The Thai coup and the risk of democracy fatigue

Bangkok Watcher

This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.

The Thai coup and the risk of democracy fatigue
Beyond what happens in the next few weeks and months, difficult questions arise about how Thailand can make its democratic processes lead to better governance

BANGKOK, Thailand – In carrying out the May 22 coup, the Thai military appeared to have been so frustrated by the “noise” of the country’s protracted political conflict that it decided to pull the plug on it. It also decided to write the script of a resolution to the tussle between the elected government and protesters who had been trying to unseat it since November 2013.

Eight years after the last coup in this Southeast Asian country, the armed forces stepped into a political vacuum created by months of bitter wrangling that had weakened government’s ability to carry out its duties, made businesses jittery and left many tired of the protests that seemed like they would stretch forever.

At first, it seemed like the military, well aware of how the Southeast Asian country got a black eye from the international community after the 2006 coup d’etat, was trying to take charge without formally taking charge. On May 20, it declared martial law but said the civilian government would remain in place.

But it took this cover off after two days of talks among the government, protesters, parliamentarians and political parties – which the armed forces summoned participants to – yielded no results and the incumbent government declined a request to step down in order to defuse the crisis.

Local news reports, including insider accounts by “Matichon Online,” say the government – a caretaker one since December – said it could not resign to make way for some form of interim government. Representatives of the two political groups in the conflict continued to cross swords in the talks.

The “Matichon” account quoted army chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha as saying that if the government, led by the Pheu Thai party founded by ex-prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, refused to step down, then there was no point in trying to set an election date.

At about 4:30 pm, the news account recounted that Prayuth said, “I’m sorry. I have to seize power.” Meeting participants were shepherded into different areas, while Prayuth, flanked by other military chiefs, made the coup declaration on national television “in order for the country to return to normal quickly.”

As of Saturday morning, May 24, more than 150 politicians and parliamentarians, as well leaders of the anti-government protests, had reported to the military and most of them detained, media reports said. These included former prime minister Yingluck Shinawatra and the caretaker prime minister, Niwattumrong Boonsongpaisan.

Coup revisited

Reactions to the coup vary, from those saying it was a step back in the rocky road to political maturity for a country fumbling with how to settle its divisive conflicts, and others saying they felt safer with the military in charge.

Some recall the soul-searching after the 2006 coup about whether there can ever be a “good coup” to oust a corrupt government. On Friday, May 23, a small protest against the coup was held in central Bangkok, while others vented their opposition online.

Still others warned that the coup may have ended the protests and the life of this government, but would not address the roots of the conflict that hark back to 2001, when businessman Thaksin Shinawatra first became prime minister and built up a strong executive branch that upset the way politics had usually been done in this country.

NEW JUNTA. A familiar sight on Thai TV screens

Residents are trying to go about their normal lives against the backdrop of a curfew from 10 pm to 5 am, and the abrogation of the latest Constitution, the 2007 one. A new junta or ruling council – the National Peace and Order Maintaining Council – was set up with the government ministries’ everyday duties divided among various military chiefs. Some television stations have been allowed to restart regular programming, but news reports come from the Army channel.

“Here we go again,” said Sut, an employee. “I wondered if the military would really stay away since so many are tired of the protests going on with no solution in sight.”

Lek, a taxi driver, recalled that he was fed up with the anti-government protests led by ex-parliamentarian Suthep Thaugsuban because they were affecting the livelihood of “small people like us.” At times, he said, he wished that “all of them would fight each other and let’s see who is left standing afterwards” so that life could then go on.

Stuck in a standoff

The protests had been going on for some, at times in rallies like the “Bangkok Shutdown” in November that drew huge crowds and involved huge cash collections from people in the streets. The Suthep-led People’s Democratic Reform Council (PDRC) demanded that the Pheu Thai part-led government and the prime minister at the time, Yingluck Shinawatra, step down and stay out of politics.

Yingluck, Thaksin’s younger sister, was seen as a proxy of her exiled brother, whom many protesters accuse of having bought the votes of millions of people, many from the poorer northeast who back them to this day. At the protest rallies, speakers take turns vilifying Thaksin as corruption itself.

In December, Yingluck dissolved Parliament to try to undercut the protests, as her party was confident of winning a new vote. An election was held in February, but was declared a failure after protesters blocked voters and disrupted the process. By this time too, the protesters’ slogans had grown to saying “no” to elections because the Pheu Thai would win again, and demanding that “reforms” – not much of which have been disclosed – be undertaken by an unelected group before any credible elections can be held.

“This government was really crude,” complained Som. “They did not do much but sit in power and all they could say was ‘let’s have elections’ (because they will win). Other governments have stepped down in the face of so much protests.”

