BANGKOK - To the polls or to the streets?
Thailand faces a historic choice that will speak
volumes about the direction of its young and still
fragile democracy, and could herald the return of
the military to the forefront of the country's
political process.
Prime Minister Thaksin
Shinawatra on Friday moved to head off growing
criticism of his government's perceived misrule and
allegations about his
family's shady business dealings by dissolving
parliament and calling a snap election for April
2.
The move failed to assuage the
premier's critics, with the opposition threatening
to boycott the polls and a mass rally that began
on Sunday and continued Monday of more than
100,000 peaceful protesters maintaining their call
for Thaksin's immediate and unconditional
resignation.
Political observers agree
Thaksin would likely win a general election in
landslide fashion, losing some seats in Bangkok
but carrying the more populous northeastern and
northern regions of the country. The main
opposition Democrat Party, should it take part in
the polls, would likely win nearly all the seats
in its southern stronghold and pick up additional
seats in Bangkok.
A free and fair election
would dent Thaksin's current overwhelming
majority, but only slightly, and not enough to
undermine his Thai Rak Thai party's ability to
push through policies unchallenged - including the
US$38 billion infrastructure spending spree his
government has promised and foreign investors are
eagerly bidding on.
Yet there is a real
possibility that Thailand's next political
transition may not transpire at the ballot box -
but rather on the streets of Bangkok. Thailand is
quickly moving toward the type of rally politics
that, for better or worse, has in recent years
toppled democratically elected administrations in
the Philippines and Indonesia. The growing popular
movement has dominated the national headlines and
appears to have left Thaksin's spin doctors at a
loss over how to turn around his waning
popularity.
His call for national polls
came on the heels of a closed-door meeting with
chief privy councilor General Prem Tinsulanonda, a
former prime minister who is widely seen as the
conscience of His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej.
The widely revered monarch has historically
intervened in Thai politics only during times of
national crisis, most recently in the bloody wake
of the military's crackdown on democracy
demonstrators in 1992, when he appointed a
caretaker prime minister and oversaw an eventual
return to democracy.
The question plaguing
Thaksin and Thailand is whether the country is
spiraling toward a similarly violent confrontation
between his proponents and detractors. His
government had in recent weeks raised the
political temperature by arranging for rival
rallies of his supporters. Encircled by a huge
security presence, anti-Thaksin demonstrations
have been closely monitored and so far have only
witnessed minor scuffles among rival rally-goers.
Thaksin notably made vague reference to
"intelligence reports" of impending violence as
one justification for dissolving parliament and
returning the mandate to the people. Since coming
under fire, Thaksin has repeatedly referred to the
19 million-plus Thais who voted for his Thai Rak
Thai party during last year's general election as
evidence of his political legitimacy. If an
election is finally held, Bangkok-based political
observers believe the polls could be the most
violent Thailand has ever seen.
Spiked
with electoral politics, pro- and anti-Thaksin
rallies will likely intensify in the coming weeks,
they say. It remains to be seen how the military
would react to a violent confrontation among
demonstrators, but it is a real possibility that
the military would move against the premier if
national stability were at risk. The political
incentive for a paroxysm of violence, particularly
for Thaksin's detractors, is growing by the day.
Brass tacks The political
impasse has significantly put the spotlight back
on Thailand's military as a potential political
actor of last resort. It wouldn't be the first
time the pendulum had swung from democratic to
military rule: Thailand has witnessed nearly as
many military coups as it has staged democratic
elections. And the moral justification for
extra-constitutional intervention has shifted
dramatically over the years, from shoring up
national security during the Cold War against
foreign aggression, to more recently protecting
the integrity of Thai democracy from opportunistic
politicians.
In 1991 the military launched
a bloodless coup against the democratically
elected Chatichai Choonhavan administration,
nominally to protect Thai democracy from corrupt
politicians. In the immediate aftermath, the
general public, as well as a wide cross-section of
the print media, accepted the military's
intervention without qualms. But after the violent
reprisals against pro-democracy demonstrators in
1992, the military's reputation as a source of
moral authority was in tatters.
