CIVIL LIBERTIES  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 6

Is Thailand on the Brink of Civil War?

As conflicts between two political groups threaten to tear Thailand apart, its ailing king may not be able to keep the country together.
April 15, 2009  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

“It don't matter if you're black or white.” So goes an old Michael Jackson song that resonates now in American politics (and on American Idol). But in the current political crisis in Bangkok, it still matters very much, possibly to the point of civil war, if you wear red or yellow.

According to Thai police, up to 40,000 anti-government “red-shirt” protesters have scattered around the Thai capital, blocking roadways and entrances to upscale shopping malls. A few days earlier, in the nearby beach town of Pattaya, they managed to scare away leaders attending the Asian economic summit and attack Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s own convoy, causing injuries to several members. The prime minister barely got away. His declaration of a state of emergency was only met with more riots by the red shirts. They only began to break up when thousands of soldiers moved in.

Many of these red shirt protestors were trucked in from rural areas. Fierce supporters of exiled Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawsastra, who was ousted in 2006 when he was traveling abroad, and charged with corruption in absentia, the protestors are now threatening to bring down the economy as well. Foreign investors are driven away by the unrest and tourism, already suffering from Thailand’s instability, is predicted to sink even further.

Yet, less than six months ago, it was the “yellow shirts” who owned the streets. Members of the People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), they wore yellow to honor Thailand’s revered King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Representing a more urban population – in many ways the educated and bourgeois class -- the yellow shirts blocked the airport for days and stranded nearly 250,000 tourists.

The yellow shirts were incensed when a pro-Thaksin prime minister was popularly elected into office when the general election was held in December 2007. In effect, the yellow shirts disagreed with the election, claiming fraud. The constitutional court, under pressure to get the country moving again, agreed with them and disqualified the pro-Thaksin prime minister.

The trouble was that there was no clear evidence of fraud. In fact, Thaksin himself won the election fair and square before he was ousted by the military three years ago, with tacit support from the king. Many observers predict that he would win again were he to return and run in a fair election. A populist, the former prime minister made great strides among the rural population, provided education and jobs, and brought many out of dire poverty. Charges of corruption aside, his growing base in the countryside rivals that of the affection the people have for their king.

This leads to the issue of civil war, or something close to it. Since Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932, it has experienced many coups and counter-coups. Yet its monarchy holds enormous power, providing much needed constancy and balance. King Bhumibol Adulyadej played the central role in a pivotal moment in Thailand’s transition to a democratic system. In 1992, when the country came to a standstill in an unprecedented crisis due to pro-democracy protests, he summoned the leaders of the two opposing parties, and both men appeared together on their knees in front of the king in a televised event -- which soon led to a free election.

But that routine may no longer work. King Bhumibol Adulyadej is 81 years old and ailing. His heir apparent, Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn, has been perceived by many as the wrong choice and doesn’t carry the same gravitas and respect as his father. Whether the monarchy is relevant or even helpful in restoring balance to the current crisis is debatable.

Worse still, Thaksin is threatening from abroad that it’s time “for the people to come out in revolution."

"And when it is necessary,” he stated, “I will come back to the country.”

Those are dangerous words. Thaksin’s statement promises a political scenario that goes beyond the world of coup d’etat. What the shape of that revolution may entail is hard to envision, but it may very well lead to unending strife between the yellow and red shirts that could unravel the kingdom, forcing its citizens to choose sides, and eventually erode the monarchy itself.

Once the envy of its neighbors – Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia and Malaysia, which suffered under colonial rules – Thailand alone in Southeast Asia developed independently and in peace. But the tourist Mecca of Southeast Asia has lately shown its grimmer side, one that it can no longer keep under wraps.


submit to reddit
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
 
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

A couple of refinements
Posted by: kokun on Apr 15, 2009 3:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having lived in Thailand for the last few years I feel compelled to offer a couple of refinements to this fairly accurate summary of Thailand's recent history.

Firstly, there are 3 power centers in Thailand not 2 and they are not that monolithic either. There sub-factions within each. The 3 are: the palace (including the privy council), the Army, and Thaksin's TRT/PPP parties. The street antics of the yellows and reds over the last few years are but public eruptions of this struggle when the pressure builds too high. It would be a mistake to think of the street protests as the spontaneous feelings of the citizens. Both the yellow and red street protests were well organized and bankrolled by their respective masters. The people in the streets are often brainwashed into or actually paid to be there.

