this statement 100% cdnvic. That is the time to really start worrying.

Succession is going to be the biggest crisis Thailand has ever seen. All bets are off at that point.

Not sure if we're allowed to say anything about this. But I agree with this statement 100% cdnvic. That is the time to really start worrying.

I concur, that event is hopefully a long way off, but it will happen eventually, probably in my lifetime and I really don't want it to, mainly out of respect for him and secondly, the devastating effect it will have on the country that I would like to call my home (if they will let me)

Succession is going to be the biggest crisis Thailand has ever seen. All bets are off at that point.

Not sure if we're allowed to say anything about this. But I agree with this statement 100% cdnvic. That is the time to really start worrying.

im not so sure. no one really wants to leave behind a legacy of crisis and unresolved issues. there has been more than enough time to plan ahead and im sure there they have thought about this carefully and will take the best course of action.

Didn't even read the article......don't you think it has already gone beyone threatening?

Chownah , have a heart. Have some consideration for us simple-minded members and

make your posts less cryptic. What has "gone beyond threatening"? The situation in

Thailand or ferengi like this issuing alarmist statements to gain their 5 minutes of fame?

Chownah is referring to the topic title which is "dictatorship threatens to bury Thai democracy" he is intimating that he thinks it has already. I personally agree with him. Any democracy that can be taken over by the military at any time is not a democracy but a government acting under military tolerance at best. The current military government have said on several occasions that they are willing to hand over power to the elected government, unless it is one that they (the military) don't like or think is suitable eg a reincarnation of TRT

Thank you for the clarification. And for wearing your democratic credentials on your sleeve.

There are two radically opposed viewpoints in this country (and indeed on this board) as to

what constitutes a healthy democracy. One would view the entire Thaksin era as a hi-jacking

of "democracy" whereby populist policies (funded by state coffers) were used to gain power

and power (once gained) was used to stifle any opposition to the rape of a nation. You see

this as a lesser evil compared to the status quo and are of another persuasion. You speak of

a "military government" and indeed the interim PM still enjoys the title of General (it is hard

to find someone in Thailand above the level of street food vendor who does not possess a

uniform) so did you consider the reign of Pol. Colonel Thaksin a "police government"?

I am surprised to see posted something which includes a taboo subject , a subject which

is far more worrying than the competence of the current administration or the violence

in the south.

My understanding of the forum rules is that in THIS forum we can discuss Thai political subject as long as it remains a civilised and rational discussion. Moderators will overwatch and make sure it doesn't turn into a mass flame war. This was an outcome of a previous thread requesting such an outcome.

My understanding is , and this for a decade , is that there are subjects you do not discuss in public

and this is nothing to do with being flamed on TV. I have discussed such subjects with Thai friends

and was reassured by the pragmatism they expressed.

Ok back on topic.

Are you suggesting I was off topic ? Or just a cheap shot ?

I think this is an interesting thread and something that parallels what has been discussed re the Burma Junta thread (under the sex tourist thread). I don't think that the present military government has gone anywhere near to the extent of the Myammar situation but Thailand has a long and established tradition of the Military taking power for "the good of the nation". I think it is part of the psyche of this country that permits this and to some extent encourages military control. I think that there is some basis in the theory that the "upper echelon" of society think they are much more suited to governing and that the average Thai peasant farmer is incapable of making a valid judgement. I hasten to add before someone jumps on me for this statement that I don't think it is right but vote rigging and buying is done and happens.

I think your comparison of the CNS (and I am not their advocate) to the Burmese junta is totally outrageous.

CB

In summary Crowboy , while I respect your opinion , I feel you adopt too much of a "four legs

good two legs bad" approach and have a view of "democracy" more suited to your native land.

I have already criticised your citation of the Burmese junta. I would ask you whether the military

should have intervened when the FIS won a democratic victory against an admittedly corrupt

power structure in Algeria? And whether the Turkish military are justified in their recent statements

that they will guarantee the non-secular status stipulated in their constitution.

Farangsai rather than work my way through the nested quotes I thought I would make a summary here, so please bear with me.

First up - I wasn't having a cheap shot at you re "on topic" - it was not intended and was actually referring to me getting back to me putting up a reply on the OP. If you thought it was directed at you then I apologise.

Secondly - I have a personal philosophical objection to the military being the government. My personal belief is that government is best served when seperated from religion and military. I have lived in counties which are a theocracy and others including Thailand which are military based. The consitutions of Thailand have been written, discarded, and rewritten many times and the few constants are regal and military. I agree with the former (last comment on that matter) and disagree with the latter.

To answer the question re Taksin - as a farung non citizen I have no say, but the population of Thailand voted for him. To remove him from power should have been done by popular vote not military force. People should be allowed to vote and get the government they choose. The military's role is to carry out the orders of the legally elected government of the day not decide they don't agree and then take over for themself because they perceive they have the "right".

I disagree with what Taksin did to Thailand but he also did a lot of good. He was most likely but not proven yet to be corrupt. The corruption of TRT and party members has been cited and the party will almost definitely be disbanded. Should the Republican and Democrat parties in the US be disbanded if a congressman or senator is cited for taking bribes from lobbyists? Should the Labour party in the UK be disbanded because an inordinate number of peerages were handed out to people making large donations to the party? The answer is yes IF the courts decide the law has been broken and the constitution allows for such a dissolution. The military do not have the right in those countries to overthrow the party and take power.

In Thailand the military has an automatic minimun number of elected members to parliment, many of the party members of TRT and other parties are current or ex military leaders who still trade off their rank.

This all said, I believe it is up to the people of Thailand to choose their government and style of government. I do not think it is up to we farung to tell them what to do. I don't have a "two legs bad, four legs good" view, I think the bottom line is that people get the government they deserve.

CB