Editorial

Real democracy in Thailand is need of the hour

Anti-government protests in Bangkok, and the equally brutal repression launched by the military, come as a shock for those outsiders who previously viewed Thailand as an oasis of calm within a complex, feuding continent where nuclear powers, as well as their lesser adversaries, jostle with each other and their neighbours in an endless game of self-assertion.

In fact Thailand is a microcosm that contains within its borders many of the troubles that haunt the rest of Asia. It may not be a nuclear power like Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Israel, but it has more than its fair share of religious extremists, separatists, ambitious military officers, as well as competing leaders of rich and poor and much, much more.

At one level the fight in Thailand is a straightforward struggle between the government of unelected Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and the Red Shirt supporters of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted from power in a military coup in 2006.

Surely, the pragmatists would argue, the solution is to hold fresh elections that either legitimise the powers that be, or else provide a safe and constitutional opportunity for Thaksin to return to power.

If only it was so simple. Vejjajiva and his supporters, including the military, represent the old guard that has ruled Thailand for many years. They resent Thaksin and are unwilling to yield to his 'arriviste' politics, regardless of whether he represents the country's overall majority.

In truth, Thaksin and his Red Shirt backers represent a brand new combination of the rural poor and a wealthy emerging middle class that has made its money from new technologies, including information technology, and is not dependent on patronage from the old royal/military clique that has been until now in charge of Thailand.

Political and historical parallels are never easy, but one distant analogy that springs to mind is that of Pakistan when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to power in the aftermath of the disastrous 1971 war with India. Like Thaksin 35 years later, Bhutto managed to combine behind him a combination of the rural poor and emerging middle class who were entranced by his slogan of 'bread, clothes and housing' for everyone.

Despite his crowd pulling power, Bhutto only managed to stay in power for a few years and was unable to remake Pakistan in his own image. Similarly, Thaksin has managed to stay in power for only a relatively short period of time. Unlike Bhutto, however, Thaksin has time on his side.

Thailand's traditional elite, with the king at its apex, is under challenge as never before. And when the king passes on (he is 81 years old), his successor will inevitably lack the authority of the old monarch. So the future has hope for politicians like Thaksin, provided he plays his cards well and does not rock the boat of state so violently that he makes himself a permanent exile.

Thaksin has been back to Thailand only once since he was deposed. More recently, he has taken up Montenegran nationality in order to avoid deportation back to Thailand, where he would face a long trial about how he acquired his multi million dollar assets.

If Thailand is to return to some semblance of normality an accommodation is essential between Thaksin and the military/royal elite in Bangkok. Both sides will have to learn to forgive and forget, not just for their own sanity but for the larger and long-term interests of all Thais.

As it is, with the death toll rising, an impression is emerging of Thailand as an ungovernable state. Tourism, a big foreign currency earner, has been affected. Other businesses, whether services or light and heavy manufacturing, are reconsidering their investments in a country that once invoked only images of sun-kissed beaches and happy, smiling people.

top