Opinion Thai tug o’war

While attending a UN meeting in New York he was deposed in a coup d’etat — Thailand’s 18th such. His response: “I didn’t expect this incident would happen. I was prime minister when I came,and I was jobless on the way back.” This was not entirely true: he was jobless but very much in control behind the scenes. The people’s Thaksin-fever,thanks to his economic policies,ensured that only those with his tacit backing would get to the highest office. This has been the case over the past three years,as he has directed both Samak Sundaravej and Somchai Wongsawat,one his chosen heir and the other his brother-in-law. The opposition managed to rally the Yellows into a frenzy,culminating in the removal of both through violent and damaging protests. However,it is widely accepted that should fresh elections be held Thaksin’s influence will continue to linger in Thai politics.

So where’s the opposition? Are they entirely unfit to rule? Unfortunately,they have focused much of their energy on getting Thaksin out rather than developing a concrete platform to get a new and acceptable candidate in. The Yellows — the People’s Alliance for Democracy or PAD — currently focus on essentially disenfranchising the rural north; this will naturally not garner any support and in fact will only strengthen the Thaksin faction. And it isn’t certain if any other (read non-Thaksin) progressive parties and alternatives can come to power through the electoral system ; so will Thailand have to go down the well-worn route of its old politics,where the only winner will be the old order?  

This is a very important battle for Thai democracy. There are strong arguments for the constitutionality of Thaksin’s sentence,and he should thus serve it. Still,his party enjoys enormous support and there are members within it who are capable of leading the country; however,they are banned from participation in politics. That,in contrast,needs to be lifted. Finally,the genuine grievances over the 2006 coup d’etat need to be addressed; free and fair elections will go some distance towards doing so. 

Electoral battle-lines — city versus north — have been laid out without much attention to the country’s largely Muslim,rural south. Should another party want to stand against Thaksin’s,at least 30 per cent of the south might be convinced to vote for it. Thaksin has never been and is unlikely to be their choice — the 2005 election results showed that. Although criticism of Thaksin focused on what appeared to be his mixing of business and politics,his true failure was how he dealt with Muslim insurgents and protesters at,among other places,the town of Tak Bai. Crushing that popular uprising required one of the bloodiest operations undertaken by the Thai security forces. (Thaksin,who had assumed emergency powers to deal with the insurgency,has stated that he doesn’t feel accountable for these. Human Rights Watch’s head,disagreeing,has called Thaksin “a human rights abuser of the worst kind”.) 

Thailand has traditionally been looked upon as a role model for other South East Asian economies. Yet the two major parties are failing their people. New parties,without the troubled history of those that currently dominate Thai politics,need to fill in the gaps they’re leaving in policy. The first step to doing that: genuine,equitable,free and fair elections.

alia.allana@expressindia.com