The 1997
constitution included various provisions to keep
the military in the barracks and out of politics,
aimed at breaking the cycle of military
interventions and putting Thai democracy on a more
stable footing. With the advent of the 1997
charter, the Thai military made great strides
toward greater professionalism, according to
Western diplomats.
As a result,
once-menacing memories of the military have since
largely faded from the national consciousness.
Judging by the swelling crowds demonstrating
against the corruption allegations leveled against
Thaksin's government, the idea that the military
could restore better governance and more democracy
is having renewed resonance among some urban
elites - ironically the same demographic group
that rose up to oust the coup-makers in 1992 and
played the lead role in drafting the 1997 charter.
Some renegade military officers, including
Panlop Pinmanee, deputy chief of the Internal
Security Operations Command, have told local
reporters that a military coup is possible if
political instability persists. Retired military
officers such as former army commander General
Surayud Chulanont, who now serves on the King's
Privy Council, and General Mongkol Ampornpisit are
seen by political insiders as possible caretaker
prime ministers if Thaksin were eventually ousted
in a military coup, according to sources close to
the palace.
With more rallies on the
horizon, it remains unclear exactly how the
military would react in the event of a violent
clash between anti- and pro-Thaksin demonstrators.
What is clear is that Thaksin has made his fair
share of enemies among the top brass, military
insiders say. Thaksin's advisers have employed
Machiavellian divide-and-rule tactics inside the
military, often rewarding loyalty to the Prime
Minister's Office before seniority or track
records.
Thaksin shocked many in the top
brass when he appointed his cousin, Chaisit
Shinawatra, to the post of army commander in 2003.
Thaksin has also elevated many of his military
contemporaries at the expense of other factions
inside the military. During the last military
reshuffle, in many instances Thaksin went against
the wishes of Prem and promoted officers known to
be loyal first to the Shinawatra clan, according
to the same palace source.
Whether Thaksin
has elevated enough loyalists to forestall or
avoid a possible coup is questionable. In the
event of a national crisis, however, it is a
foregone conclusion that if the King were to
intervene and give tacit orders that it was time
for Thaksin to step aside, the rank and file would
unquestioningly fall in step with the monarch's
wishes. Thaksin has also indicated that he would
step down if the King requested it.
More than
numbers Extra-constitutional intervention
of any sort, of course, would run counter to the
spirit of the 1997 constitution and set a
difficult precedent for the future of Thai
democracy. Although Thaksin appears to have lost
his legitimacy among many Bangkok-based urban
elites, he remains wildly popular in the
provincial hinterlands, which account for 80% of
the voting population, his supporters say.
Many Bangkok elites continue to believe
that democracy, and the corrupt politicians it
engenders, undermines the national interest.
Moreover, they believe that Thaksin has undermined
the many checking and balancing mechanisms on
elected politicians envisaged in the 1997 charter.
The nominally independent National Counter
Corruption Commission and Election Commission have
been stacked with political appointees. The
Constitutional Court's recent refusal to accept a
petition filed by a group of senators against
Thaksin was viewed by many as evidence the highest
court in the land lacks independence. Sensing the
criticisms, Thaksin has recently offered
constitutional reforms as an olive branch to his
critics, but it appears it is too late in the
political game for such compromise.
Indeed,
many of the senior reformers who helped draft the
1997 charter and once supported Thaksin's strong
leadership style are now looking for an
extra-constitutional escape clause to justify his
removal. Prawase Wasi, a medical doctor,
constitution drafter and former staunch Thaksin
supporter, is now publicly calling for the
premier's imprisonment for crimes against the
state. The political reforms and stability Prawase
envisaged while drafting the 1997 constitution
have come undone, he told reporters. And so too,
it seems, have his once-high hopes for a more
democratic and politically stable Thailand.
(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us for information
on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
