An opposition problem in
Thailand By David Fullbrook
Despite scandals, resignations and
demonstrations, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra still commands strong support from
members of parliament and voters.
And
although this support is eroding, as things stand,
Thaksin can be expected once again to trounce the
noisy, but divided and
shallow, opposition at the
next election, due within the next three years.
This is provided, of course, that Thaksin
is still in office.
On Thursday, the
Constitution Court is to consider a petition
submitted by 28 senators calling for Thaksin's
suspension for alleged improprieties in the
sell-off of his family's giant telecommunications
company, Shin Corp, to Temasek Holdings of
Singapore for US$1.85 billion.
The prime
minister is alleged to have violated the country's
conflict-of-interest law, which regulates the
relationship of cabinet ministers with private
companies. If the court agrees with the
petitioners, which is not guaranteed, it would
start a legal battle that could culminate in his
removal from office. (The Stock Exchange of
Thailand shed 1.38% on news of the petition going
to the court.)
Thaksin's sky-high
popularity could not last from the heady days five
years ago when he began his first term. Graft
cases, though so far not bearing his fingerprints,
have been increasing, especially at Bangkok's new
airport, making a mockery of Thaksin's war on
corruption and upsetting more and more urban
voters.
They have become more vocal since
last month after the tax-free sale of Shin Corp by
Thaksin's family to Temasek Holdings, a
Singaporean government investment fund. Though the
deal is probably legal - just - many consider it
unpatriotic.
This was a shot in the arm
for the flagging protest movement calling for
Thaksin's resignation. Another boost came from the
resignation of two cabinet ministers from the Wang
Nam Yen faction within the ruling Thai Rak Thai
party ahead of last Saturday's anti-government
demonstrations.
However, this is a
political ploy rather than heartfelt protest. Wang
Nam Yen is trying to squeeze Thaksin for better
cabinet posts with threats to take its 30 members
of parliament into the opposition. That would
still leave almost 350 pro-government members in
the 500-seat Lower House.
Mr Thaksin could
ignore the dissident faction, could offer better
cabinet seats, or could make good on a casual
threat to call a snap election. Thai Rak Thai has
the money, organization and flair to ensure it
romps home to yet another victory, with or without
Wang Nam Yen, which is half the size it was five
years ago.
More of concern than Wang Nam
Yen is Sondhi Limthongkul, the publishing magnate
who founded Manager Media Group, and who once
cheered for Thaksin. He began staging his
political talk show in Lumpini Park, a stone's
throw from the Silom-Sathorn financial district,
last October after it was axed by state television
for criticizing Thaksin too much.
Last
Saturday, Sondhi led yet another protest near the
royal palace calling for Thaksin to resign. That
drew about 50,000 people, organizers estimate,
which was half the crowd at the previous week's
rally. Though large, this crowd can hardly count
as a reflection of the Thai majority's wishes. In
1973, more than half a million people filled the
streets calling for the dictators to go.
Thaksin's biggest headache, however, is
not the protests, but the potential for violence.
Clashes and heavy-handed police intervention would
rake up memories of 1992, 1976 and 1973, when
troops and police killed dozens of demonstrators,
mostly students, calling for democracy.
Those killings, for which justice remains
denied, sparked condemnation nationwide, forcing
the generals or their puppet governments to
resign. Worryingly, people claiming to support
Thaksin disrupted the past few protests in Lumpini
Park, though with no injuries.
As in 1992,
1976 and 1973, democracy is the problem. But this
time, curiously, it is a problem for the
protesters rather than those in government.
Thaksin has been elected twice. Sondhi has taken
it upon himself to lead the anti-protest rallies.
What caused his bust-up with Thaksin is
unclear. Sour business deals, some say. Others
point to Sondhi's friends losing cabinet posts and
top jobs at Thai International Airways and Krung
Thai Bank. There was also rivalry within the
influential Buddhist clergy, which saw a leading
monk, supported by Thaksin, beat another, favored
by Sondhi, for a senior position.
Sondhi's
campaign, though, in which he has exposed various
nefarious government deals, chimes with Bangkok's
chattering classes disenchanted by Thaksin, a
former police colonel, whose slick promotion
promised to remake Thailand, seducing white- and
blue-collar votes alike in the past two elections.
However, that alone is unlikely to cost
Thaksin his job. He remains popular in the
countryside, where well over half the people live
growing rice, tending orchards or raising pigs,
chickens and cows. Most only finished primary
school. Their votes, often sold because they have
little faith in politics, decide elections.
Politics to them is a parlor game for the
elite, so best grab a few crumbs when the election
carnival rides through town handing out cash,
T-shirts and delightful, but empty, promises.
That frustrates the relatively urbane, but
motley, opposition. They see little prospect for
quickly overcoming rural political apathy. Having
helped to build Thailand's young democracy, which
if nothing else is supposed to stop people being
killed when power changes hands, some in the
middle class now wish for Philippine-style
CNN-anointed "people power" to kick Thaksin from
office.
That would be a few steps
backward. "People power" would, as it did in the
Philippines, spin the revolving door, allowing one
indulgent clique to enter while another exits. It
is a coup without guns that dangerously undermines
democracy by making mob politics respectable.
Calls for Thaksin to go suggest voters do
not understand democracy, or that they have little
faith in the system, which suggests they have more
in common with their rural cousins. Few seem to
have given much thought about who should replace
Thaksin, let alone how that person should be
chosen.
Even so, that Thaksin still
commands strong support in the face of those
challenging him reveals the potential for society
to polarize, with all the dangers that carries for
democracy and non-violence. Indeed, it is
reminiscent of the situation in 1976 that saw
dozens of students demonstrating for democracy
murdered by the mob egged on by the right-wing,
neo-fascist military clique and their civilian
allies.
Fortunately, this time around
democracy at least exists, even if it does seem
that Thaksin plays the system. Beating him at the
ballot box is not impossible. But it requires the
opposition to campaign long and hard, one village
a time, with a solid policy platform from an
honest, moral, attractive political party with
solid, clear policies.
So far the Democrat
Party has spectacularly failed to be that party.
Little wonder that Thaksin's party of tycoons,
with its deep treasure chest and plenty of
marketing magic, had no trouble knocking them out
of government in 2000, and flattening them in
2005. It could well do so again if the Democrats
do not offer something sexy in time for 2009's
election.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times
Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us
for information on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
