Thailand’s Current Political Situation

By Helen Sneha

Thailand is an exceptionally well-endowed country – its food and hospitality are widely known, and it has ample resources and exports to sustain it economically. Yet many issues of leadership and legitimacy continue to afflict Thailand. The simple question of who deserves to, and gets to, rule the country has yet to be answered. As Associate Professor Thitinan Pongsudhirak put it in our session with him today, it seems that those who win elections cannot rule, while those who rule cannot win elections. Politicians and corruption will always go hand in hand, but there are power players on the scene in Thailand who, while not able to contest electoral seats themselves, are in positions to prevent election winners from governing in every sense of the word. 

A bit of history might be in order to fully understand the implications of ruling and being elected in modern Thailand. Thailand was an absolute monarchy till 1932, until that was overthrown by the military and civilians, who drafted their first constitution. The 80^th anniversary of the day the absolute monarchy was overthrown was last Sunday, June 24^th. 

Post-World-War-II Thailand saw 25 years of military dictatorship, running from 1947 to 1973. Politicians and political parties were not allowed to exist, for the most part, and despite the turmoil in the rest of the region – with the Vietnam War and Burma’s military dictatorship raging – Thailand managed relatively well. In 1973, students overthrew the military dictatorship, which had grown undemocratic, inflexible, and corrupt, and, in a sense, reset the constitutional monarchy. There was then a right-wing military backlash against this in 1976, which led to another year of military dictatorship. It is interesting to note that these years of dictatorship were not as bad as they could have been as the generals did not try to micro-manage the economy and instead hired experts to do it – a lot of Thailand’s ample resources and exports were in fact built up during periods of military dictatorship. 

1997 was a year of serious democratic reforms, with a new constitution that appeared to combine the best elements from Japan, Germany, and the USA towards promoting greater transparency and accountability. When the 2001 elections came about, it appeared that Thaksin Shinawatra had the answers to long-standing unhappiness stemming back to the economic crises of 1997/1998, and by suspending farmer’s debt, and making available micro credit loans and universal healthcare, he won over the rural poor solidly enough to go on to win five subsequent elections by healthy margins. Yet another coup occurred against Thaksin’s government in 2006, despite his being a strong, popular, visionary leader. Judicial coups dissolved his new-formed party in 2008, and disenfranchised Red Shirt protestors took to the streets following two years of military rule in 2009 and 2010. Thaksin’s third-generation party, headed by his sister Yingluck, was then elected in 2011 by a 265/500 majority. 

A question that arose during the session was why Thaksin got re-elected so many times. sThe answer was threefold: first, he was the first to truly connect with the majority of voters in the rural areas – taking advantage of the income disparity meant that his policies could earn him the votes of the North and the NorthEast, nearly half of the population; second, the Democrat Party was not a viable alternative, and third, there was a growing political consciousness even among the rural poor. 

In the big frame of things, as Associate Professor Pongsudhirak phrased it, Thailand is currently in a kind of lockdown. Highly reductionistically, it could be a clash between the traditional and the modernized. As it stands, the military is aware that a coup now would lead to massive Red Shirt protests. Yingluck, meanwhile, as Prime Minister, could not do much in the face of one because the legitimacy of rule is still very much drawn from traditional sources of power. In no way, however, does traditional moral authority have to be opposed to an electoral mandate – there are no black and white distinctions. Being a loyal subject and being an informed citizen do not have to be oppositional.

Thaksin Shinawatra. (Source: Google Image)
 

The 2006 military coup. (Source: Google Image)

Helen Sneha, 20, is a second year Bachelor of Arts student, double-majoring in Writing and International Studies. She is hopelessly interested in tennis, funky rings, dinosaurs, and the human hand.