Amidst glitzy department stores and brand-name
billboards, somewhere between 170,000 and 3 million self-described ‘peaceful’,
‘sophisticated’ and ‘educated’ protesters have paralysed central Bangkok in the
past week. They are demanding the government’s resignation and the appointment
of an unelected ‘council of elders’ to push through sweeping reforms in order
to restore democracy and eliminate corruption in Thailand. They are largely
made up of supporters of the opposition Democrat Party, and hail mainly from
Bangkok and the southern provinces
The protesters’ ire is also directed towards former PM
Thaksin Shinawatra, his sister and current Prime Minister Yingluck, and their
Pheu Thai Party. Despite political scandals and a conviction for
corruption-related charges, Thaksin is still very popular in the ruling party’s
core northern constituency, so much so that the Shinawatras have effectively
won every election since 2001.
But among many in the Bangkok middle and upper classes,
Thaksin and his sister are reviled. For the protesters, support for a moralistic
drive towards reform and anti-corruption has served as an excellent pretence
for the forced removal of the Shinawatras from the Thai political landscape.
Since the 2011 election, the Yingluck government was more or
less able to keep the military on side and street violence at bay. However, by
any standards, the Shinawatras had a very poor 2013. Protests began in November
on the back of a botched amnesty bill. The last-minute amendments to the bill
were seemingly designed to clear Thaksin of his corruption charges and allow
his safe passage back to Thailand.
Furthermore, poor policies such as the rice-pledging scheme
which leaked billions of baht, and concerns over graft on the planned loans for
vast infrastructure and water-management projects, contributed to ill-feeling
towards the government. The Pheu Thai government has also continued to erode
away confidence in the appointed courts and independent institutions which act
as checks-and-balances to the government’s power and underpin the Thai democratic
system, and upset the country’s traditional elite.
Any opposition party in a functional democracy would be
salivating over a chance to contest an election against a government that has
been as inept as Yingluck’s. However, the Democrat Party and the protesters —
in their professed desire to protect democracy — have astonishingly turned
their backs on elections and democracy itself.
The initial anti-amnesty protests were almost universally
popular among Thais from all walks of life. Sensing the growing momentum of the
anti-Thaksin sentiments held by many who joined in, Suthep Thaugsuban, a former
deputy prime minister with the Democrat Party, seized the opportunity to
transform the apolitical, anti-amnesty demonstrations into a frenzied attempt
to remove a democratically elected government from power.
Although the protesters’ grievances with the government are
in many ways justified, and their arguments for decentralisation, media and
education reform, and stricter measures to curb corruption are valid, their
demands for the resignation of the government and installation of a reform
council are fundamentally anti-democratic.
Suthep and his supporters do not see that any attempt to
remove Yingluck and the influence of her brother from power, implement reforms
and restore the appointed institutions from outside the democratic system will
lack legitimacy and durability. Any appointed government or council that is put
in place as a result of military, judicial or mob intervention will lack a
sufficient democratic mandate to represent the country. Such
extra-constitutional actions will not restore their professed ideal of ‘real’
democracy. Rather, they will only intensify divisions within Thai society that
have held Thailand back from becoming one of the region’s economic and
political heavyweights.
Street protests and violence are now ingrained in Thai
political culture. They appear to be the first and only recourse for groups
wanting to affect political change as both parties have lost faith in the
democratic system’s ability to resolve differences in the country.
The Democrats and protesters feel that elections do not keep
the government accountable and that the Pheu Thai has used its electoral
dominance to create a ‘democratic dictatorship’ where there is no room for
dissenting voices.
On the other hand, the Shinawatras feel that the courts and
independent institutions no longer serve an impartial regulatory or balancing
role, but they have been politicised and stacked with the old conservative
elite supportive of the Democrat Party. They feel that the will of the people
is best manifested through elections.
In democracies the world over, there is a delicate balance
between the power and responsibilities of elected representatives and appointed
observers. This balance is not always without friction, but it creates the
necessary checks-and-balances for a stable political system. In Thailand, the
balance has been lost. The solution to this crisis cannot be found out in the
streets. Instead, both parties must come together to renegotiate a political
contract that creates the foundations for a political system that facilitates
opposing viewpoints, fosters a sense of trust between the parties that the
‘rules of the game’ won’t be broken or eroded, and resolves political disagreement
in the Parliament not the streets.
For a country that relies heavily on families of tourists
looking for tropical island getaways and incredible cuisine, as well as foreign
multinationals looking to headquarter their regional operations in Bangkok, a
lurch away from democracy will do Thailand no favours.
Unless the leaders of both sides can find a working
compromise to halt the political unrest and street protests that have gripped
the country for nearly a decade, risk-averse tourists and foreign investors
will be increasingly inclined to spend their money in Thailand’s growing
neighbours like Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam, who will be only too happy to
welcome them.
Jacob Hogan is a research fellow at the Institute of
Security and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
No comments:
Post a Comment