[P2P-F] Fwd: FW: [aepf] Analysis of Thai Crisis from Focus on the Global South

Wed Jan 22 23:06:04 CET 2014

great analysis of the anti-democratic movement in Thailand,

Michel

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Francois Houtart <houtart at hotmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 4:13 PM
Subject: FW: [aepf] Analysis of Thai Crisis from Focus on the Global South
To: Michel Bauwens <michel at p2pfoundation.net>

------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:02:11 +0700
From: d.guerrero at focusweb.org
To: aepf at lists.riseup.net
Subject: [aepf] Analysis of Thai Crisis from Focus on the Global South

http://focusweb.org/content/thai-politics-glance

*Thai Politics at a Glance*

Thailand is once more in a serious political crisis, with the legitimacy of
the government being challenged.  There are two sources of government
legitimacy, the means and the end. Means refers to how the government gets
the power to govern the nation and its citizens while the end is the
government’s performance. The 'whistle group' (the large numbers of
protestors occupying key areas of Bangkok under the leadership of Mr.
Suthep Thaugsuban) is based on the claim that the current Pheu Thai
government under Prime Minister Yingluck Shinnawatra, a younger sister of
the ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinnawatra (now living in self-exile and
facing corruption charges), is illegitimate in both aspects. The primary
allegations are widespread vote buying of the rural people in the provinces
- who are viewed by whistle group members as poor, uneducated and backward.
 Although Yingluck’s Pheu Thai party won the last elections in 2011, the
whistle group claim she is not representing the people’s interests, but
only her brother and the Shinnawatra clan.

*The 'whistle mob' and Suthep Thaugsuban*

What is often called the ‘whistle mob’ is a group of people, constituted
mainly of the middle and upper class residents of Bangkok and the Democrat
Party’s supporters from the upper South. According to the Asia Foundation[1],
one third of the whole whistle mob’s population’s average monthly income is
60,000 baht (approximately US$2,000). They are also the financial
supporters of the mob which is characterized as a people’s movement. This
is one of the explanations of how this movement has been sustained during
the costly mobilizations over the past three months. Their common goal is
the abolishment of the so-called Thaksin regime or Thaksinocracy. However,
the definition of Thaksin regime remains vague and greatly varying even
among its proponents including the intellectuals. They believe Thaksin is
the most corrupt and therefore the most dangerous threat to Thai society
and needs to be uprooted and eradicated. The anti-Thaksin sentiment is
further fueled by the allegation (which he denies) of his attempt to orient
the country towards a republic, thus detrimental to the monarchy, which is
regarded as the most important institution of the kingdom.

The movement is led by Mr. Suthep Thaugsuban, the former secretary general
of the Democrat Party and the former deputy Prime Minister during the
military-formed government of Mr. Abhisit Vejjajiva. He is said to be the
most influential politician in the Democrat Party. Mr. Suthep is also well
known for a land reform corruption scandal, in which hundreds of plots of
land ended up in the hand of a few influential families instead of poor
farmers which led to the dissolution of the parliament under his party at
that time. Thousands of people from the South, particularly his home town
in Surattanee province, marched to Bangkok in support of him. Despite this
track record, he has emerged as the leader of the anti-Thaskin movement as
a bold and risk-taking personality. Some said they will later get rid of
him after Thaksin is removed. Nonetheless, he is very influential in the
movement as everyone listens to his instructions, even though his plan is
obscure and no one seems to know what exactly is in his mind. His control
over Democrat supporters, anti-Thaksin groups and his connection with
entities in the old power camp - including the military, Privy Council and
the Democrats who see the rise of Thaksin as a threat to the status quo
-are his primary leverage in this struggle. It is clear that the Democrat
Party, who has never won any election during the past 20 years, is the key
actor of this movement. However, Mr. Suthep’s resignation from Parliament
to embrace street politics is an attempt to shield his party from any
negative legal consequences.   His intervention was at an opportune time,
when people who share common sentiments were looking for a legitimate
reason to rise up against Thaksin.

