Opinion Waiting for the king
The Thai armed forces opened fire,but the Red Shirts refused to budge. Farmers still sat outside the Louis Vuitton and Prada stores; the stores remained shut.
The Thai armed forces opened fire,but the Red Shirts refused to budge. Farmers still sat outside the Louis Vuitton and Prada stores; the stores remained shut. Bangkoks elite stayed holed up in their homes; government officials jumped out of windows as the Reds broke into government buildings. Streets normally,famously jam-packed with cars now held human traffic jams,the sound of engines replaced by chants of down with dictatorship. What started seven weeks ago as a movement to unseat current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva lingers on today with the prospect of further escalation.
The Red Shirts called for fresh elections,they questioned the constitution and marched through the streets of Bangkok. Rallies were held,financial districts became camp sites. When the Reds broke into government buildings,the riot police were called in and yet the Reds soldiered on for they believed that what they had failed to achieve over the past five years could be a possibility now. After all,this time it was not just the farmers,peasants and rural folk dissenting: lower middle class Bangkok had joined in too. The support base was growing,slowly.
Vejjajivas request for military intervention,and the decision by the armed forces to open fire on protestors,has made the situation in Thailand more complex. For one,over the past five years the streets have been dominated by two political colours: red and yellow. March 10,however saw men in black; their faces hidden behind balaclavas,toting guns. The Reds claim to have nothing to do with them,but both are fighting on the same side. An executive order is in place to hunt down the terrorists,interrogate any suspects,to imprison them if theres any doubt.
Few things remain constant in the Thai political landscape. But primary amongst them is the power of the army. Thailand underwent a political restructuring in the 1930s absolute monarchy was replaced with constitutional monarchy,but the new constitution was much too weak. Political institutions too were underdeveloped,the legislature given limited power. Thus in the absence of a fully functioning civilian regime a politicised military grew in power,scope and importance.
In 1997,finally,a progressive constitution was written; it was after the drafting of this constitution that Thaksin Shinawatra came to power. Yet Thaksin is something of the villain in the Bangkok plot. How? Through his manipulation of the 1997 constitution. The new constitution allowed for increased power for political parties: Thaksin banked on this and used it to strengthen his party,Thai Rak Thai. It was this power that allowed him to control the legislature and ensure that key bodies the Auditor Generals Office and National Counter Corruption Commission remained under his control. Simply put,his control was so far-reaching it silenced the opposition. But he angered the elite,and the elite and military have a close kinship. Thus the coup that overthrew the wildly popular PM.
The current protests,though pitted between the rural and urban (the north and the south) also need to be viewed through a post-Thaksin prism. Thaksin created anger at the traditional wealthy of Bangkok. One scholar at the Council for Foreign Relations in New York puts it thus: the struggle is a battle between elites. Thaksin,a hard-driving telecommunications billionaire,symbolised new wealth in Thailand,which has developed an antagonistic relationship with the scions of older power,who tended to look down on the nouveau riche like Thaksin and his close associates.
Thus the on-going chaos. In the past five years,the two governments that were elected following Thaksins self-imposed exile were affiliated to him. This further irked both the military and the elite.
Experts expect military involvement to only increase. James Ockey,the scholar of Southeast Asia,has written that the military have traditionally had a sense of entitlement in Thailands political affairs that stems from their very first intervention,the 1932 coup that led to the overthrow of the monarchy. Military involvement is always an option.
But the matter gets murkier. Factions within the military are divided on the sort of response to the current crisis. Thai specialist Surachart Bumrungsuk says there is a division in tactics: on the one hand General Anupong the current armed forces commander,on his way out prefers a softer response,and political dialogue. Second in line General Prayuth Chan-ocha would have liked a harder crackdown.
Ultimately there is only one real mediator in Thailand: King Bhumibol Adulyadej,to whom both factions claim allegiance. Thus far he has spoken very briefly asking for restraint. It was he who mediated during the 1973 student uprising and in the 1992 anti-military protests. As the situation on the street unfolds,spectators can only wait for the king.
alia.allana@expressindia.com
Share
