In Thailand: The People Deserve Better
By John Brandon
John Brandon is The Asia Foundation’s Director for International Relations programs. He can be reached at jbrandon@asiafound-dc.org.
Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej is struggling for his political survival and is increasingly finding himself in a “no win” situation. For the past week, a group of well-organized, anti-government protesters known as the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has taken over and occupied Government House, Thailand’s equivalent of The White House. The protesters refuse to leave until Samak resigns. Since the occupation, the situation has worsened. On September 2nd, political tension erupted into violent street clashes between pro and anti-government supporters that left one person dead and more than 40 injured. These clashes are believed to have been instigated by members of the pro-government Democratic Alliance against Dictatorship (DAAD). In response, Samak has declared a state of emergency in Bangkok.
Under normal circumstances, protesters taking over Government House would be removed and arrested for their civil disobedience. But these are not normal times in Thailand. The military, which has carried out 18 coups in the past 75 years, has said it does not want to evict the protesters from Government House. This is understandable as the military’s last attempt at handling the reigns of government through extra-constitutional means was viewed as ineffectual. The Thai generals also know there is little public appetite for another coup. The police have been put in charge, but are reluctant to act alone. King Bhumipol Adulyadev, who has been the country’s ultimate arbiter in times of crisis, has thus far not elected to intervene. Samak knows if additional force is used on PAD’s protesters, his government’s legitimacy will completely evaporate. Many Thais remember Samak being involved in the right-wing campaign that massacred students at Thammasat University on October 6, 1976. Samak certainly does not want to be held responsible for another bloody repression. But if the government does nothing, Samak and his supporters will be viewed as ineffectual and lose face.
PAD says it will settle for nothing less than Prime Minister Samak’s resignation. Samak counters that he will never resign as he is the leader of a democratically elected government. Although democratically elected, Samak’s government has been accused of being corrupt, incompetent, and authoritarian. But most importantly to his critics, Prime Minister Samak and his People’s Power Party (PPP) have been viewed as being nothing more than a proxy for ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was removed by military coup in September 2006. Although Thaksin has been out of the country for most of the past two years, he is believed to be the power behind the PPP. Many say whatever legitimacy Samak has is due to his Thaksin links. When Samak tried to revise the 2007 military-drafted constitution — where amendments could be passed that would offer legal justification for dismissing charges against Thaksin and his family — he gave the impression the government was more interested in helping Thaksin than addressing the nation’s problems.
Last week, state enterprise workers went on strike interrupting rail and air transportation inside the country. Now, more than 200,000 workers from 43 state-run enterprises are expected to go on strike. A joint session of the Thai parliament has been unable to resolve the impasse as the Democrat Party, the major opposition, does not possess the strength to dissolve the government through a “no confidence” vote. Both the Samak government and the PAD are digging in their heels.
Is compromise possible? Can violence be avoided?
Prime Minister Samak is confronted with another challenge. On September 2nd, Thailand’s Election Commission recommended to the constitutional court that the PPP be dissolved because of electoral fraud in the December 2007 election. If found guilty by the constitutional court, Samak and other PPP members will be banned from engaging in politics for five years. Such a decision would harbor a death knell for the Samak government, but it will not eliminate the sense of unending crisis that has plagued Thailand for the past few years. The current situation leaves Thailand in the same position as before the September 2006 coup: a nation deeply polarized over former Prime Minister Thaksin’s attempt to transform the country’s political landscape. Even if the PPP is dissolved, Thailand’s election rules allow banned political parties to reconstitute themselves under different names. If Samak and his government resign, holding another election will not likely alter the outcome as the PPP (even under a different name) would win the support of rural voters who believe they have benefited from Thaksin and his populist policies. PAD and its supporters know this. Despite its name, the People’s Alliance for Democracy is acting in a respect to undermine democracy as it wants to bring Thailand back to a period of appointed representatives in the effort to keep Thaksin and his followers out of power.
Ultimately, some form of political realignment is in order. Given how divided society is on whether it is pro or anti-Thaksin, any political realignment is bound to be both difficult and tumultuous. Most people, even if they don’t like Thaksin, are looking for an effective, stable government to address everyday issues such as rising food and fuel costs. For the foreseeable future, it is likely Thailand will experience a series of weak, ineffective coalition governments that will accomplish little given the poisoned political atmosphere. The Thai people deserve better.