*Amnesty Bill, the Trigger*

The initial demand of the whistle group was the withdrawal of the blanket
Amnesty Bill which was passed by the parliament at 4:00 am on November 1,
2013. This was the trigger of the mass mobilization. In fact amnesty is a
conventional Thai way of reconciliation. However, such an act was viewed as
an insincere push and manipulation of the parliamentary process with a
hidden agenda. It has been heavily criticized by people of all political
camps, including the UDD or Red Shirts, who are the main supporters of the
ruling Pheu Thai Party that form the majority in the north and north east
of the country. While many perceive this controversial bill as an attempt
to whitewash Thaksin Shinnawatra, the bill would also grant the impunity to
all perpetrators of the 2010 political violence which killed 92 people and
left 2,000 injured. The Red Shirts have been working hard to pursue legal
procedures and therefore see the amnesty bill as an obstacle to bring
perpetrators to justice. Many felt the government betrayed the Red Shirts
who had sacrificed their lives to call for the election and formed the
electoral base of Pheu Thai.

*Reform before Election*

The Amnesty bill was finally withdrawn but this failed to stop the mass
protests, which further demanded that Prime Minister dissolve Parliament
and resign as the caretaker government respectively with no room for
dialogue.  The current demand is reform before elections.  There has been a
consensus that the reform is necessary, particularly constitutional reform.
The questions are what kind of reform? Through which process? By and for
whom? It is clear the current constitution has failed to address, and even
reinforced, challenges in Thai society such as socioeconomic disparities,
protracted violent conflict in southern frontier provinces, land tenure and
dispossession, weak governance and politicized judicial, legislative and
state independent institutions. This is because many of its provisions are
undemocratic, particularly the selection process of key independent
institutions such as senators, National Human Rights Commission and
Constitutional Court. Many of the members of these entities were part of
the military-sponsored constitutional assembly and got their positions
through military support. This brings to question their accountability to
the people.  Their actions have repeatedly affirmed bias in favor of the
military - an institution seen by others as a main hindrance to democracy
and peace, being responsible for many corruption cases and human rights
violations. Genuine reform requires a genuine social contract which means
the constitution, an agreement of how to govern and be governed, must be
based on a collective ownership and participation in a horizontal spirit.
The 2006 coup was the start of the deepest societal polarization and
upheaval in Thai political history.

*Is Reform the Real Intent?*

The Democrat Party, the whistle group and their key leaders are widely
questioned for their actual goals. The Democrat Party, when they were put
in power by the military coup, had a chance to pursue reform. The
Government formed several reform committees with enormous budgets injected
into the process, but delivered no concrete outcomes.  This reflects the
absence of political will and raises questions of genuine intent and the
true agendas of the current political struggle. What would be the assurance
of successful reform under an undemocratic, Suthep-appointed People’s
Council who claims to protect rule of law with contradictory acts? The fear
is that Thai society would end up under an oppressive and ruthless regime.
There will be no space for anybody, as individuals or groups to question
the government’s performance. In fact, many see a connection between the
whistle movement and the military, given the intimate relationships between
the heads of these two entities who are allegedly responsible for the 2010
political violence. During the past few days, the army chief, General
Prayuth Chanocha, mentioned in several interviews that a military coup is
not ruled out and the government will have to be held responsible for the
bloodshed. Society will have to keep vigilant on the military role and
response to Mr. Suthep’s current tactic to shut down Bangkok to paralyze
government structures and operations.

Nonetheless, despite the provocation for the military to step in, it would
not be easy as the international community has been closely observing the
political development in Thailand with clear messages in support of
elections and reform by democratic means. The military must have learnt
from the past and been aware that the likely outcome of a coup is a
political setback and international boycott which might not bring down the
Thaksin regime but enhance it.

Thai society is left with two options, either elections before reforms or
the reverse. However, elections do not rule out or in any way undermine
national reform. Instead, it assures respect for the rule of law and
disallows the law of rulers. It maintains Thai state legitimacy in the
international arena. Any attempt to undermine the election would in turn
engender a new standard, excuse and justification for anyone to employ
unlawful and violent means to oust the new government.  There will be
widespread protracted violence since many people will feel their electoral
and other fundamental human rights were hijacked by an illegitimate group.
They have been very tolerant for so long, particularly when the government
has been very compromising. This does not reflect people’s support for the
current caretaker government but they feel Thailand is now in a situation
of a failed or fragile state and the government cannot protect civilians
from harassment.