Second, it's a mistaken generalization to describe Thaksin's government as "for the people". Thaksin has instituted some populist policies, which have won him undying love of the rural poor. However, those policies were just a band-aid on the gaping wound of Thai social inequality and injustice. The gap between the rich (mostly in Bangkok) and the dirt poor (mostly in the villages) is staggering. The main reasons for such inequality are wide spread corruption at all levels of the government, a failing education system, and deeply ingrained system of social seniority. Thaksin, a successfull businessman who amassed incredible wealth thanks to his ability to play the corrupt system was not inclined to make any fundamental changes. Most of his time in power was spent figuring out how to enrich himself, his family, and his supporters at the expense of the public. It is rarely reported that the catalyst that launched the first wave of public protests in 2006 was the fact that he did not pay any taxes on the sale of his business to a Singapore conglomerate. Even his supporters agreed that when you make billions through the sale of your Thailand based business you should pay some Thai taxes. This guy is a shrewed politician. The champion of the people he is not.

And thirdly a note about Thai democracy. As the last 8 years in the US have demonstrated that in order for a democracy to thrive it requires an informed citizenry. It's lacking in the US and it really lacking in Thailand. The claim by the yellows that Thai elections do not result in the best leaders is a valid one since vote buying and uninformed voting is present on a pandemic scale in the rural areas. It is very common for the village "elders" to canvas their local area and hand out cash (300-500 Baht ~ $10-15) per vote in exchange for future favors from a political party. Now i don't agree with the Yellows suggestions of overriding elections with the palace appointed politicians, but the current system doesn't work either. Thailand's democracy is not a democracy that Westerners would recognize.

Personally i have supported the current prime minister and his Democratic party because they tended to actually put competent people with the relevant experience into the positions of power. Unlike Thaksin's government who handed out misterial portfolios to his supporters regardless of qualifications. And i still think that with some smart moves like launching the legal process against both the Yellows and the Reds he can emerge as a government for all Thais rather than some monochromatic fraud. Thailand is a beautiful contry with a lot of things to offer a weary expat. But I do hope that Thais stop acting like children and figure out what's the best for the whole country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A couple of refinements Posted by: richholland

Comments are closed-

Unsatisfactory.
Posted by: chorton on Apr 15, 2009 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is going on among the people of Thailand? What is their mood?
What are the current demographics: urban/rural, manufacturing/trade/farming, education levels and health, land-owning, share-cropping or landless farmers working for wages? What remains of the old feudal relationships on the land?

How large a part of the population is working for multinational corporations? What political role are they playing?

Is there a locally-owned manufacturing sector? What part are its owners and workers playing in this drama, in relation to each other and to the multi-nationals? To what extent is this reflected in Thai nationalism?

What are the games being played by the "great powers" in Thailand - the US, Japan, etc. - and how vulnerable is Thailand to their manipulations?

What is the state of union organizing? Peasant organizing? What is the state of civil liberties for the peasants, rural and urban workers , and for the urban middle classes?

Are there any legal left parties, and whom do they represent? What about underground parties and movements? What is their analysis and what are their programs?

What is going on with the universities? How big and effective are they? What is the mood and are the students and faculty politically active?

How has all of this been playing out and evolving over the past half-century since Thailand positioned itself as America's ally in the struggle against Communism?

How is the economic crisis affecting Thailand and what are the responses of different political factions to it and their programs?

And now, how is any or all of this reflected in the pageant of Red-shirts, Yellow-shirts and monarchists, and how it might or might not spin out of control into the civil war that some fear?

I don't have the answers, but I hope Alternet can bring us more of this kind of analysis, this kind of understanding. Andrew Lam's article falls about 97% short, no better than what's coming off the AP wire, and was a great disappointment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Unsatisfactory. Posted by: Dboy

Comments are closed-

errr..
Posted by: daniel1982 on Apr 15, 2009 10:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
>As conflicts between two political groups threaten to tear Thailand apart, its ailing king may not be able to keep the country together.

The King is 90% of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Reverend Billy Talen
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS