Thaksin founded the Shinawatra dynasty, but the military empowered it

[webfact]

OPINION

Thaksin founded the Shinawatra dynasty, but the military empowered it

By Titipol Phakdeewanich 
Special to The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- The departure of the former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who fled the country prior to a Supreme Court verdict on her rice-pledging policy, leaves various questions concerning the future of herself and the Shinawatra family, the Pheu Thai Party, and changes in the Thai political landscape.

It is premature to see her exit as the end of the Shinawatra era in Thai politics, since events after the two military coups of 2006 and 2014 demonstrate that the clan’s influence cannot be abolished simply by military force. Instead, the coups did the reverse, keeping the Shinawatras politically alive and empowered. 

 

The 2006 coup, led by the Council for Democratic Reform, ousted then-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his Thai Rak Thai government – but it did not diminish his influence. 

 

In 2014 the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) staged a coup amid escalating violence surrounding protests by the People’s Democratic Reform Committee (PDRC) in 2013-2014, and removed prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra, the Pheu Thai Party leader, from office. 

 

Her 2011 electoral success had obviously capitalised on the popularity of her brother, Thaksin. Yet her candidacy was perceived by some as a battle to represent Shinawatra family interests, rather than the interests of Pheu Thai voters. During electoral campaigning, she repeated the point she was Thaksin’s sister and reiterated his achievements as a means to gain support.

 

After she was ousted by the military in 2014, Yingluck began to establish her own, separate power base during multiple trips across the country, particularly in the North and Northeast, her party’s stronghold. She was successful in boosting her popularity and keeping Pheu Thai relevant to its constituents, and also portraying herself as a victim of an illegitimate military intervention and faulty justice system.

 

Yet for the Shinawatras’ political opponents, who advocated the coups, the clan is not a victim of military intervention but rather the root of the political divisiveness and problems that made it necessary.

 

That leaves an elephant in the room. A large swathe of the Thai middle-class and anti-Thaksin groups have rejected democracy and now embrace military rule. This works in the interests of the Shinawatra family, and allows them to embed and empower themselves in the Thai political environment. 

 

The Thai Rak Thai Party and its incarnations have not lost an election since coming to power with a landslide victory of over 11 million votes in 2001. In the most recent election in 2011, its successor Pheu Thai won 15.7 million votes, under the guidance of Thaksin from outside Thailand.

 

The 2006 and 2014 coups were intended to curtail the power and influence of the clan, but they badly backfired. Meanwhile the military’s continuing role in Thai politics is unlikely to weaken the Shinawatras’ grip in the long term because the military cannot establish trust through coercion. 

 

 Another Shinawatra victory at the polls could well be followed by another military intervention, further empowering the clan. 

 

If they want to break this cycle, the Thai middle-class and elite cannot continue to blindly dismiss the very core democratic principle of one-man-one-vote, while embracing military rule on the pretext that rural voters are victims of populist policies and vote-buying.

 

While vote-buying was indeed a significant problem in Thailand from the 1970s into the 2000s, today it has little significant impact because most voters are fully aware of party manifestos and their implications on public policies. Moreover, middle-class assumptions that rural voters are naive are not only outdated and erroneous, but emphasise the inherent socio-political inequalities which gave rise to Thaksin in the first place.

 

Therefore, the 2010 red-shirt protest was not primarily an endorsement of the Shinawatra family, but rather an outcry by the long-ignored rural poor, who wanted to protect their voting rights under the Thai constitution and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Thailand is a signatory.

 

On the one hand, democracy offered Thaksin the opportunity to establish his Shinawatra political dynasty. But on the other, the same democracy offers voters a mechanism to remove the Shinawatra family through an election.

 

Political popularity can last a long time, but not forever. When a party in power can no longer satisfy voters’ needs, voting decisions change. This is how representative democracy functions. 

 

Pheu Thai’s victory was no miracle, but rather a result of research by the party that enabled it to respond to the demands of voters, who were regarded as stockholders in the arena of public policy. This is a fundamental notion of representative democracy, in which parliamentary members represent the interests of the constituents who provided them with a mandate. 

