Gwynne Dyer: Thailand avoids massacre but the crisis is not over
Editor’s note: This column is an updated version of an article originally posted on May 18.
“The government does not want to negotiate, so I think many more people will die,” said “redshirt” leader Sean Boonpracong in Bangkok on Monday (May 17). “This will end as our Tienanmen Square.” Mercifully, it didn’t.
The danger was real enough. If the army had used all the force it had available in trying to clear the thousands of protesters out of central Bangkok, which they had occupied since mid March, there would have been a massacre. And if hundreds of poor peasants (for that’s what most of them were) had been killed by the army, then it would have been trapped in power permanently.
If you commit a massacre, you have to stay in power. Relinquish it, and in a year or two you will be facing a court, charged with heinous crimes. So Thai democracy was at stake in Bangkok this week in a most fundamental way. Fortunately, the army used much less force than it might have when it cleared the area on Wednesday (May 19)—only six people were killed—and the protest leaders avoided further bloodshed by surrendering.
One is tempted to say that this demonstrates the basic common sense of Thais, except that we have just had such vivid demonstrations of unreason from the very same people.
Two weeks ago Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva had agreed to the protesters’ key demand: new elections this year. Instead of closing the deal, the protesters insisted that Abhisit also order the arrest of his deputy prime minister for having ordered an earlier attack on their encampment in which about 24 people were killed.
Abhisit refused, of course—and then cancelled his offer of elections this year as well. That is why another 40 people were killed in the past two weeks, and why democracy in Thailand ended up in real danger. The obstinacy of both sides needlessly prolonged a confrontation that might have ended in much blood. It was more by good luck than by good judgment that the Thais got through this phase of the crisis without mass killing.
But there was a lot of killing: 60-odd dead over a period of weeks, almost all of them protesters shot by the army, is certainly not a success story. The Thais went right to the brink of civil war over the past two months, and the crisis is not over. Abhisit has withdrawn his promise of elections this year, and shows no sign of reinstating it.
The “redshirts” who feel cheated by the political manipulations that put Abhisit in power have retreated from central Bangkok, but they are still very angry and they certainly predominate in northern and northeastern Thailand, the country’s rural heartland. They could seize control of much of it tomorrow, if they chose to do so.
The roots of this crisis are in the military coup of 2006, when the Thai army overthrew the elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra. Thaksin, an ex-police officer who became a telecommunications billionaire, was not an ideal prime minister: his “war on drugs” involved thousands of illegal killings of dealers and addicts, and his response to unrest in the Muslim-majority far south was clumsy and brutal. But he endeared himself to Thailand’s poor.
Thailand has been a democracy since 1992, but Thaksin was the first politician to appeal directly to the interests of the rural poor rather than just bribing their local village headmen to deliver their votes. He promised them debt relief, cheap loans, better health care, and he delivered—but that was not how the urban elite wanted their tax money spent.
A “yellowshirt” movement seized control of the streets of Bangkok, seeking Thaksin’s removal and demanding curbs on the voting rights of peasants because most rural people were too ignorant to make wise choices. After months of confrontation in the streets, the army took control in 2006, ejecting Thaksin from office—but it was not unequivocally on the side of the “yellowshirts” either.
The soldiers allowed a new election in late 2007—and Thaksin’s supporters won again, of course. His opponents used the courts to dismiss two prime ministers drawn from the pro-Thaksin party for “conflict of interest” (in one case because the prime minister appeared on a television cooking show), and ultimately simply had the whole party banned and its members ejected from parliament.
The rump of the parliament, cleansed of most representatives of the rural poor, then voted in the current prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva. The “redshirts” started their occupation of central Bangkok two months ago in order to obtain his resignation and a fresh election. They have not changed their demands, nor is there any good reason why they should.
The basic issue in dispute here is whether Thailand is really a democracy or not. If it is, then one way or another the “redshirts” must get their way, for they represent a clear majority of Thais, and they were cheated of the government they chose. But there is no obvious way to get from here to there.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Comments
7 Comments
Damon
May 20, 2010 at 12:44pm
I'm impressed by most of your article, which in my opinion does a better job of accurately summarizing the difficulties faced by both sides of this disagreement than most of the Western media. However, you're incorrect to claim that "the whole party [was] banned and its members ejected from parliament." Elected representatives of the dissolved parties came together as a new party, the PTP. They still retained their seats in parliament, and continue to serve as representatives of the "rural poor" who you claim are now unrepresented. The problem is that the previous government (under first Samak Sundaravej, then Somchai Wongsawat) was a coalition government, and when the PPP (his party) was dissolved, the negotiations for a new coalition government favored the Democrat party, under current Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva. Both were coalition governments, and the rural poor generally have the same representatives they did immediately following the 2007 elections. The problem is that no party following the 2007 election had a majority, only a small plurality existed for the PPP, and coalition-building negotiations did not work for them a second time. This continual suggestion by the Western media that the current Thai government was somehow undemocratically selected is ridiculous. The current government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was selected in the same manner--coalition building between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. Except in this case, the Conservatives had a much clearer plurality than the PPP did in 2007 in Thailand. Look at the total results, and you will see that more people in Thailand voted for representatives of the Democrat Party under Abhisit than voted for the PPP under Samak. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007). The fact is, with six different parties represented, there was little change of there not being a coalition government. To suggest that the coalition government which currently exists is not democratic is a MASSIVE hyperbole. Whether one agrees with the rulings of the constitutional court, the current Thai parliament represents the outcome of the 2007 election, as does the current Prime Minister.
