Rapid social and economic change in the last 15 years undermines much of the recent violence seen on the streets of the Thai capital, Bangkok. The violence may continue for the time being, but Dr Tim Forsyth of the London School of Economics tells Shyam Bhatia of asianaffairs that the country is not on the cusp of revolution.

AA: Why has there been so much trouble in Thailand, usually considered a peaceful country?
TF: The current trouble can be attributed to the failure of the political system. Basically, the political parties and parliament do not really allow representation of various groups in society and people have very little trust in the parliamentary system. So they are now demonstrating on the streets. That's the short answer. But the political system is also shifting from the old-fashioned approach of the monarchy and the very traditional establishment running the country.

AA: Are we looking at revolution and is it safe to travel to Thailand?
TF: No, it is not a revolution, I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone to cancel his/her visit to Thailand. You might have to express some concern or care where there are protests taking place, but I think it is very easy to avoid them.

AA: Can the current instability be blamed on any specific group of actors, for example, the monarchy, the army or the politicians?
TF: Well, blame is a hard word to use. Different people have different ideas about blame. The current argument is supposedly between the more traditionalist group of actors called 'Yellows'. They call themselves the 'Yellows' because that is the colour of the monarchy in Thailand and they want to win legitimacy by linking themselves to the monarchy. Essentially, they are of the view that they need to have a very conservative form of government by keeping the institutions the way they were.

Pitted against the Yellows are the so-called 'Reds'. These Reds are those who believe that the Yellows represent only the traditional interests of the upper classes of Bangkok, plus the military and the monarchy who exclude the voices of the rural poor and of middle classes who are somehow not part of the inner elite, the old elite.

AA: In this stand-off between the Yellows and the Reds are we looking at substantial violations of human rights?
TF: The short answer to the question is 'no'. I'm not aware of violations of human rights. I have friends in Bangkok who tell me that in the stand-off between the Reds and the Yellows this year and last year there, has been a lot of violence that's not been reported. My understanding from my contacts is that protests have sometimes been more violent than one would expect and that's probably because of the use of the police and occasionally the military, but we only have that from second-hand information.

You can also say that there are plenty of people in Thailand who feel that more people's rights have been violated by conflicts in the past. For example, in late 2008 the Yellows took over the airport in Bangkok and that impacted majorly on the economy in Thailand and peripheralising — I don't think you can call it human rights as such — but certainly it was against the rights of common Thais who just wanted to get on with life and get on with business.

AA: Have we reached the level of extra judicial executions and disappearances in Thailand?
TF: My understanding is that that stage has not yet come. There hasn't been really anything on the level of Guatemala or Argentina. That's the short answer.

AA: Should the rest of South East Asia be worried about this level of instability and if so, why?
TF: Yes, I think the fights we are seeing now will get worse when the inevitable change happens in Thailand — when the king dies. The king is 81 and when he goes there will probably be a lot more political uncertainty, which will affect the general investment climate.

We don't know how things will go, but the king's 81, he has been on the throne since 1946 and for most of his life he's been like the figurehead of an authoritarian regime which has not had much democracy. But all of a sudden in the last 15 years we've had quite a lot of democracy and things have changed rather rapidly. We've had the rise of the rural poor and the new rich like Thaksin (former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinwatra), which have tended to de-stablise the system.

So, rather than allowing gradual change since the 50s, they've had relatively little change, which is suddenly accelerating and challenging the old way. Now the new king, whoever it is, will probably not have the status of the old king and I think that makes a lot of people uneasy because it means the politicians will have more power — the role of the military is unclear — so there will be a lot of uncertainty.

AA: Could the instability now or in the future spread to neighbouring countries?
TF: No, I don't think so. Each country has its own reasons for instability. Indonesia has hardly got a reputation for a stable democracy. All these governments' ways of governing their countries can be improved and made more stable and attractive for investors. But I don't think simply because there's uncertainty in Thailand, there will be riots or whatever in other countries.

AA: Are we beyond the stage of forgive and forget in Thailand, something that could open a new chapter for the future?
TF: Forgive and forget sounds a bit like transitional justice, like what we had in Northern Ireland or South Africa. I don't think we have such durable regimes to get over — that and old scores. I don't think we've seen the end of old scores. One year ago one of the leaders of the Yellows was involved in an incident where his car was attacked by two guys with a machine gun. There are various views about that occasion, some people say it was an assassination attempt, some people think it was a publicity stunt. Either way I would have thought the heads of the Reds and Yellows, even though they don't like each other, and I don't think they will either forgive or forget, we're talking about individuals here and there haven't been entrenched divisions that we've seen in other places with transitional governments.

AA: Is the use of force in some way alien to the Thai tradition?
TF: The answer is no for two reasons. The current use of force that is on display is limited. The government declared a state of emergency (earlier this year) because the Reds were invading parliament and running all over the place. For what it is worth I think they have every right to call an emergency if rioters are invading parliament and that gives the state the authority to use the military or the police. But I don't think it has reached the stage of a militarised state or curfew where every citizen of every town is suddenly seeing the military. I think it's just a selective and focussed use of force. There haven't been mass killings. The violence has been on both sides when it hasn't been clear who's been doing the shooting. Some of the Reds have had automatic weapons themselves. It's not just about the state stamping out resistance, it's about localised violence.

The second reason is that since the 1970s, force has been used by the government at almost regular intervals. This placid country, like you talk about, especially in 1973 and then in 1976 and 1992, there were occasions when the military stepped in… I think this has been a feature of Thailand. You have this 'land of smiles image', but lurking behind that has been this rather clumsy military that has intervened at various times in the past. It's not out of keeping with what has happened in the last few decades.

AA: Couldn't the successful resolution of this crisis create a model for neighbouring countries, Thailand's allies in ASEAN?
TF: Yes, of course. I didn't say it's not relevant, it is indeed relevant. All the other members of ASEAN want this situation sorted because it is giving a bad name to South East Asia. Thailand is one of the strongest countries there and if it can't get itself sorted out, what hope is there for countries like Laos or Burma? The trouble is that each country has its own context and its own traditions. The only real model in town is clean democratic elections and party based politics. Thailand hasn't had that, largely because the parties that have emerged in Thailand by and large have been based on individuals and their supporters rather than philosophical tradition, e.g. between Republicans and Democrats, or Conservatives and Labour.

AA: How much of this current crisis can be blamed on former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra?
TF: It is difficult for me in England to say how much of this can be blamed on Thaksin. It's undoubtedly related to Thaksin. The origin of the problem was that the last general election in December 2007 was won by those who were funded and taking the positions of Thaksin's party. Part of the problem was that Thaksin's party was overthrown because of electoral misdemeanours.

He then went about funding another party, even though he wasn't leading it. And he's obviously been involved in inciting resistance to the state in Thailand, even though he is in exile. Furthermore, in February, the Thai courts froze US$ 1.4 billion of Thaksin's money. A month later, the Reds started protesting in Bangkok. Arguably, those two are linked, although I've no proof of that. But it is reasonable to ask that question. He shouldn't have been deposed in the first place.

AA: Would it be wrong to think of the Red Shirts as followers of Thaksin?
TF: No, it would not be wrong. But it is unclear how far all of the Red Shirts are followers of Thaksin. Some of them may be using Thaksin's court — if you like — in order to serve their own interests. But I think it is fair to say that most of the rest are sympathetic to the political parties funded by Thaksin.

AA: What does Thaksin himself represent? Is it just personal ambition, or does he involve himself in ideas as well?
TF: I would say he represents three things. First of all, he is a representative of a new elite, which Thailand hasn't seen before and which is (made up of) extremely powerful middle class business people who are not connected to the military or royal family. Secondly, his policies, when he was in power, were very populist. Some people call him left-wing, though I wouldn't call him left wing. I would rather call him populist and pro-poor. He provided cheap healthcare credit and loans to villages and used all sorts of techniques which allowed him to win the rural vote in Thailand and therefore be got elected. But he is also famous for unbridled self-interest. So he was found guilty a few months ago of using his powers as prime minister to further his own wealth and the wealth of his family.

top