 

Whether the Shinawatras will now maintain their involvement with Pheu Thai is unclear, but the departure of Yingluck is unlikely to signal the end of the clan’s influence on Thai politics.

 

Meanwhile the military has indicated it intends to control the country for the next decade or two, pending permission from the political elite and middle class and their continuing willingness to limit democracy to prevent the return of the Shinawatra clan.

 

Nevertheless, we might still see a day when the Shinawatra family vanishes from the Thai political landscape altogether. But only when a genuine democracy is given the opportunity to function without military intervention. 

 

Titipol Phakdeewanich is dean of the Faculty of Political Science at Ubon Ratchathani University, and a visiting fellow at the Centre for the Study of Globalisation and Regionalisation at the University of Warwick in England.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30325457

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-09-01

 

[Samui Bodoh]

9 minutes ago, webfact said:

Moreover, middle-class assumptions that rural voters are naive are not only outdated and erroneous, but emphasise the inherent socio-political inequalities which gave rise to Thaksin in the first place.

 

Or, put another way, Bangkok's middle classes and elites arrogantly believe that only they should have a voice in the running of Thailand. Not surprisingly, rural voters and the poor don't accept this. 

 

While I am not a fan of the Shins or the red shirts, I applaud them for opening up the debate and empowering the less fortunate. They have created a situation whereby any future government will have to take into account the needs of the poor and rural people if they want to have any chance of success. 

 

The lesson for the Bangkok elite and middle classes is that you cannot ignore a large portion of the population anymore. 

 

And you won't have legitimacy if you do. Period.

 

And that is a good thing. 

 

[darksidedog]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

 

Meanwhile the military has indicated it intends to control the country for the next decade or two

Well there is confirmation, despite assurances that elections were just around the corner, of what we have all believed for quite some time. Prayut does not intend to give up his power and Democracy will be missing from these shores a good while longer.

[Bob12345]

1 hour ago, darksidedog said:

Well there is confirmation, despite assurances that elections were just around the corner, of what we have all believed for quite some time. Prayut does not intend to give up his power and Democracy will be missing from these shores a good while longer.

Confirmation came when they introduced their overseeing boards, filled with military men and friends, who will dictate any coming new government what they can and cannot do.

As it is included in the constitution there is no way around it.

 

Whoever will win the next election, assuming there will be one at some point, will have  a nice looking office and little more to do than PR.

They can go abroad just for shopping trips and don't even have to show up at meetings as they cannot decide on anything anyways.

(sounds like a nice job for a certain female ex-politician who will be barred from holding office very soon)

[phantomfiddler]

The Redshirts have a very valid cause, the struggle for equality of justice and democracy. So unfortunate that they fell under the leadership of the most corrupt person/family in Thai history. In the long run they would do well to distance themselves from this influence so that they could possibly move on into a legitimate political force. Unfortunately there is a distinct possibility that their present leaders are only there to suck up the shinawatra funding.

[yellowboat]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

While vote-buying was indeed a significant problem in Thailand from the 1970s into the 2000s, today it has little significant impact because most voters are fully aware of party manifestos and their implications on public policies.

More bad news for the coup apologists and their vote buying argument. 

 

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Meanwhile the military has indicated it intends to control the country for the next decade or two, pending permission from the political elite and middle class and their continuing willingness to limit democracy to prevent the return of the Shinawatra clan.

Thailand is the land of shortcuts.  This shortcut is probably going to cost the country greatly and allow their neighbors to pass it by.  China made huge progress in 20 years, zooming past Thailand.  All this because the elite and uneducated middle class did not want to play by the same rules that places like Taiwan hold dear. 

[mfd101]

The article OP is the best short summary I've seen yet of the situation.

 

Only once the Thai middle classes accept the basic concepts of liberal democracy will Thailand move forward politically, culturally and economically. That includes devising policies & their implementation for a majority of the total population so their political parties - currently the misnamed 'Democrats' - can actually win an election.

[Baerboxer]

38 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

The Redshirts have a very valid cause, the struggle for equality of justice and democracy. So unfortunate that they fell under the leadership of the most corrupt person/family in Thai history. In the long run they would do well to distance themselves from this influence so that they could possibly move on into a legitimate political force. Unfortunately there is a distinct possibility that their present leaders are only there to suck up the shinawatra funding.

 

Their present leaders weren't elected into office. They were appointed. How and by whom is a "secret". They are their to ensure the Red Shirts do as told. 

 

The UDD and Red Shirts don't practice democracy in their own organizations, and neither does PTP for that matter. Until that changes, the rural people, the poor, the working class, or whatever label you tag the masses with, won't have a real representation.

[henry15]

Howcome that that that from Bangkok till the border of Malasia  not have a Red Shirt movement and the PT  not even win a single seat in parliament. And  why the mayority of the Southern people are yellow shirts, and came to demonstrate  in Bangkok in 2008  and 2013 and 2014. Its far to easy to blame the elite and the Bangkokian middle class. Also in the Central region PT and Red Shirts are les populary than many think. Just see the election results.

In fact its  mainly 2 etnic minorities (Laos & Khmer) who are Red Shirts  and  Thaksin supporters. Its a taboo to  say that all the political turmoil is become an etnic conflict, instigated by Thaksin and red shirt populist leaders.

[Baerboxer]

18 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

The article OP is the best short summary I've seen yet of the situation.

 

Only once the Thai middle classes accept the basic concepts of liberal democracy will Thailand move forward politically, culturally and economically. That includes devising policies & their implementation for a majority of the total population so their political parties - currently the misnamed 'Democrats' - can actually win an election.

 

And yet the author of this article again misrepresents how Yingluck was dismissed from office.

 

I guess being removed by a coup suits his article better than the reality of being dismissed by a court for an illegal abuse of power!

[Baerboxer]

1 minute ago, henry15 said:

Howcome that that that from Bangkok till the border of Malasia  not have a Red Shirt movement and the PT  not even win a single seat in parliament. And  why the mayority of the Southern people are yellow shirts, and came to demonstrate  in Bangkok in 2008  and 2013 and 2014. Its far to easy to blame the elite and the Bangkokian middle class. Also in the Central region PT and Red Shirts are les populary than many think. Just see the election results.

In fact its  mainly 2 etnic minorities (Laos & Khmer) who are Red Shirts  and  Thaksin supporters. Its a taboo to  say that all the political turmoil is become an etnic conflict, instigated by Thaksin and red shirt populist leaders.

 

The Shiniwattras main power base is Chiang Mai, their home city. Hence their references to Lanna when it suits them.

 

Part of the explanation, possibly, is the old feudal type patronages and strong influence of the powerful families in those regions. People follow who there families have always supported - and no one wants, or dares, to be seen to break with that tradition. Then someone like Thaksin comes along who can weave alliances with favors, broker deals, and unite some into a bigger amalgamation to support himself, and rocks the boat.

 

 

[yellowboat]

Just now, Baerboxer said:

 

Their present leaders weren't elected into office. They were appointed. How and by whom is a "secret". They are their to ensure the Red Shirts do as told. 

 

The UDD and Red Shirts don't practice democracy in their own organizations, and neither does PTP for that matter. Until that changes, the rural people, the poor, the working class, or whatever label you tag the masses with, won't have a real representation.

Oh, geeze what a nitpick.  Grasping at straws.  So you believe because red shirt leaders are appointed, the military had every right to defile universal suffrage ?   They voted for these people, so they must have believed in them. 

[Baerboxer]

Just now, yellowboat said:

Oh, geeze what a nitpick.  Grasping at straws.  So you believe because red shirt leaders are appointed, the military had every right to defile universal suffrage ?   They voted for these people, so they must have believed in them. 

 

Nonsense. And a pathetically crude attempt at sophistry.

 

I did not post the words or make the statement that you include. It's is against forum rules to change a posters words in such a twisted manner btw.

 

Nitpicking - you mean an inconvenient truth. Don't you think the person who appointed them, pay them and instructs them might be using them for self interest?

 

No one voted for any UDD or Red Shirt leader - they were appointed, that's the point. Or do you think that's democratic.

 

Do not try to invalidate my posts with false logic and assumptions or I will be force to report you. The UDD and Red Shirts are not political parties. They are pressure groups formed to support one particular party.

 

 

[yellowboat]

4 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

And yet the author of this article again misrepresents how Yingluck was dismissed from office.

 

I guess being removed by a coup suits his article better than the reality of being dismissed by a court for an illegal abuse of power!

She was deposed and then impeached.  The order is wrong.  Had the military not intervened and instead insisted on legal proceeding and allowed another election, they would be on the moral high ground.  But we all know that the yellows would never win an election, as they are afraid to campaign in the east and north.  Yingluck was deposed for what she and her party were trying to do legally, not illegally, pardon Thaksin.  The author, thankfully, is spot on not that it matters though.  People who think like you, however, rely overwhelming force. 

[Enoon]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Or, put another way, Bangkok's middle classes and elites arrogantly believe that only they should have a voice in the running of Thailand. Not surprisingly, rural voters and the poor don't accept this. 

 

While I am not a fan of the Shins or the red shirts, I applaud them for opening up the debate and empowering the less fortunate. They have created a situation whereby any future government will have to take into account the needs of the poor and rural people if they want to have any chance of success. 

 

The lesson for the Bangkok elite and middle classes is that you cannot ignore a large portion of the population anymore. 

 

And you won't have legitimacy if you do. Period.

 

And that is a good thing. 

 

 

Last paragraph of OP :

"But only when a genuine democracy is given the opportunity to function without military intervention." 

 

Or, put another way, when something happens that has not happened before, is not happening now, and for which there are no plans to make happen.

 

The military will not go and sit quietly waiting to do the bidding of successive "legitimate" governments because they seek to maintain power for a particular faction.  That is fundamentally undemocratic.

 

Any future government will be military, or controlled by the military.  That's the plan. 

 

They have crushed, can crush, and will crush any who oppose them.

 

Crushing is synonymous with success under such a regime.

 

Your concept of "legitimacy" is irrelevant to them.

 

The only lesson that has been taught and learned, once again, is that the more "violence" you have at your disposal the better.

 

The only way for democracy to arrive in Thailand is if a significant portion of the military decide to become representative of a democratic ideal rather than a faction.

 

That portion that remain committed to a faction will, of course, oppose them.

 

It's an old story, it has been told in most of the "developed" Liberal Democracies.

 

There is no soft solution.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Enoon

[JAG]

The Redshirts have a very valid cause, the struggle for equality of justice and democracy. So unfortunate that they fell under the leadership of the most corrupt person/family in Thai history. In the long run they would do well to distance themselves from this influence so that they could possibly move on into a legitimate political force. Unfortunately there is a distinct possibility that their present leaders are only there to suck up the shinawatra funding.

The most corrupt person/family in Thai history?

 

Golly, is that definitely so?

 

Are you sure that you really don't mean "The most evil man in Asia"?

 

PS, not quoting you but another very excited chap on here from a few years back...

 

[Baerboxer]

3 minutes ago, yellowboat said:

She was deposed and then impeached.  The order is wrong.  Had the military not intervened and instead insisted on legal proceeding and allowed another election, they would be on the moral high ground.  But we all know that the yellows would never win an election, as they are afraid to campaign in the east and north.  Yingluck was deposed for what she and her party were trying to do legally, not illegally, pardon Thaksin.  The author, thankfully, is spot on not that it matters though.  People who think like you, however, rely overwhelming force. 

 

 

She was dismissed from office by a court prior to the May 2014 for an illegal abuse of power. She wasn't deposed or removed in a coup. 

 

Please do not post untruths. That is against forum rules.

 

You have no idea how I think - but I don't think the Shins are anymore than an opportunistic wealthy elite family playing power games because they want all the pie for themselves and to elevate their clan in the pecking order. 

