[Tlc] T-politics

[justinm at ucr.edu]

Forwarded from a member.
Thanks,
justin

THE THAI CRISIS
History repeats itself

By W. Scott Thompson 

Thailand is facing its third and greatest crisis since World War II and by
far the greatest test of its monarch's power. It is difficult for outsiders
to comprehend how so revered but distant a leader can wield such
extraordinary powers, despite his merely "constitutional" role and numerous
other constraints on his action.

The secret is not in the innate role of the throne, but in the style of this
particular king. Twice before, in 1974 and 1992, when mobs threatened state
order in their demands for a more democratic polity, Rama IX, or Bhumibol
Adulyadej, waited day upon day to test the resilience of those he sought to
favor, and to see if those he opposed could be forced to fade.

In 1974, students demanded an end to a particularly third-rate triumvirate,
who had nonetheless empowered enormous economic growth. After bloodshed
reached an intolerable level, by Thai standards, the king sent all three
packing - to Boston and Taipei. He'd known them well and worked through them
but realized their time had passed. And the king's power grew immeasurably
in that decisive move.

Similarly in 1992, students seized the high ground against a coup-installed
military regime, and again only after several hundred deaths did the king
summon the two contenders to the palace - and cause them literally to crawl
on the carpet to the elevated place of the monarch, all but foretelling
their agreement to his dispensation.

He waits anew. This time he has a bigger task: the damage to the economy and
political system by two years of demonstrations is far greater, and his own
goal is much bigger. He wishes to bury forever the prospects of the only
political leader in his 50-year reign to stand up to him and attempt to
supplant him - Thaksin Shinawatra, a self-made billionaire and former police
general who developed a huge base in the Thai countryside through demagogic
policies and increasingly strident opposition to the "forces of the status
quo" - a direct jab at the throne itself.

In fact the current crisis is a bit more complicated, for there are three
players, each a descendant of forces set in motion when the absolute
monarchy was overthrown in 1932.

First, the monarchy. From 1932 until about 1963, 17 years after the present
king's accession, the throne was a faint glimmer of past glory. A junta that
had seized power in 1957 began to use Bhumibol, but he proved cannier in
using them, and that has been the pattern. He is now old and frail but
intends to stick around until he's won this final round.

Secondly, the direct descendant of a group of Mussolini-like semi-fascists
who staged a coup in 1932 is not the army, but Thaksin himself.

>From 1948 a third group of Thais emerged around a progressive promoter,
Pridi Panomyong, who founded a great university and inspired young
democrats, but who wasn't able to maintain power against the better-armed
rightist group who restored themselves to power. Students abroad encouraged
democratic roots in the kingdom, demanding reforms and elections in
country-wide demonstrations late in 1973, forcing the king's hand to prevent
chaos. They have matured - if we call it that - into the People's Alliance
for Democracy, the PAD, which now occupies airports, government buildings
and has brought business virtually to a standstill.

There was always, though, a permanent government of foreign-educated princes
who, even today, keep a tight hold on power.

Thaksin overwhelmingly won the elections he contested. Why then are the
"democrats" in such opposition to him? It would be tempting to say, with
Lenin, that he is the "principal enemy." They suspect that if left to his
own devices he would rule eternally. Tolerance has never been Thaksin's
virtue.

His ability to elicit the animosity of the throne came naturally, given the
enormous electoral mandate he acquired in the countryside. In a variety of
ways he made known that the national adoration of the king was
old-fashioned.

Bhumibol is a gentle man but he has never countenanced opposition gently. It
was he who signaled the army to move in September 2006 to depose Thaksin.
But the government all but placed in power by him failed to move in the way
he desired.

Secondly, the "democrats" were never quite so pure. Of course there is a
spectrum of views in the PAD, including some very virtuous professed
democrats. But there are also unscrupulous party hacks that make the
organization work. And most of the professedly "democratic" opposition
haven't flinched at such trivial details as military coups, martial law, and
whatever else needed to rid the country of Thaksin or his allies forever.
Thaksin was seen as an illegitimate upstart.

Why and how have they been able to show such determination? It's simple. The
army is taking its cue from the palace, not from the government that rules
in Thaksin's name. So it all but openly permits the chaos that has for the
present ruined the travel industry and slowed down the economy.

And the demonstrators know that the king is plainly on their side. This
time, more than 1974 and 1992, it would be trivial to say that democracy is
what is at issue. It's whether or not those others, "unworthy to bear the
dust under his shoes," as the royal inflection goes, can finally be worn
out. Just wait - the king will wave his magic wand and the crisis will be
over. The army - or some other appropriate delegate - will take power, and
the country will find the patience to wear out the endurance of an expiring
Thaksin, who in exile loses wealth and legitimacy by the day.

Thailand is paying an enormous price for this crisis, but in the end the
king's determination to ensure a legacy where his type of people will rule,
and Thailand will return to rapid economic growth and the iconic smiles by
which it is known - with a bit of democracy thrown in. The king's move in
the next few days will be worth watching.
___________________

W. Scott Thompson is a national security expert who served four U.S.
presidents and is a professor emeritus at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy. He is the author or editor of 13 books on world political issues
and resides in Washington, Bali and Manila.

______________
Dr. Justin McDaniel
Dept. of Religious Studies
3046 INTN
University of California, Riverside
Riverside, CA 92521
951-827-4530
justinm at ucr.edu