The reform proposed by Mr. Suthep himself is vague. The means employed have
also been undemocratic, such as the exclusion and dehumanization of people
who hold different views. The rural poor are perceived as backward and
inferior to the urban middle and upper classes, thus subject to vote buying
and not capable of being equal members of the electoral democratic society.
Let alone, the hijack of electoral rights from the majority of Thai
citizens. Such an insult upon the poor can also signify the upper middle
class and elites’ fear of the poor and their voting power. These are all
fatally adverse to the democratic principles and suggest that perhaps it is
the Democrat Party who should begin to reform itself. The only way to get
rid of the Thaksin regime is to introduce the political alternatives to
Pheu Thai or future parties under Thaksin with competent or better
political innovations which effectively address people’s aspirations.

*Backward or Enlightened?*

Given the economic improvement in Thailand, the pattern of needs has
changed which encompasses fulfillment of civil and political rights along
with social and economic rights. There has been a significant rise of the
political consciousness among the poor during the past few years whose
electoral decisions are based on the policies of political parties.
According to research by Dr. Parinya Thewanarumitkul of Thammasart
Univsersity, vote buying plays an insignificant role in the decisions of
rural voters. The Thai Rak Thai Party, which was the first party formed by
Thaksin, introduced popular policies which delivered tangible outcomes to
the poor. The turning point was when people began to realize their
electoral power, could result from decentralization, allows them to have
certain degree of rights to determine their fate. There has been
significant change in terms of funds channeled to the provinces, along with
many tangible deliveries such as a 30 baht health care scheme and one
million baht village fund which led to the visibly measurable betterment of
their quality of lives.  However such populist policies without proper
sustainable means to generate state revenues have resulted in a financial
crisis for the government.

*Democratic Means to Achieve Democratic Ends*

On a practical matter, it is unconstitutional for the Prime Minister to
resign since abandoning the duty is a violation of Penal Code Article 157
and subject to punishment. Nonetheless, there have been little attempts at
dialogue between the two key parties. The Prime Minister herself does not
seem to have a clear plan to handle the protesters. She has been very
responsive to all demands but taken no proactive steps. This is largely
because she has no control over the military and other institutions, except
the police which is seen as toothless. Nonetheless, she has done well in
avoiding violence. It is important that the government, together with those
from the general public who disagree with Suthep, transcend the imagery of
enemies to understand the plight of the protestors and legitimate
underlying factors of the outrage and dissatisfaction. The process of
dialogue needs to be fostered in a way to ensure the plights, interests and
concerns of every stakeholder. An outlet for Suthep to step down in a
face-saving manner which allows his companions to address their concerns
needs to be sought. It should also be a lesson learnt for the government in
power to take into consideration the sentiment of minority voices and be
sincere in the democratic process. It is unfortunate that civil society and
NGOs are equally polarized and driven by political interests. It is
imperative to find a common platform where a third space or alternatives
can emerge to foster real reform by the people and civil society. To
achieve genuine reform stakeholders must feel the sense of ownership and
shared power. They must be respected and seen as equal. The reform process
has to be collective and horizontal, not coercive and top down.

[1] Asia Foundation, “Profile of the Protestors: a Survey of Pro and Anti-
Government Demonstrators in Bangkok on November 30,2013” (January 19,2013)
Available at

http://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/FinalSurveyReportDecember20.pdf

-- 
Dorothy-Grace M. Guerrero
Programme Coordinator
Climate and Environmental Justice
Focus on the Global South

* Would you like to help us?[image: Paypal]
<http://focusweb.org/content/donations>
<https://www.facebook.com/focusontheglobalsouth> <http://focusweb.org/> *4th.
flr. Rm. 307 Wisit Prachuabmoh Bldg.
CUSRI Chulalongkorn University
Phyathai Road, 10330
Bangkok, Thailand
Mobile: (+66) (0)85 2177937
Skype: dottie-grace
Twitter: deeguerrero

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates:
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/p2p-foundation/attachments/20140122/c2a78098/attachment-0001.htm 