Members of the Royal Thai Army staged Thailand's first coup d'etat in 15 years against the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra this week, reminding many of old times in Bangkok. (Thailand has suffered 18 coups since it became a constitutional monarchy in 1932.) The military, led by army chief, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin, also canceled the upcoming elections scheduled for October, abrogated the Constitution, censured and suppressed media outlets, and terminated both houses of Parliament, the cabinet and the Constitutional Court (see here). The military leader said that power was seized to end the turmoil under Thaksin's leadership, to wipe out rampant corruption and to rehabilitate a divided nation. Almost immediately following the coup, Sonthi announced that a new prime minister would be installed within two weeks to lead the country until elections are held in October 2007. Although the coup only took place a few days ago, a new PM has yet to be named.
King Bhumibol, who is highly revered among the Thai, endorsed the coup leaders adding tremendous legitimacy to their actions among the Thai people, whom remained calm and unfazed through the initial ordeal. Given the reserve powers retained by the King, his endorsement also gives legal authority to Sonthi's position as head of the Council for Political Reform - the name the coup leaders have given themselves. "The role of the king is critical in the crisis," said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a professor of political science at Chulalongkorn. Sulak Siwalak, a well-known social critic, further stated "Without his involvement, the coup would not have been impossible." Although the kings' power to influence political events is limited, he yields immense power in practice. Recent polls show that about three-quarters of the population think that this move will clear the way for important reforms and make political institutions more efficient although Thaksin's rural supporters were reportedly underrepresented. But as time marches on, the Thai are growing more restless with increasing "temporary" bans on civil liberties and democratic rights.
To many the coup on Tuesday was less than a surprise. Even Thaksin himself acknowledged on Monday that opposition groups wanted him out of power, but he said that the role of the military in Thai politics was "reducing" and democracy in Thailand was "transparent." Talk about counting your chickens. Whispers of the coup have been circling for quite some time. Thaksin has been embroiled in accusations of corruption since his family sold its majority stake in a mobile phone company in a deal widely seen as unethical and then proceeded to exempt his family from taxes on the sale of the corporate stake prompting mass protests in the country. Thaksin then called a snap election, which he won with wide support from the rural poor. However, the opposition refused to accept the results and with Thai elites growing disenchanted and a Muslim insurgency raging in the south, the PM's ties with the army worsened (see here). The Center for Contemporary Conflict predicted a year ago that if Thaksin could not end the Muslim insurgency, violence would "provoke an authoritarian backlash in the political system." The combination of his lack of concern for the insurgency and preoccupation in unethical business deals led to his ultimate demise.
The events on Tuesday raise serious questions about the future of Thai democracy and the stability of a country with strong economic links to the West. In a recent article, Onus now on coup leaders to restore trust of the people, Kavi Chongkittavorn, a political commentator for The Nation newspaper, stated that to many the military coup against Thaksin may have been a necessary evil. The author concedes that while ideally the likes of Thaksin should be rejected at the ballot box and through public pressure, the problem is that the people did not see that they had other options available to them. One effect of Thaksin's five years of overwhelming dominance is the absence of any obvious alternative. The main opposition party, the Democrat Party, is infamous for its inability to capitalize on Thaksin's difficulties. Kavi emphasized that the coup leaders now have to prove their intent while the world watches and scrutinizes. "The perception by the Thai people that this was done in good faith will be extremely fragile," he said. The coup leaders have pledged allegiance to democracy under the constitutional monarchy but at the same time they have concentrated all power of government in its own hand unrestrained by public accountability or a system of checks and balances.
Thus far, the coup's leader's actions have not lived up to their democratic pledges and do not seem to be moving in that direction. BBC reports that the new leadership is quickly consolidating its grip on power, banning all political meetings and assuming legislative duties in the absence of parliament. They are also blocking broadcasts deemed harmful and have threatened to shut down media that violates the new restrictions. In addition, the military also continues to crack down on those close to the ousted prime minister.
"The seizure of power, albeit one that was achieved without the loss of lives, is nonetheless a form of political violence that is incompatible with the democratic aspirations of the Thai people" (see here). The use of military force, instead of free and fair elections, can hardly be condoned as a measure of reinstating democratic principles, especially when the coup replaced the upcoming elections with an election that is a year off. The coup cannot be deemed a necessary evil in this sense. It has left Thailand in limbo, taking it from a democratic state, though corrupt, to a authoritarian military state. Democracy should not include the vicious cycle of constitution, election, corruption and coup, which seems the dominant model of former exemplar democracies in Southeast Asia (Philippines and Thailand). In order for democracy to work, in theory, the people must have a voice, even if it is a façade underlying elite power politics.
With the coup, Thailand has become one more Southeast Asian nation that has reinterpreted democracy in undemocratic terms, either manipulating or sidestepping constitutional processes to acheive political ends, explains Seth Mydans. Nations continuously argue that its departures from democracy are a necessary response to local conditions. It is true that democracy does not come in a neat cookie-cutter package but to remove its core principles does not make it any kind of democracy at all. Throughout the world's democracies, there are substantial populations that are frustrated by their freely elected leaders (US case in point) but deposing them by forceful means is a direct contradiction to the principles of a democratic society and cannot be justified as a necessary evil. Suspending laws, necessary democratic institutions, and individual rights are incompatible with democracy even if done in its name. If the coup is justified in Thailand, it can be justified in other situations of political flux. The full extent of the coup's impact is yet to be seen. There are several areas of concern:
- Politics - There are real and continuing worries that Sothi, like previous coup leaders, may find it difficult to give up power or attempt to rebuild democracy to the military's liking. The longer he stays, the greater the risk that the same groups who protested Thaksin will turn their frustration on the military, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle that plagues Thailand.
- Economy - After 15 years without a coup, Thailand established itself in the heart of Southeast Asia as a stable democracy and economic partner. Investors will be watching closely, especially to Shin Corp, the mobile phone group which Mr. Thaksin's family sold to Singapore investors. For a second day in a row, the share price of Shin Corp and its affiliates fell sharply as Bangkok stock market reacted to reports that the new Thai government would launch a probe into alleged corruption involving Thaksin.
- Social Impact - Deposing the democratically elected leader, who was overly popular with the rural poor, with the endorsement of the elite is unlikely to unite the already deeply divided nation. Thaksin was elected as a result of his populist policies to focus on the needs of the poor, with programs like village development funds, debt forgiveness and low-cost care. The rural poor may see this as a move to discount their vote thereby creating another rift in the political spectrum. Furthermore, we are now faced with a situation in which the first Muslim army commander-in-chief in overwhelmingly Buddhist Thailand has taken full control of the country. This could either appease the Muslim minority in the South or incite increasing violence among the Buddhist majority if democracy is not soon restored.
While Thailand's future remains unclear, at least they have history on their side. Having endured 18 coups in the past 74 years the Thai are hopefully prepared. However, the preferable approach would be to have democracy restored as promised.
Comments