 

I'd guess any opposition to the Shins, politicians, party workers, even singers and entertainers would be scared to campaign against them in the North and North East based on previous experiences. But you seem to think thuggish intimidation and murder to prevent electoral campaign is ok.

 

 

[Baerboxer]

6 minutes ago, JAG said:

The most corrupt person/family in Thai history?

 

Golly, is that definitely so?

 

Are you sure that you really don't mean "The most evil man in Asia"?

 

PS, not quoting you but another very excited chap on here from a few years back...

 

 

Got a lot of ground to catch up to become the most corrupt person/family in history.

 

But given the chance, he'd probably get there 

 

That 2.2 trillion baht loan - would've been a big help!

[yellowboat]

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Nonsense. And a pathetically crude attempt at sophistry.

 

I did not post the words or make the statement that you include. It's is against forum rules to change a posters words in such a twisted manner btw.

 

Nitpicking - you mean an inconvenient truth. Don't you think the person who appointed them, pay them and instructs them might be using them for self interest?

 

No one voted for any UDD or Red Shirt leader - they were appointed, that's the point. Or do you think that's democratic.

 

Do not try to invalidate my posts with false logic and assumptions or I will be force to report you. The UDD and Red Shirts are not political parties. They are pressure groups formed to support one particular party.

 

 

Pathetic, crude or not, you were asked a question and instead of answering it, you resorted to your usual condescension.  The question still stands :  So you believe because red shirt leaders are appointed, the military had every right to defile universal suffrage ?

 

There are no laws that regulate how parties choose their representatives are there ?  Just your holy than thou opinion.  Your opinion is just that, your opinion of which you are entitled.  We are also entitled to challenge you.

 

There are laws for treason and that is why the coup leader had themselves forgiven and the Thai courts went along with that did they not ?

[binjalin]

Whatever happens the Thais I know believe the country is not ruled legitimately. That stays in the Thai consciousness as they look around at other countries and see democracy in action, not perfect, but in action. The premise of the OP is correct : the Army empower that which they despise. They cannot, in the long run, control everything with guns and brute force. Thais are not North Koreans and will eventually win through, hopefully peacefully. The simple fact is if there were no guns pointed at them the Thais would be engaged.

[sjaak327]

43 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Their present leaders weren't elected into office. They were appointed. How and by whom is a "secret". They are their to ensure the Red Shirts do as told. 

 

The UDD and Red Shirts don't practice democracy in their own organizations, and neither does PTP for that matter. Until that changes, the rural people, the poor, the working class, or whatever label you tag the masses with, won't have a real representation.

I have seen you trying to point this out several times. in regards to both the UDD and the red shirts, why does it matter, they are not electable in any case. Pray tell, who should elect their leaders ? 

 

Of course your claim that the masses don't have real representation is incorrect. The masses can vote for representatives in both the constituency and the party list, certainly normal democratic practice. 

[yellowboat]

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

I'd guess any opposition to the Shins, politicians, party workers, even singers and entertainers would be scared to campaign against them in the North and North East based on previous experiences. But you seem to think thuggish intimidation and murder to prevent electoral campaign is ok.

They should campaign and the agencies that are suppose to protect people in Thailand should do what they are mandated to do.  Again you seem to advocate martial law as you depict Thailand as a lawless country.  

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Please do not post untruths. That is against forum rules.

You are not a moderator.  Until a moderator says something, what I said stands.

 

10 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

You have no idea how I think - but I don't think the Shins are anymore than an opportunistic wealthy elite family playing power games because they want all the pie for themselves and to elevate their clan in the pecking order.

And how are they different from most political families ?   Much of what we find immoral and unethical in Thailand is accepted.  Politicians do what they can get away with. 

[kaorop]

46 minutes ago, henry15 said:

Howcome that that that from Bangkok till the border of Malasia  not have a Red Shirt movement and the PT  not even win a single seat in parliament. And  why the mayority of the Southern people are yellow shirts, and came to demonstrate  in Bangkok in 2008  and 2013 and 2014. Its far to easy to blame the elite and the Bangkokian middle class. Also in the Central region PT and Red Shirts are les populary than many think. Just see the election results.

In fact its  mainly 2 etnic minorities (Laos & Khmer) who are Red Shirts  and  Thaksin supporters. Its a taboo to  say that all the political turmoil is become an etnic conflict, instigated by Thaksin and red shirt populist leaders.

nice opinion but very few facts

 

[ben2talk]

On 5/4/2014 at 9:36 PM, quidnunc said:

We know someone who sent his daughter there for a year. His opinion was that it was trying to sell itself as an international school but that in reality the standards were lower. This was partly due to the fact that lots of the students had virtually no command of English at all. In effect, it was trying to appeal to Thai parents that their chilldren could get the benefits of an international school but at a far lower price.

I'm starting to worry already. After visiting the office for a 'test' and getting messages from mum in her office, I snapped him sitting with his pencil and the office staff had hernias 'ooooh, no no no no photograph'.

 

They also did this when I came the first time - are they paranoid of revealing some super high-secret practices in their boring little offices?

 

The test itself is extremely basic (the same for many schools I imagine)>.. formula questions 'What is your name, what is your nickname'.... He got stuck when they kept asking for his nickname. I call him James because that's his name. They don't seem to understand that not everyone thinks it is necessary to have a name they don't use and then a nickname like 'fat' or 'pig' for everyone else...  So he was put under unnecessary stress by this question but handled it okay this time.

 

The next issue is that they wrote out a yellow 'pass' ticket with an appointment date without consulting me, and that date is not convenient. Worse service than a local dentist.

[jayboy]

It's interesting that this article from The Nation notes that the military ousted Yingluck in 2014.Obviously this is shorthand given the directed court intervention.But everyone understands what is meant.

 

Yet when one refers to military involvement in Yingluck's ouster on this forum there is usually a scream of outrage from the usual suspects.Much the same happens if one mentions the military's involvement in Thaksin's ouster (he wasn't PM at the time etc etc ad nauseam).

 

It's just a reminder that those who seek to manipulate and deceive about the past can hardly be taken seriously when they comment on the present.

[jayboy]

29 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

 

She was dismissed from office by a court prior to the May 2014 for an illegal abuse of power. She wasn't deposed or removed in a coup. 

 

Please do not post untruths. That is against forum rules.

 

 

 

 

I suggest you direct your indignation to The Nation since the military involvement in Yingluck's exit is specifically mentioned there.It is of course the position as understood by most sane people but I suppose you could start a little club comprised of fellow "There was no coup" fantasists.

[henry15]

11 minutes ago, kaorop said:

nice opinion but very few facts

 

Facts.

Pue Thai did not win a single seat, in the southern provinces.

Look at the map.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I suggest you direct your indignation to The Nation since the military involvement in Yingluck's exit is specifically mentioned there.It is of course the position as understood by most sane people but I suppose you could start a little club comprised of fellow "There was no coup" fantasists.

 

Not to mention that the military and the judges both work for the same paymasters...  

 

[CGW]

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Or, put another way, Bangkok's middle classes and elites arrogantly believe that only they should have a voice in the running of Thailand. Not surprisingly, rural voters and the poor don't accept this. 

 

While I am not a fan of the Shins or the red shirts, I applaud them for opening up the debate and empowering the less fortunate. They have created a situation whereby any future government will have to take into account the needs of the poor and rural people if they want to have any chance of success. 

 

The lesson for the Bangkok elite and middle classes is that you cannot ignore a large portion of the population anymore. 

 

And you won't have legitimacy if you do. Period.

 

And that is a good thing. 

 

Good summary Samui, I am no fan off any "politician" period, but it remains a fact Thacksin was the best Prime minister this country has ever seen, by quite a long way, sadly that tells a sad political story!

[jayboy]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Not to mention that the military and the judges both work for the same paymasters...  

 

Exactly.I was going to make the same point but I am increasingly aware of overload problems for bears of little brain.