So it was that the news came about yesterday about noon time in H-Town that a coup was carried out in Thailand by a military junta headed by Army General Sonthi Boonyaratglin (gotta love those Thai names - they are a mouth full). Appearing on television flanked by his fellow members of the Thai military brass and the national commander of the police, they declared martial law in the country, effectively overthrowing the elected government of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, while Thaksin was in New York attending a United Nations summit. As of yesterday, it had been printed in the media that the General "was close to the King (King Bhumibhol Adulyadej), but it emerged today that the much revered Monarch has given his imprimatur to the coup. The new junta announced earlier today that they hoped to return to democracy within 2 weeks, but now it appears that elections will not be held until October 2007. In the meantime, the streets were quiet, the stock market was closed as were the schools, many businesses, and so forth. However the cabarets, bars, and nightclubs kept on going as though nothing ever happened.
This is all of some interest to me since I am scheduled to go to Thailand and Malaysia on holiday next month. I have been to these countries on several occasions in the past, indeed I can still remember seeing roadside posters of Thaksin all over southern Thailand. I can also remember seeing a large poster of Banharn Silpa-Archa over a freeway in Bangkok. I do feel as though I can comment on this matter with some insights.
It's rather funny. I have a Thai car mechanic whose wife recently went back to Thailand for some medical treatment. We talk Thai politics from time to time and it has been interesting to listen to their attitudues towards Thaksin (and towards America) over time. It almost seems as though they bend with the wind. In otherwords, at first Thaksin was all wonderful, then over time, the former PM lost his luster (at least in their eyes). The last time I visited them, I mentioned that the dollar had been losing value verses the Baht (not to mention most other currencies) and that my upcoming vacation to Southeast Asia was going to be more expensive. My car mechanic's wife rolled her eyes and said to me, "You voted for Bush, didn't you?" I responded that I vote Libertarian, but that didn't seem to register with her, so I think it is in her head that I am a Republican. But we will set that matter aside for now. What is important here is that seemed to me that is was okay (and legitimate) in my Thai car mechanic's wife's mind for me to have to deal with the fact that the policies carried out by the party which won the last American Presidential and Congressional elections (the Republicans) resulted in policies that are not entirely favorable to me (does that mean that we should vote Democrat?). However, it is not okay and legitimate for the the political party and it's leader who won the last several elections in Thailand to carry out policies that it deemed fit to be in the best interests of Thailand and for her to have to deal with any reprocussions which might result from them.
Hmmm...
It has been widely written that Thailand has experienced something like 20 coups since the Chakri Monarchy gave up absolute power in 1932. I was in China in 1992 and can see in my mind's eye the last authoritarian Prime Minister, Suchinda Kraprayoon, bowing down before His Majesty while CNN cameras rolled on. All of this brings up the whole issue of the King and the role of the Monarchy in Thai politics. What one might also be thinking about is what is going to happen when one of his sons or daughters becomes the next reigning monarch. Will his children have as much pull as Bhumibhol does now?
Meanwhile back in the here and now, the question hangs over what Bhumibhol has and hasn't allowed to happen during his 60+ year reign. There was no doubt that during the 1960's, His Majesty gave an approving nod to having we Americans build air force bases in northern and northeast Thailand so that we could bomb Vietnam in to oblivion ( as to whether that helped win the Vietnam war, well...). The reason for this was (and is) that monarchs and communists don't mix. To his credit, His Majesty has helped unite this fractious country througout his reign, but we still come back to what happened over the past several days.
It has been known amongst political junkies for a while that while Thaksin has dominated the Thai democratic political process since the beginning of the decade, one place in Thailand where Thaksin has never had too much truck was in the Royal Palace. The monarchy has given several quiet rebukes over time, but generallly stayed out of the process - until now.
Recently, a very controversial book written by freelance Asia regional journalist Paul Handley entitled The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand's Bhumibol Adulyadej with other links found here, here and herecontends that King Bhumibhol is deeply political (having strong allies in big business and in the military), autocratic, and even brutal. All of this even though he has long projected a public image of being above the fray, being benevolent, and semi-saintly. The book was banned in Thailand even before it was set to be published.
Well, one might think that Mr. Handley has some strong points to his argument after witnessing the events of the past few days. There is a very strong argument to be made that the King is not much of a believer in democracy (does the King see democracy as mob rule?), otherwise why did he bless the coup to begin with if he did? Handley's book also apparently tries to tell a narrative on how Bhomibhol managed to take the throne from its vacant state in the mid 20th century and rebuild it into the strongest institution in Thailand.
As an aside here, there has been some published remarks amongst the Thai populace that many are in favor of what happened. They cite Thaksin's ham handed handling of the Muslim violence in southern Thailand, his sale of his family assets for nearly $2 billion to a Singapore based company, his alledged undermining of democracy and of the media in Thailand (I don't know how much of this is true, not being there on the ground), and so forth. Still, if that was the case, then the Thai voters should have thrown him and his party out of office. As it is, the word now is that some of Thaksin's political allies have been arrested, that Thaksin will be staying out of the country for a while, and that his vast family assets might be confiscated on the grounds that they were illegally or fraudently obtained (clearly a move to put Mr. Shinawatra himself out of business for good even if his party survives and continues to win elections based on its large rural support). And if Mr. Shinawatra's fortune was built on fraud or corruption, then how was it that this political corruption was allowed to flourish? It is plainly clear that all Thais - from the King, to the politicians, to the media, all the way on down to the lowliest Isaan peasant farmer - need to also themselves this question.
What is interesting here from a political science perspective is that the Thailand's youthful democracy and political system have not yet achieved a reasonably stable state. You have a country of 64 million people which were ruled ostensibly by an elected parliament, which itself was dominated by a single political party centered around Thailand's richest man. It gained its hold on power fair and square by appealing to large, populist, rural constituencies. The Thai Rak Thai party did put forth some interesting public policies like inexpensive health care, retirement of farmer's debts, and so forth which effectively appealed to the masses of rural peasantry. So what if the political opposition could not come up with policies which would be as politically viable as those of the Thai Rak Thai party? It seems to me that much of the political opposition to Thaksin was centered in and around Bangkok and other urban areas. Well, urban Thais and the political parties need to face up to the fact that if they want democracy, then they need to wake up to the fact that of Thailand's 64 million (or so) people, there is one giant captial with 10 million people, several cities like Chiang Mai, Hat Yai, and a few others with a couple hundred thousand people, various towns of tens of thousands of people, but that there are also millions of people in rural areas. In other words, Thaksin's rural consitutuency is much larger than the urban one. This chart says that Thailand's urban population was 32.5 percent of the total. In other words, Thailand's other political parties better start paying attention to those Thais living in the rural areas if Thailand is to have a functioning democracy. Urban Thais also better get over their attitudes towards their more numerous rural countrymen if they want to play the democracy game and face the fact that they are outnumbered. Ergo, if you are going to have democracy, then guess who is going to win?
Some critics of the Thaksin regime made comments that Thaksin's policies were in danger of creating a vast rural constituency which was going to be forever looking to the government for state handouts. Well, guess what? That's how democracy works! If you have a political system where you can vote yourself some bread and wine at someone else's expense, then why not do so?
But to add to this volatile mix, you have a military which has stayed in the barracks at times and has come out of them at others to rewrite the rules. We have a monarchy which has done a first rate job of reviving itself in a modern day world where democracies and republics are seen by many as the only way of legitimizing government. Yes, even monarchies need allies and it is clear that the Thai monarchy has done a good job of picking its friends and generally steering clear of those whom it doesn't particularly care for such as political activists. An argument can be made by now that King Bhumibhol thinks he and his allies are a better guardian of the public welfare than those chosen by the Thai people.
Well, where does Thailand go from here? The latest news is that a new constituion will be drawn up soon. That's nice. I hope that this military junta draws up one that is better than the one painstakingly drawn up (and done with much public consultation) by the idealistic political reformers in the late 1990's, but I would imagine it probably won't be. The problem with military juntas are that they are like wars - they are easy to start, but not so easy to end. Moreover, Thailand will have to face up to the fact that King Bhumibhol is now 78 years old, and like Fidel Castro he won't live forever. How will his children turn out to be as monarchs? One of the lessons of history that America's founders clearly absorbed was that you absolutely cannot allow the fate of an entire country to rest on the hope that one man, who happens to obtain supreme political power through fair means or foul, turns out to be a good ruler. You never know how people would turn out once power is obtained, ergo the idea was implemented that power would be widely fractured and disseminated in America. One can only hope that Thailand produces some deep thinkers who happen be able to gain enough clout to draw up future political arrangements which would allow all of Thailand's fractious people to be represented. But most of all, all Thais are going to have to accept the idea that if you want democracy, then sometimes you get to win but you there are many times where you have to play the good loser as well and simply try harder the next time around.
Posted by The Mighty Wizard at September 21, 2006 01:13 AM