4 February 2014

Thailand: Analysis of the 2014 Political Protests

03/02/2014

The New Year (2014) in Thailand has been off to a roaring start thanks to the political protests in Bangkok and a shutdown accompanied with violence that led to the declaration of emergency by the government. The emergency has been imposed in Bangkok and neighbouring provinces for a period of two months to restore law and order. Thailand has been restive and vulnerable to political protests for decades. It has experienced similar political crises under different governments. One can make a whimsical attribution to the untameable Thai spirit, which has the unique distinction in Asia-Pacific of never having fallen prey to foreign colonisation. In fact, the reality is one of class rivalry that has entrenched itself deep in the hearts of both the citizenry and the political elite. The current agitation targets the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) and Pheu Thai Party (PTP) coalition government and its plans to hold elections on 2nd February 2014.

Presumably, this indicates that the protesters comprising of the royalist and pro-military urbanites (yellow shirts) are experiencing a trust deficit in Thailand’s democratic institutions or simply disregard their functionality. Thailand’s political protests can also be understood as the modus operandi of the opposition. Both the pro-UDD red shirts comprising of Thaksin Shinawatra loyalists and the yellow shirts belonging of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) led by Suthep Thaugsuban, have in the past taken to the streets to rally against incumbent governments. For the yellow shirts, the democratic approach is not very promising given that the UDD has the rural majority in their corner.

It has been argued that the yellow shirts seek to, ‘create such disorder that either Thailand’s military or judiciary intervene’. Notably, the military has usurped power in ‘18 coups over the past 80 years.’ Indeed it ousted Thaksin Shinawatra from power in 2006 and has even shown a willingness to intervene in the current showdown. Thailand’s Army Chief Prayuth Chan-ocha said recently that, ‘whenever conflicts become violent and insoluble the military will have to solve them’.This could have been in response to the refrain that the government has shown in containing the protests. Nevertheless, should the reins be taken from a democratically elected incumbent government, the regression would amount to the same, regardless of the usurper being the military or an unelected ‘People’s Council’ as demanded by the yellow shirts. 

The yellow shirts have expressed the view that the incumbent Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra is a puppet of her brother Thaksin Shinawatra who is currently in exile in light of the multiple corruption charges levelled against him post the 2006 military coup. His return prospects looked good with the lower house of Parliament passing an Amnesty Bill for that purpose in November 2013. Being a controversial topic, it has not yet been passed by the upper house. This is a major reason for the yellow shirts taking to the streets with the impending February elections furthering the sense of urgency for the PAD activists. Interestingly, both the UDD and PAD highlight the cause of democracy in their names. Yet, each appeals and caters to a only particular section of society, making elusive the sense of inclusion that is the entitlement of every citizen in a democracy.

Ideally, in a democratic set-up political differences should be reconcilable. In Thailand, society is not merely witness to a rivalry between political factions but indeed driving the momentum. This is direct democracy temporarily subverting representative democracy. Such protests which bring the normal function of society and economy to a halt, constitute a dangerous trend. Protests under the ambit of a democratic apparatus are a healthy phenomenon, provided that in due course democratic mechanisms are utilised to foster dialogue, reform and inclusiveness. Coercive change of power, whether it is from top-down or ground-up is harmful for a nation. In Thailand change seems to imply a transfer of power from a political party that champions the interests of one particular class into the hands of another that does the same.

For a country of the Asia-Pacific, the UDD-PTP government’s tolerance of protests is a compliment to its democratic evolution relative to precedents both within Thailand and its neighbourhood. China and Myanmar have been known to show the toughest responses but even democratic states such as Singapore do not tolerate dissent and make public criticism of the government legally punishable offences. In Thailand the punitive measures apply mostly to the critique of the royal family. The polarising bi-partisan nature of politics in Thailand is not unique. It’s prevalent in established democracies such as USA, UK and India as well. However, belligerent threats for shutdown with the possibility of violence are dealt with the use of police force even in democratic states. Herein the UDD-PTP government has shown refrain in the management of the 2014 protests, when compared to the death toll of 98 (red shirts) during the 2010 protests under Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.

At the outset, the Bangkok protests had a festive ambiance with people dressed in animated and colourful attire and food stands catering to the politically proactive. The force of the protestors was felt when they laid siege to government ministries and offices, attacked police officers and blocked major intersections as well as voting stations. Consequently, Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled that the ‘Election Commission has the right to set a new date, should there be events that harm the country’. Thereafter, the shooting death of anti-government protest leader, Suthin Thararin was the major indicator of escalating disorder. Ideally, the emergency should restore order to an extent that dialogue and peaceful political engagement may be facilitated. Presumably, the political muscle of the yellow shirts is no limited to protests and the mandate of the incumbent government is not determined by the same.

The UDD-PTP coalition government remains staunchly opposed to the delay of elections and rightfully so. Should it buckle under pressure of the anti-government protestors, it would set a very dangerous precedent in Thailand. It would mean that whenever disenchantment with a ruling government sets in, the use of violence can usher in desired change quickly. Indeed the support of democratic institutions such as the Election Commission and the Judiciary would also be forthcoming. The stability of a country and the mandate of an incumbent government should not be held ransom to protests. Political change in a representative democracy, must give due regard to the existing institutions of democracy.

The author is an Associate Fellow at CLAWS.

Views expressed are personal.

Hodal, Kate. Thailand declares state of emergency in Bangkok.Para1, The Guardian, 21st January 2014.


Shay, Christopher. Explainer: In Thailand, why yellow and red clash. Para 7, Al Jazeera America. 24 Jan 2014.


Temphairojana, Pairat. Thai protestors end rally at police HQ but say fight will go on, Para 2, Live Mint. Dec 4th 2013.


Murdoch, Lindsey. Army Chief warns military will intervene if Thai unrest worsens. Sydney Morning Herald. January 23, 2014.


Fears of Thaksin’s returns as Thailand passes Amnesty Bill. Para 1, Sydney Morning Herald. November 2, 2013.


Thailand: Deliver justice for 2010 political violence. Para 3, Human Rights Watch. May 17, 2013.


Chomchuen, Warangkana. Thai court rules Feb 2 election vote can be delayed. Para 7, WSJ. January 24, 2014.


Olarn, Kocha. Anti-government protestor shot to death in Thailand. January 26th, 2014.

No comments: