[Tlc] T-politics

[justinm at ucr.edu]

Forwarded from Dr. Charnvit Kasetsiri.
Thanks,
justin

     Worse than a coup
    > Sep 4th 2008
    >
    > From The Economist print edition
    >
    >
    > An authoritarian rabble should not be allowed to turf out a deeply flawed but popularly elected government
    >
    >
    > STANDING up for democracy sometimes entails standing up for some unappealing democrats. Thailand’s pugnacious prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, is an especially hard man to defend. A ferocious rightist, Mr Samak was accused of inciting the policemen and vigilantes who slaughtered dozens of unarmed student protesters in Bangkok in 1976. On becoming prime minister following the election last December that restored democratic rule after a 2006 coup, Mr Samak chose for his cabinet some of the most unsavoury figures linked to the government of Thaksin Shinawatra, the prime minister deposed in the coup. But with the army on the streets of Bangkok again, Mr Samak is for once, if not in the right, then at least less wrong than those calling for his head.
    >
    > His government is deeply flawed. But it would be wrong and dangerous if the authoritarian rabble who have seized Government House in Bangkok forced it out of office. After violent clashes between supporters and opponents of the government, Mr Samak this week declared a state of emergency in Bangkok (see article). The army chief backed his decision, but by mid-week was still ruling out the use of force to clear the squatters out. If the protesters, the woefully misnamed People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD), do succeed, democracy in Thailand—not so long ago a beacon, by Asian standards, of pluralistic politics—will be in grave danger.
    >
    > Some in the crowds at PAD rallies are liberals, appalled both at the abuses of power in Mr Thaksin’s government and the sad signs that Mr Samak’s is no better. The PAD’s leaders, however, are neither liberals nor democrats. A gruesome bunch of reactionary businessmen, generals and aristocrats, they demand not fresh elections, which they would lose, but “new politics”—in fact a return to old-fashioned authoritarian rule, with a mostly appointed parliament and powers for the army to step in when it chooses. They argue that the rural masses who favour Mr Thaksin and Mr Samak are too “ill-educated” to use their votes sensibly. This overlooks an inconvenient electoral truth: the two prime ministers had genuinely popular policies, such as cheap health care and credit.
    >
    > The palace and a Burmese road to ruin
    >
    > As in the build-up to the 2006 coup, PAD leaders are trying to oust a popular government on the bogus pretext of “saving” Thailand’s revered King Bhumibol from a supposed republican plot. Some of the PAD protesters reportedly believe their sit-in has the crown’s tacit backing. Almost anywhere else, the police would have removed them, forcibly if necessary, by now. But it is whispered that the PAD has protectors “on high”—hardline army generals and possibly figures in the royal palace (though not the king himself). This may be nonsense; but by preventing the discussion and hence refutation of such royal rumours, Thailand’s harsh, much-abused lèse-majesté law has the ironic effect of helping them spread.
    >
    > In the official version of modern Thai history, the king is the great defender of peace and democracy, who comes to the rescue at moments of crisis. Now would seem to be one such moment: some wise words from the king could do much to defuse tension. Thais like to believe they are good at seeking compromise to avoid conflict. But there has been little sign of compromise in the past three years, and there is now the risk of a bad one. The elected government might be forced out of office to pacify the PAD’s demagogues, it might be made to share power with the undeserving opposition Democrat party, which has shown little leadership while waiting for power to be handed it on a plate, or, as in Bangladesh, a civilian front might provide a cloak for de facto military rule.
    >
    > It is just possible to imagine a decent compromise in which Mr Samak gives way to a more emollient figure from the ruling coalition—and the PAD and its supporters in the army, the bureaucracy and (if they exist) the royal palace accept the verdict of the people. But the PAD’s leaders may well not stop until they have imposed their own, undemocratic vision of Thailand. In this sense they are even more pernicious than the coupmakers of 2006, who at least promised to restore elected government and, under popular pressure, did so.
    >
    > Prosperous, modern and open, Thailand has so far inhabited a different era from the dark ages in which its dismal neighbour, Myanmar, languishes under a thuggish, isolationist junta. Thailand’s foreign friends should make clear to the Thai elite that toppling elected governments would be a step backwards. As Myanmar has found, it might also court sanctions. Foreign tourists, seeing the unchecked disorder on their television screens, including blockades of some airports, may soon be imposing a boycott of their own.
    >


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