The Real Reason Behind The Udd Sunday Protest

[virtualtraveller]

Without disrespecting the dead in the April clashes, I think the most recent UDD rally is primarily pre-election posturing. The political calendar in Thailand is pretty crowded with 'anniversaries' which are ideal excuses for such gatherings. Aside from a show of numbers it was a chance to make clear their message 'be careful! the military are going to steal the next election from us'. As far as they're concerned, if they pip the other parties for the most votes, even marginally, and don't get to form a govt it should be judged as a silent coup, and the result not respected. This is their forewarning.

Let's be clear here, the strategy of the UDD leadership (with or without the knowledge of the masses) has been to shame the military, forcing them to spill blood and be damned by the public. Their first attempt didn't succeed, so they went for the farcical symbolic spilling of donated blood. After the first clash at Kok Wua the Black Shirts were revealed and the public saw through their ruse. Still no sympathy. Finally it took a massive street battle during the clearing of Ratchaprasong. Yet the government survived because the only outrage the public showed was against the blockade and burning of Bangkok. Now all the UDD can do is bang on about 'justice', and though they are right in insisting that (for once) an investigation and accountability been carried out in Thailand, secretly they know it will never happen and the army will be seen as resisting. In fact the truth is they prefer it that way, if there was a proper investigation it would point most of the fingers at the UDD leadership for instigating the crisis, harbouring armed vigilantes and inciting a violent response.

What they are now doing is their usual manipulation of public sentiment among the ill informed rural voters, so that if Puea Thai fail to form a coalition, they will all believe it was the work of the military behind the scenes. It will give them the 'legitimacy' to come back on to the streets demanding 'democracy'. What they fail to explain, is that their chosen party, Peua Thai, has yet to release a manifesto, has no obvious leader, and so far has said very little about how it might govern, other than to focus its energies on freeing Thaksin so that he can come back and 'work his magic'. They haven't explained exactly how this is possible, since it will involve jumping through numerous legal hoops, and likely to elicit an incensed response that may will bring 100,000s out on to the street. It will be like the Wongsawat farce all over again.

The truth is, Peua Thai comes with such heavy baggage that the medium sized parties will be loathe to join it for a coalition unless they are given an offer they can't refuse, and even then Newin (and probably Barnharn) will not support any parliamentary vote that paves the way for Thaksin's return.

It should be made very clear to the electorate that in many elections in healthy democracies around the world the party gaining the most seats or votes regularly fails to form a coalition due to ideological differences. And if only 35% of the electorate or constituencies chose that party, then that's only a third of the country who's will has been denied. Perhaps the party list results should be used in deciding who gets first dibs at negotiating, as some academics have suggested.

It's very important that the UDD stand up to the meddling of the military in politics (though I sometimes think that they overstate the army's true involvement), but equally the PAD have a similarly important resistence to the country being run by proxy by a fugitive exiled criminal. A man in Dubai writing out a blank cheque, and a man in miilitary fatigues leaning on party leaders to chose the 'correct' side are equally evil realities of Thai politics.

The main thing is, there are rules applying to this election, including the parliamentary vote, and those choosing to participate are agreeing to respect the outcome and leave it to the EC to judge. When all is said and done the eventual formation of a government should be respected by all parties, unconditionally, and only when they fail to undertake their duty to the constitution, should protestors have an legitimacy to take to the streets.

Edited April 12, 2011 by cdnvic
Duplicate conversation to current news forum articles. Closed