Protest rallies, often including blockage of key roads, have been held now and then since November. Several times, Suthep, who recently entered Parliament and disrupted it, declared a “day of victory” only to call another one weeks later. The government dug in, hoping to sit it out till a new vote could be held so it could get a fresh mandate.

PROTESTS. The protests that were common for six months have now ended

The government’s headaches picked up with the collapse of its populist program around a scheme where it bought rice from farmers at almost double market prices. In February, it admitted it could not pay the US$3.99 billion it owed up to one million farmers, many of whom came from its voters’ bulwarks and who had come out into the streets in anger.

In addition, Thailand’s inability to form a new government over the last 6 months meant that the caretaker government, by law, could not make free decisions on big public investments, or discussing and finalizing the new budget.

The situation was a quagmire. In this standoff, things were not collapsing, but were not getting fixed either. There was little sign of dialogue in the horizon, or people or groups able to broker genuine talks with moral force.

Then came early May, when the Constitutional Court ruled that Yingluck had to step down because she had violated the Constitution by interfering in the transfer of a government official for her own political benefit. This brought to mind cases where court decisions had paved the way for the unseating of pro-Thaksin prime ministers in recent years.

But instead of providing an outlet to ease tensions, Yingluck’s departure provided new fuel for the protesters who said they wanted the whole Pheu Thai party, not just Yingluck, out – and started planning huge rallies once more.

Something had to give. The military – which still owns several media outlets and has major political clout even though Thailand has a parliamentary electoral system – stepped in.

That the military factor was always somewhere there was highlighted by the fact that several times over the past months, journalists actually asked Prayuth whether the armed forces was planning to take any “action” – something they denied. Particularly revealing was the media’s accounts of how, when Prayuth was asked on May 20 if the government had been told beforehand of the martial-law declaration, he said: “Where is the government?”

How to make democracy work

It is uncertain how long the military will be running the country, while trying to get an election done after national “reforms” – the same call that the PDRC has been making. In 2006, the military stayed in power for more than a year and helped fix the entry of an establishment-friendly government after similar anti-Thaksin protests. An option seems to be that the Senate, the appointed upper house of Parliament, would name an interim leader.

Beyond what happens in the next few weeks and months, difficult questions arise about how Thailand can make its democratic processes – its parliamentary system, its elections – lead to better governance, and how mature governance goes far beyond gaining election victories.

It also necessitates a tough look at how politicians represent the views of different groups of citizens, and serve as vehicles for managing tensions, as well as the unimpressive role of civil society actors in negotiating a venue for peace.

Some are asking themselves what kinds of norms and rules of politics do people accept? How far is the primacy of civilian rule an accepted political value? Why is the non-elective approach to political change still seen as a possible, tolerable or imaginable option, whether through call by the PDRC this time, or by other anti-Thaksin protesters in past years, or through military involvement?

News reports say that military leaders are now trying to do some of what many Thais thought the government should have done – including paying the farmers their due. Not a few have remarked that while this might be the right thing to do, is it a task for the military?

In the The Nation newspaper, journalist Pravit Rojanaphruk said that military rule “can never teach us is how to solve political conflicts in a lasting manner.” He added: “The cycle of military intervention with 18 coups in eight decades has to end for Thais to grow up and learn to take responsibility for themselves.”

Learning from the past

It is time to remember 5 lessons from past coups, says Vithit Munthaborn, an international legal and rights expert with Chulalongkorn University. All of these require a return to civilian rule and dogged efforts to make a democratic system work better. Writing in the Bangkok Post, Vithit recalled that huge public protests erupted after the 1992 coup when the military took the post of prime minister, indicating that the idea of a fatigue-clad premier has become unwelcome even in a society not unused to coups.

These 5 lessons are that there needs to be a return to civilian rule “substantively and expeditiously,” a respect for the “one person, one vote” principle, an elected prime minister, decentralization of power, and a better balance among the branches of government for checks and balances, Vithit said.

Upheavals can form or shape societies and help them define, even if painfully, what their core political values are, just as wars and revolutions have for many neighboring Southeast Asian countries. The biggest risk in the current coup is that Thais give up on electoral democratic processes and buy the argument that Parliament and elections are but inefficient, inherently flawed elements that can be done away with shortcuts when inconvenient or when a government is unpopular or corrupt. – Rappler.com

*The Bangkok Watcher has lived in Thailand for more than 12 years and has followed politics, development and political change in Southeast Asia. We have agreed to use a pseudonym because of possible threats to the writer’s security.

Add a comment

Sort by

There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.

Summarize this article with AI

How does this make you feel?

Loading
Download the Rappler App!