James North
May 20, 2010 at 3:01pm
I am so glad Mr. Dyer has decided to amend his original column on the crisis in Thailand. It seems he has listened to some of the feedback from people such as myself with an open mind and re-thought his views, or perhaps he is responding to more recent events which have shown the red shirts as the violent movement close observers have long known them to be.
In any case, even though I still disagree with certain parts of his analysis (I would agree with Damon's comment above) this version is far closer to the truth as I see it and it restores my opinion of Mr. Dyer as a credible and interesting commentator on world affairs.
Anon
May 20, 2010 at 6:21pm
damon/James,
I think we can say the army did a surprisingly good job of clearing out the red shirts compared to what could have happened. So for what its worth one has to compliment them on that. If only they had the fairness to have done the same to the yellowshirts.
As to the formation of the democratic coalition, that was surrounded by various important figures applying massive pressure on members to defect as well as talk of bribes and so forth including despite what you say the removal of representatives which would have crippled the majority in parliament. And finally as is inevitable in Thai politics a notably corrupt individual switched sides. It almost sounds like you weren’t there when this happened and just read about it in a text book.
Anyway, such a system is pretty terrible at providing representation to the poor and powerless and it is a bit disingenuous to compare it directly to the UK coalition building.
It is however rather convenient to the powers that be.
James North
May 20, 2010 at 10:56pm
Anon - Ok, you can think what you like but I was there, lived and worked there for years, studied Thai, speak it (imperfectly), and have paid close attention to Thai politics since long before Thaksin's unfortunate rise to power. That's not very relevant, but the facts are relevant.
The situation is complicated as it always is with Thai politics but the facts are this. In the election of 2007, the pro-red/Thaksin Pheua Thai party won 233 seats out of 480, close but not a majority. They formed a coalition with the smaller parties and ruled for 2 years until the smaller parties switched sides. (Yes, there is room for speculation and argument about how much pressure there was from the military or other forces to do so, but do you really think that the Pheua Thai, a party with backing from a multi-billionaire former PM was incapable of putting it's own enticements and pressures on these people?) There never was a majority that would have been crippled by the removal of representatives as you state. In any case, only three were disqualified in the vote-buying cases that followed and I believe their seats were quickly won back by members of the same party. These are just the facts, anyone who cares about facts can look it up for themselves. Nothing disingenuous about that.
ErnestPayne
May 21, 2010 at 3:10am
Toss in the disaffected Muslims in the south and Thailand has a sure recipe for a central government facing two insurrections.
suchat saelee
May 21, 2010 at 3:44pm
One thing i found out after live here for 10 years is...There is no real journalist today. All it is just a person who wanted a job so they can afford to line up for soy chai latte. Should act like reporter who report what happening, we don't need your opinion. even your paper is free. it is wasted of resource. Look at what you have done to native people here. Didn't they live peacefully (sometime they fight each other as human does) and what happen after you guys settle? now you want to go rant around with your least understand to comment about things? changing your post here is good. what are you going to do with the hard copies out there on the street. i hope you have a guts to fix it..
A few years ago, you had a cover story about Thailand get rid of stray dogs on the street in bangkok before Asian summit, What have you done when we get rid of homeless here before olympic? may be dog in bangkok-homeless in vancouver are worth the same.
try to make a good use of paper if you must. we haven't got much tree left.
there are lots of clips on youtube and info in FB if you could read thai. Those are the real feeling and up to min of what happening from both sides. Might change you perspective of how much cash has been handed out.
anon
May 22, 2010 at 10:28pm
FWIW Thaksin's rise to power coincided with a rather good time for thailand - his fall coincided with a rather bad time. Corrupt as he may be (like most of the rest of the government), he at least was not incompetent.
Of course now it would be very bad for him to return but nothing to do with what he would do and everything to do with the insanity that has been created by demonizing him.
How is that working for thailand?